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.
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), we established a “bright-line” rule permitting a law enforcement officer who has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of a car to search the passenger compartment of that car as a contemporaneous incident of the arrest. We granted certiorari to consider whether that rule is limited to situations in which the officer initiates contact with the occupant of a vehicle while that person remains inside the vehicle. 531 U. S. 1069 (2001). We find, however, that we lack jurisdiction to decide the question.
On the evening at issue, officers were present at a home in Polk County, Florida, investigating the sale of marijuana and making arrests. Respondent Robert Thomas drove up to the residence, parked in the driveway, and walked toward the back of his vehicle. Officer J. D. Maney met Thomas at the rear of Thomas’ vehicle, and asked him his name and whether he had a driver’s license. After a cheek of Thomas’ license revealed an outstanding warrant for his arrest, Officer Maney arrested him, handcuffed him, and took him inside the residence. The officer then went back outside, alone, and searched Thomas’ ear. The search revealed several small bags containing a white substance that tested positive for methamphetamine.
Respondent was charged with possession of methamphetamine and related narcotics offenses. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the evidence of narcotics and narcotic paraphernalia. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, 711 So. 2d 1241 (1998), finding the search valid under New York v. Belton, supra. The Supreme Court of Florida in turn reversed, holding that Belton did not apply.
The court held that “Belton’s bright-line rule is limited to situations where the law enforcement officer initiates contact with the defendant” while the defendant remains in the car. 761 So. 2d 1010, 1014 (2000). The court concluded that Belton was inapplicable, and directed that the trial court determine “whether the factors in Chimel [v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969),] justify the search of Thomas’ vehicle.” 761 So. 2d, at 1014. The court explained that “[b]ased on the record... we are unable to ascertain whether [the officer’s] safety was endangered or whether the preservation of the evidence was in jeopardy,” as necessary to justify the search under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), and remanded for further proceedings.
Although the parties did not raise the issue in their briefs on the merits, we must first consider whether we have jurisdiction to decide this ease. See Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U. S. 299, 306 (1989). Title 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a) authorizes this Court to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had ... where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution.” In a criminal prosecution, finality generally “is defined by a judgment of conviction and the imposition of a sentence.” Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U. S. 46, 54 (1989). But we have not, in practice, interpreted the finality rule so strictly. In certain circumstances, we have “treated state-court judgments as final for jurisdictional purposes although there were further proceedings to take place in the state court.” Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619, 620-621 (1981) (per curiam). In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975), we divided eases of this kind into four categories. None fits the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court, however, and we therefore conclude that its judgment is not final.
The first Cose category includes those cases in which “there are further proceedings — even entire trials — yet to occur in the state courts but where for one reason or another the federal issue is conclusive or the outcome of further proceedings preordained.” Id., at 479. The prototypical example of this category is Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966). There the Supreme Court of Alabama held that a statute which prohibited the publication of an editorial endorsement on election day did not violate the First Amendment, and remanded the case for trial. Id., at 216-217. Mills conceded that his only defense to the state charge was his constitutional claim; he admitted that he did publish the editorial. We held that this was a “final judgment” and took jurisdiction, saying that a trial “would be no more than a few formal gestures leading inexorably towards a conviction, and then another appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court for it formally to repeat its rejection of Mills’ constitutional contentions whereupon the ease could then once more wind its weary way back to us as a judgment unquestionably final and appealable. Such a roundabout process would not only be an inexcusable delay of the benefits Congress intended to grant by providing for appeal to this Court, but it would also result in a completely unnecessary waste of time and energy in judicial systems already troubled by delays due to congested dockets.” Id., at 217-218.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Florida here differs considerably from that of the state court in Mills. The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case not only for application of Chimel, but for further factfinding, and the State has not conceded that the search is invalid under Chimel.
In Goafs second category are those cases in whieh “the federal issue, finally decided by the highest court in the State, will survive and require decision regardless of the outcome of future state-court proceedings.” 420 U. S., at 480. In Cox we used our decision in Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120 (1946), to illustrate the second category. We said:
“In Radio Station WOW, the Nebraska Supreme Court directed the transfer of the properties of a federally licensed radio station and ordered an accounting, rejecting the claim that the transfer order would interfere with the federal license.... Nothing that could happen in the course of the accounting, short of settlement of the ease, would foreclose or make unnecessary decision on the federal question.” Cox, supra, at 480.
In this case, howeyer, were the Florida courts to find that Chimel allows the search, a decision on the Belton issue would no longer be necessary. We have also noted that we treat state-court judgments in this category as final on the assumption that “ ‘the federal questions that could come here have been adjudicated by the State court,’” and the state proceedings to take place on remand “‘could not remotely give rise to a federal question... that may later come here.’ ” Cox, 420 U.S., at 480. We cannot make that assumption in this ease.
Cases where “the federal claim has been finally decided, with farther proceedings on the merits in the state courts to come, but in which later review of the federal issue cannot be had, whatever the ultimate outcome of the case,” fall into Cox’s third category. Id., at 481. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), is such a ease. Respondent was charged in state court with criminal possession of a weapon, and certain evidence was suppressed on federal constitutional grounds. We granted the petition for certiorari and reversed, explaining that the suppression ruling was a “final judgment” although respondent had yet to be tried. * Id., at 651. We said that this case fell within Cox’s third category because “should the State convict respondent at trial, its claim that certain evidence was wrongfully suppressed will be moot. Should respondent be acquitted at trial, the State will be precluded from pressing its federal claim again on appeal.” 467 U.S., at 651, and n. 1.
To deny review here would not necessarily cause Florida to go to trial without the suppressed evidence, with further appeal barred in the event of an acquittal or the federal claim mooted in the event of a conviction. The state court has yet to decide whether the evidence should be suppressed; that will be resolved on remand. If the State prevails on remand and the evidence is admitted under Chimel, then the Belton issue will be moot, and the State cannot seek review of it. But if the State loses, and the evidence is suppressed, Florida law allows the State to appeal, as long as it does so prior to trial. Fla. Stat. §924.071(1) (1996) (“The state may appeal from a pretrial order... suppressing evidence”); Fla. Rule App. Proe. 9.140(c)(1)(B) (2001) (“The state may appeal an order . . . suppressing before trial. . . evidence obtained by search and seizure”). Should the Supreme Court of Florida rule against the State on the Chimel issue, the question of suppression would be finally decided by the Florida courts, and the State could then seek cer-tiorari in this Court. At that time it could obtain review of both the Belton issue and the Chimel issue. See Jefferson v. City of Tarrant, 522 U. S. 75, 83 (1997).
The fourth Cox category includes those cases where “the federal issue has been finally decided in the state courts with further proceedings pending in which the party seeking review here might prevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of the federal issue by this Court, and where reversal of the state court on the federal issue would be preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action rather than merely controlling the nature and character of, or determining the admissibility of evidence in, the state proceedings still to come. In these circumstances, if a refusal immediately to review the state-court decision might seriously erode federal policy, the Court has entertained and decided the federal issue, which itself has been finally determined by the state courts for purposes of the state litigation.” 420 U. S., at 482-483.
Here the State can make no claim of serious erosion of federal policy that is not common to all run-of-the-mine decisions suppressing evidence in criminal trials. The fourth Cox exception does not apply here.
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the writ of certiorari for want of jurisdiction.
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.
Per Curiam.
These cases are here on petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which refused enforcement of orders of the Board. We granted certiorari (368 U. S. 810, 812) because there was a seeming noncompliance by that court with our admonitions in Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474. We there said that while the “reviewing court is not barred from setting aside a Board decision when it cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting that decision is substantial, when viewed in the light that the record in its entirety furnishes, including the body of evidence opposed to the Board’s view,” it may not “displace the Board’s choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” Id., at 488.
Each of these cases involves alleged discriminatory discharges of employees in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a) (3); and in each the Board ordered, inter alia, reinstatement of the workers in question with back pay. See 124 N. L. R. B. 1331, 124 N. L. R. B. 1182. In that type of case the Fifth Circuit has fashioned a special rule that was announced in Labor Board v. Tex-O-Kan Flour Mills Co., 122 F. 2d 433, a decision rendered in 1941. In case of a cease-and-desist order, the court said that it generally “costs no money and only warns to observe a right which already existed; evidence short of demonstration may easily justify such an order.” Id., at 438. But the court established a more onerous rule for reinstatement cases:
“Orders for reinstatement of employees with back pay are somewhat different. They may impoverish or break an employer, and while they are not in law penal orders, they are in the nature of penalties for the infraction of law. The evidence to justify them ought therefore to be substantial, and surmise or suspicion, even though reasonable, is not enough. The duty to weigh and test the evidence is of course on the Board. This court may not overrule a fact conclusion supported by substantial evidence, even though we deem it incorrect under all the evidence. ... In the matters now concerning us, the controlling and ultimate fact question is the true reason which governed the very person who discharged or refused to reemploy in each instance. There is no doubt that each employee here making complaint was discharged, or if laid off was not reemployed, and that he was at the time a member of the union. In each case such membership may have been the cause, for the union was not welcomed by the persons having authority to discharge and employ. If no other reason is apparent, union membership may logically be inferred. Even though the discharger disavows it under oath, if he can assign no other credible motive or cause, he need not be believed. But it remains true that the discharger knows the real cause of discharge, it is a fact to which he may swear. If he says it was not union membership or activity, but something else which in fact existed as a ground, his oath cannot be disregarded because of suspicion that he may be lying. There must be impeachment of him, or substantial contradiction, or if circumstances raise doubts, they must be inconsistent with the positive sworn evidence on the exact point.” Id., at 438-439.
This special rule concerning the weight of the evidence necessary to sustain the Board’s orders for reinstatement with back pay has been repeatedly followed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in decisions refusing enforcement of that particular type of order. See Labor Board v. Williamson-Dickie Mfg. Co., 130 F. 2d 260; Labor Board v. Alco Feed Mills, 133 F. 2d 419; Labor Board v. Ingram, 273 F. 2d 670; Labor Board v. Allure Shoe Corp., 277 F. 2d 231; Frosty Morn Meats, Inc., v. Labor Board, 296 F. 2d 617.
The Court of Appeals in No. 77, Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co., 286 F. 2d 16, 25, in resolving the issue of credibility between witnesses for the employer and witnesses for the union, as to the reasons for the discharge of the employees in question, relied on the test stated in Labor Board v. Tex-O-Kan Flour Mills Co., supra. In No. 94, Labor Board v. Florida Citrus Canners Cooperative, 288 F. 2d 630, decided less than three months later, the Tex-O-Kan opinion was not mentioned. But its test of credibility of witnesses seemingly was applied. 288 F. 2d, at 636-638.
There is no place in the statutory scheme for one test of the substantiality of evidence in reinstatement cases and another test in other cases. Labor Board v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 340 U. S. 498, and the Universal Camera Corp. case, both decided the same day, were cases involving reinstatement. They state a rule for review by Courts of Appeals in all Labor Board cases. The test in the Tex-O-Kan opinion for reinstatement cases is that the employer’s statement under oath must be believed unless there is “impeachment of him” or “substantial contradiction,” or if there are “circumstances” that “raise doubts” they must be “inconsistent with the positive sworn evidence on the exact point.” But the Examiner — the one whose appraisal of the testimony was discredited by the Court of Appeals in the Florida Citrus Canners Cooperative case — sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records. As we said in the Universal Camera case:
“. . . The findings of the examiner are to be considered along with the consistency and inherent probability of testimony. The significance of his report, of course, depends largely on the importance of credibility in the particular case.” 340 U. S., at 496.
For the demeanor of a witness
“. . . may satisfy the tribunal, not only that the witness’ testimony is not true, but that the truth is the opposite of his story; for the denial of one, who has a motive to deny, may be uttered with such hesitation, discomfort, arrogance or defiance, as to give assurance that he is fabricating, and that, if he is, there is no alternative but to assume the truth of what he denies.” Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F. 2d 265, 269.
We are in doubt as to how the Court of Appeals would have decided these two cases were it rid of the yardstick for reinstatement proceedings fashioned in its Tex-O-Kan decision. The reviewing function has been deposited, not here, but in the Court of Appeals, as the Universal Camera case makes clear. We “will intervene only . . . when the standard appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied.” 340 U. S., at 491. Since the special rule for reinstatement cases announced in the Tex-O-Kan opinion apparently colored the review given by the Court of Appeals of these two orders, we remand the cases to it for reconsideration.
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: | 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.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 102(c) of the National Security Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 498, as amended, provides that:
“[T]he Director of Central Intelligence may, in his discretion, terminate the employment of any officer or employee of the Agency whenever he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States_” 50 U. S. C. § 403(c).
In this case we decide whether, and to what extent, the termination decisions of the Director under § 102(c) are judicially reviewable.
I
Respondent John Doe was first employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA or Agency) in 1973 as a clerk-typist. He received periodic fitness reports that consistently rated him as an excellent or outstanding employee. By 1977, respondent had been promoted to a position as a covert electronics technician.
In January 1982, respondent voluntarily informed a CIA security officer that he was a homosexual. Almost immediately, the Agency placed respondent on paid administrative leave pending an investigation of his sexual orientation and conduct. On February 12 and again on February 17, respondent was extensively questioned by a polygraph officer concerning his homosexuality and possible security violations. Respondent denied having sexual relations with any foreign nationals and maintained that he had not disclosed classified information to any of his sexual partners. After these interviews, the officer told respondent that the polygraph tests indicated that he had truthfully answered all questions. The polygraph officer then prepared a five-page summary of his interviews with respondent, to which respondent was allowed to attach a two-page addendum.
On April 14, 1982, a CIA security agent informed respondent that the Agency’s Office of Security had determined that respondent’s homosexuality posed a threat to security, but declined to explain the nature of the danger. Respondent was then asked to resign. When he refused to do so, the Office of Security recommended to the CIA Director (petitioner’s predecessor) that respondent be dismissed. After reviewing respondent’s records and the evaluations of his subordinates, the Director “deemed it necessary and advisable in the interests of the United States to terminate [respondent’s] employment with this Agency pursuant to section 102(c) of the National Security Act. . . -” Respondent was also advised that, while the CIA would give him a positive recommendation in any future job search, if he applied for a job requiring a security clearance the Agency would inform the prospective employer that it had concluded that respondent’s homosexuality presented a security threat.
Respondent then filed an action against petitioner in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Respondent’s amended complaint asserted a variety of statutory and constitutional claims against the Director. Respondent alleged that the Director’s decision to terminate his employment violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 706, because it was arbitrary and capricious, represented an abuse of discretion, and was reached without observing the procedures required by law and CIA regulations. He also complained that the Director’s termination of his employment deprived him of constitutionally protected rights to property, liberty, and privacy in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Finally, he asserted that his dismissal transgressed the procedural due process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Respondent requested a declaratory judgment that the Director had violated the APA and the Constitution, and asked the District Court for an injunction ordering petitioner to reinstate him to the position he held with the CIA prior to his dismissal. As an alternative remedy, he suggested that he be returned to paid administrative leave and that petitioner be ordered to reevaluate respondent’s employment termination and provide a statement of the reasons for any adverse final determination. Respondent sought no monetary damages in his amended complaint.
Petitioner moved to dismiss respondent’s amended complaint on the ground that § 102(c) of the National Security Act (NSA) precludes judicial review of the Director’s termination decisions under the provisions of the APA set forth in 5 U. S. C. §§701, 702, and 706 (1982 ed., Supp. IV). Section 702 provides judicial review to any “person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.” The section further instructs that “[a]n action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party.” The scope of judicial review under §702, however, is circumscribed by § 706, see n. 3, supra, and its availability at all is predicated on satisfying the requirements of § 701, which provides:
“(a) This chapter applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that—
“(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or
“(2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.”
The District Court denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss, and granted respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court determined that the APA provided judicial review of petitioner’s termination decisions made under § 102(c) of the NSA, and found that respondent had been unlawfully discharged because the CIA had not followed the procedures described in its own regulations. The District Court declined, however, to address respondent’s constitutional claims. Respondent was ordered reinstated to administrative leave status, and the Agency was instructed to reconsider his case using procedures that would supply him with the reasons supporting any termination decision and provide him with an opportunity to respond.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals first decided that judicial review under the APA of the Agency’s decision to terminate respondent was not precluded by §§ 701(a)(1) or (a)(2). Turning to the merits, the Court of Appeals found that, while an agency must normally follow its own regulations, the CIA regulations cited by respondent do not limit the Director’s discretion in making termination decisions. Moreover, the regulations themselves state that, with respect to terminations pursuant to § 102(c), the Director need not follow standard discharge procedures, but may direct that an employee “be separated immediately and without regard to any suggested procedural steps.” The majority thus concluded that the CIA regulations provide no independent source of procedural or substantive protection.
The Court of Appeals went on to hold that respondent must demonstrate that the Director’s action was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of his power to discharge employees under § 102(c). Because the record below was unclear on certain points critical to respondent’s claim for relief, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to District Court for a determination of the reason for the Director’s termination of respondent. We granted certiorari to decide the question whether the Director’s decision to discharge a CIA employee under § 102(c) of the NSA is judicially re viewable under the
II
The APA’s comprehensive provisions, set forth in 5 U. S. C. §§701-706 (1982 ed. and Supp. IV), allow any person “adversely affected or aggrieved” by agency action to obtain judicial review thereof, so long as the decision challenged represents a “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” Typically, a litigant will contest an action (or failure to act) by an agency on the ground that the agency has neglected to follow the statutory directives of Congress. Section 701(a), however, limits application of the entire APA to situations in which judicial review is not precluded by statute, see § 701(a)(1), and the agency action is not committed to agency discretion by law, see § 701(a)(2).
In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971), this Court explained the distinction between §§ 701(a)(1) and (a)(2). Subsection (a)(1) is concerned with whether Congress expressed an intent to prohibit judicial review; subsection (a)(2) applies “in those rare instances where ‘statutes are drawn in such broad terms that in a given case there is no law to apply.’” 401 U. S., at 410 (citing S. Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 26 (1945)).
We further explained what it means for an action to be “committed to agency discretion by law” in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821 (1985). Heckler required the Court to determine whether the Food and Drug Administration’s decision not to undertake an enforcement proceeding against the use of certain drugs in administering the death penalty was subject to judicial review. We noted that, under § 701(a) (2), even when Congress has not affirmatively precluded judicial oversight, “review is not to be had if the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.” 470 U. S., at 830. Since the statute conferring power on the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the unlawful mis-branding or misuse of drugs provided no substantive standards on which a court could base its review, we found that enforcement actions were committed to the complete discretion of the FDA to decide when and how they should be pursued.
Both Overton Park and Heckler emphasized that §701 (a)(2) requires careful examination of the statute on which the claim of agency illegality is based (the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 in Overton Park and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in Heckler). In the present case, respondent’s claims against the CIA arise from the Director’s asserted violation of § 102(c) of the NSA. As an initial matter, it should be noted that § 102(c) allows termination of an Agency employee whenever the Director “shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States” (emphasis added), not simply when the dismissal. is necessary or advisable to those interests. This standard fairly exudes deference to the Director, and appears to us to foreclose the application of any meaningful judicial standard of review. Short of permitting cross-examination of the Director concerning his views of the Nation’s security and whether the discharged employee was inimical to those interests, we see no basis on which a reviewing court could properly assess an Agency termination decision. The language of § 102(c) thus strongly suggests that its implementation was “committed to agency discretion by law.”
So too does the overall structure of the NSA. Passed shortly after the close of the Second World War, the NSA created the CIA and gave its Director the responsibility “for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.” See 50 U. S. C. §403(d)(3); S. Rep. No. 239, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1947); H. R. Rep. No. 961, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 3-4 (1947). Section 102(c) is an integral part of that statute, because the Agency’s efficacy, and the Nation’s security, depend in large measure on the reliability and trustworthiness of the Agency’s employees. As we recognized in Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507, 510 (1980), employment with the CIA entails a high degree of trust that is perhaps unmatched in Government service.
This overriding need for ensuring integrity in the Agency led us to uphold the Director’s use of § 102(d)(3) of the NSA to withhold the identities of protected intelligence sources in CIA v. Sims, 471 U. S. 159 (1985). In denying respondent’s Freedom of Information Act requests in Sims to produce certain CIA records, we stated that “[t]he plain meaning of the statutory language, as well as the legislative history of the National Security Act, . . . indicates that Congress vested in the Director of Central Intelligence very broad authority to protect all sources of intelligence information from disclosure.” Id., at 168-169. Section 102(c), that portion of the NSA under consideration in the present case, is part and parcel of the entire Act, and likewise exhibits the Act’s extraordinary deference to the Director in his decision to terminate individual employees.
We thus find that the language and structure of § 102(c) indicate that Congress meant to commit individual employee discharges to the Director’s discretion, and that § 701(a)(2) accordingly precludes judicial review of these decisions under the APA. We reverse the Court of Appeals to the extent that it found such terminations re viewable by the courts.
Ill
In addition to his claim that the Director failed to abide by the statutory dictates of § 102(c), respondent also alleged a number of constitutional violations in his amended complaint. Respondent charged that petitioner’s termination of his employment deprived him of property and liberty interests under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, denied him equal protection of the laws, and unjustifiably burdened his right to privacy. Respondent asserts that he is entitled, under the APA, to judicial consideration of these claimed violations.
We share the confusion of the Court of Appeals as to the precise nature of respondent’s constitutional claims. It is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain from the amended complaint whether respondent contends that his termination, based on Ms homosexuality, is constitutionally impermissible, or whether he asserts that a more pervasive discrimination policy exists in the CIA’s employment practices regarding all homosexuals. This ambiguity in the amended complaint is no doubt attributable in part to the inconsistent explanations respondent received from the Agency itself regarding his termination. Prior to his discharge, respondent had been told by two CIA security officers that his homosexual activities themselves violated CIA regulations. In contrast, the Deputy General Counsel of the CIA later informed respondent that homosexuality was merely a security concern that did not inevitably result in termination, but instead was evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Petitioner maintains that, no matter what the nature of respondent’s constitutional claims, judicial review is precluded by the language and intent of § 102(c). In petitioner’s view, all Agency employment termination decisions, even those based on policies normally repugnant to the Constitution, are given over to the absolute discretion of the Director, and are hence unreviewable under the APA. We do not think § 102(c) may be read to exclude review of constitutional claims. We emphasized in Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361 (1974), that where Congress intends to preclude judicial review of constitutional claims its intent to do so must be clear. Id., at 373-374. In Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749 (1975), we reaffirmed that view. We require this heightened showing in part to avoid the “serious constitutional question” that would arise if a federal statute were construed to deny any judicial forum for a colorable constitutional claim. See Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U. S. 667, 681, n. 12 (1986).
Our review of § 102(c) convinces us that it cannot bear the preclusive weight petitioner would have it support. As detailed above, the section does commit employment termination decisions to the Director’s discretion, and precludes challenges to these decisions based upon the statutory language of § 102(c). A discharged employee thus cannot complain that his termination was not “necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States,” since that assessment is the Director’s alone. Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of §701, however, remove from judicial review only those determinations specifically identified by Congress or “committed to agency discretion by law.” Nothing in § 102(c) persuades us that Congress meant to preclude consideration of colorable constitutional claims arising out of the actions of the Director pursuant to that section; we believe that a constitutional claim based on an individual discharge may be reviewed by the District Court. We agree with the Court of Appeals that there must be further proceedings in the District Court on this issue.
Petitioner complains that judicial review even of constitutional claims will entail extensive “rummaging around” in the Agency’s affairs to the detriment of national security. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-13. But petitioner' acknowledges that Title VII claims attacking the hiring and promotion policies of the Agency are routinely entertained in federal court, see Reply Brief for Petitioner 13-14; Tr. of Oral Arg. 9, and the inquiry and discovery associated with those proceedings would seem to involve some of the same sort of rummaging. Furthermore, the District Court has the latitude to control any discovery process which may be instituted so as to balance respondent’s need for access to proof which would support a colorable constitutional claim against the extraordinary needs of the CIA for confidentiality and the protection of its methods, sources, and mission. See Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U. S. 394, 405 (1976); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (1953).
Petitioner also contends that even if respondent has raised a colorable constitutional claim arising out of his discharge, Congress in the interest of national security may deny the courts the authority to decide the claim and to order respondent’s reinstatement if the claim is upheld. For the reasons previously stated, we do not think Congress meant to impose such restrictions when it enacted § 102(c) of the NS A. Even without such prohibitory legislation from Congress, of course, traditional equitable principles requiring the balancing of public and private interests control the grant of declaratory or injunctive relief in the federal courts. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305 (1982); Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329-330 (1944). On remand, the District Court should thus address respondent’s constitutional claims and the propriety of the equitable remedies sought.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this, opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See May 11, 1982, Letter from Deputy General Counsel of CIA to respondent’s counsel, App. 37.
See Amended Complaint, id., at 5, 12-13.
Title 5 U. S. C. § 706 provides in pertinent part:
“Scope of review
“To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—
“(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
“(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
“(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
“(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
“(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
“(D) without observance of procedure required by law.”
Doe v. Casey, 254 U. S. App. D. C. 282, 293, and n. 41, 796 F. 2d 1508, 1519, and n. 41 (1986) (citing CIA Regulation HR 20-27m).
This “arbitrary and capricious” standard is derived from §706(2)(A), see n. 3, supra.
The dissenting judge argued that Congress intended to preclude such review in creating § 102(c), and that the decision to discharge an employee was committed by that section to Agency discretion. He concluded that neither the statutory nor constitutional claims arising from a § 102(c) discharge are judicially reviewable under the APA.
We understand that petitioner concedes that the Agency’s failure to follow its own regulations can be challenged under the APA as a violation of § 102(c). See Reply Brief for Appellant in No. 85-5291 (CADC), p. 18 (Doe v. Casey, 254 U. S. App. D. C. 282, 796 F. 2d 1508 (1986)); see also Service v. Dulles, 354 U. S. 363 (1957) (recognizing the right of federal courts to review an agency’s actions to ensure that its own regulations have been followed); Sampson v. Murray, 415 U. S. 61, 71 (1974) (stating that “federal courts do have authority to review the claim of a discharged governmental employee that the agency effectuating the discharge has not followed administrative regulations”). The Court of Appeals, however, found that the CIA’s own regulations plainly protect the discretion granted the Director by § 102(c), and that the regulations “provid[e] no independent source of procedural or substantive protections.” Doe v. Casey, supra, at 294, 796 F. 2d, at 1520. Thus, since petitioner prevailed on this ground below and does not seek further review of the question here, we do not reach that issue.
Petitioner asserts, see Brief for Petitioner 27-28, n. 23, that respondent fails to present a colorable constitutional claim when he asserts that there is a general CIA policy against employing homosexuals. Petitioner relies on our decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), to support this view. This question was not presented in the petition for certio-rari, and we decline to consider it at this stage of the 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: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case arises under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Title III), as amended, 18 U. S. C. §2510 et seq., which regulates the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications. Except under extraordinary circumstances, see §2518(7), electronic surveillance may be conducted only pursuant to a court order. See §§ 2518(1) — (6). Section 2518(8)(a) requires that “[t]he contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device” and that recording “shall be done in such way as will protect the recording from editing or other alterations.” The section further provides that “[i]mmediately upon the expiration of the period of the order, or extensions thereof, such recordings shall be made available to the judge issuing such order and sealed under his directions.” Section 2518(8) (a) has an explicit exclusionary remedy for noncompliance with the sealing requirement, providing that “[t]he presence of the seal provided for by this subsection, or a satisfactory explanation for the absence thereof, shall be a prerequisite for the use or disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom under subsection (3) of section 2517.”
In this case, a series of court orders authorized electronic surveillance. The tapes later offered in evidence bore seals but the seals on the tapes at issue had not been immediately attached as required by the statute. The issue we address is whether § 2518(8)(a) requires suppression of those tapes.
Respondents are members of a Puerto Rican organization known as Los Macheteros (the “machete wielders”). All have been charged with federal crimes relating to the robbery in 1983 of a Wells Fargo depot in Connecticut, a robbery which netted approximately $7 million. The Government first began investigating respondents in connection with a rocket attack on the United States Courthouse in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. Effective April 27,1984, the Government obtained an order of electronic surveillance for the residence of Filiberto Ojeda Rios in Levittown, Puerto Rico, and for some public telephones near the residence. During its investigation of the rocket attack, the Government discovered evidence indicating that respondents had been involved in the Wells Fargo depot robbery. The Government obtained two extensions of the April 27 surveillance order, with the final extension expiring on July 23, 1984. The Government actually terminated surveillance at the Levittown residence and public telephones on July 9, 1984, when Ojeda Rios moved to an apartment in El Cortijo, a community adjacent to Levittown. On July 27, 1984, the Government obtained a new surveillance order covering Ojeda Rios’ El Cortijo residence. After extensions, that order expired on September 24, 1984. Another surveillance order authorizing surveillance of Ojeda Rios’ car, originally entered on May 11, 1984, was extended and finally expired on October 10, 1984. All tapes created during the surveillance of Ojeda Rios were sealed by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on October 13, 1984.
As part of the Wells Fargo robbery investigation, the Government obtained a court order on November 1, 1984, authorizing it to wiretap a residence shared by Juan Segarra Palmer and Luz Berrios Berrios in Vega Baja, Puerto Rico. The District Court extended that authorization order each month for seven months, with the last extension expiring on May 30, 1985. The Government also obtained a court order authorizing it to wiretap two public telephones in Vega Baja, effective January 18, 1985. That order expired on February 17, 1985, and due to difficulties in finishing the affidavit necessary to obtain an extension, the Government did not apply for an extension until March 1, 1985. The District Court issued a new order on that date. The order was thereafter extended twice and finally expired on May 30, 1985. All tapes from the Vega Baja wiretaps were judicially sealed on June 15, 1985.
After respondents were indicted for various offenses relating to the Wells Fargo depot robbery, they moved to suppress all evidence the Government had obtained as a result of electronic surveillance. Following a suppression hearing, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut refused to suppress the El Cortijo and Vega Baja residence tapes, but suppressed the Levittown tapes and the public telephone tapes made in Vega Baja. 695 F. Supp. 649 (1988). In doing so, the District Court determined that the July 27, 1984, order authorizing the wiretap at the El Cortijo residence was not an extension of the April 27, 1984, order authorizing the Levittown wiretaps and, therefore, the obligation to seal the Levittown tapes arose when the last extension of the April 27 order expired on July 23, 1984. The court calculated that there had been at least an 82-day delay in sealing the Levittown tapes. With respect to the public telephone wiretaps in Vega Baja, the court determined that the March 1, 1985, order could not be considered an extension of the initial January 18, 1985, order — which had expired on February 17, 1985 — because of the 12-day delay in seeking reauthorization of the January 18 order and the Government’s failure to satisfactorily explain that delay. The court calculated that the sealing of the tapes on June 15, 1985, occurred 118 days after the order which authorized the surveillance had expired. Without determining the authenticity of these two sets of tapes, the District Court suppressed them on the basis of the delay alone.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the suppression of the tapes, 875 F. 2d 17 (1989), rejecting the Government’s explanation for the sealing delays. Because the scope and role of the sealing provision of Title III has generated disagreement in the lower courts, we granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 889 (1989), and now vacate and remand.
The Government first argues that because §2518(8)(a) states that as a prerequisite to admissibility, electronic surveillance tapes must either bear a seal or the Government must provide a “satisfactory explanation” for the “absence” of a seal, the “satisfactory explanation” requirement does not apply where the tapes to be offered in evidence actually bear a seal, regardless of when or why the seal was applied. This argument is unpersuasive. The narrow reading suggested by the Government is not a plausible interpretation of congressional intent when the terms and purpose of § 2518(8)(a) are considered as a whole. The section begins with the command that tapes shall be sealed “immediately” upon expiration of the underlying surveillance order and then, prior to the clause relied upon by the Government, provides that “the seal provided for by this subsection” (emphasis added) is a prerequisite to the admissibility of electronic surveillance tapes. The clear import of these provisions is that the seal required by § 2518(8)(a) is not just any seal but a seal that has been obtained immediately upon expiration of the underlying surveillance order. The “absence” the Government must satisfactorily explain encompasses not only the total absence of a seal but also the absence of a timely applied seal. Contrary to what is so plainly required by § 2518(8)(a), the Government would have us nullify the immediacy aspect of the sealing requirement.
The primary thrust of § 2518(8)(a), see S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 105 (1968), and a congressional purpose embodied in Title III in general, see, e. g., United States v. Giordano, 416 U. S. 505, 515 (1974), is to ensure the reliability and integrity of evidence obtained by means of electronic surveillance. The presence or absence of a seal does not in itself establish the integrity of electronic surveillance tapes. Rather, the seal is a means of ensuring that subsequent to its placement on a tape, the Government has no opportunity to tamper with, alter, or edit the conversations that have been recorded. It is clear to us that Congress viewed the sealing requirement as important precisely because it limits the Government’s opportunity to alter the recordings.
The Government’s view of the statute would create the anomalous result that the prosecution could delay requesting a seal for months, perhaps even until a few days before trial, without risking a substantial penalty. Since it is likely that a district court would automatically seal the tapes, there would be no “absence” of a seal, in the sense suggested by the Government, and § 2518(8)(a) would not come into play, even though the tapes would have been exposed to alteration or editing for an extended period of time. Such a view of the statute ignores the purposes of the sealing provision and is too strained a reading of the statutory language to withstand scrutiny. Like every Court of Appeals that has considered the question, we conclude that § 2518(8) (a) applies to a delay in sealing, as well as to a complete failure to seal, tapes.
The Government’s second contention is that even if § 2518 (8)(a)’s “satisfactory explanation” requirement applies to delays in sealing tapes, it is satisfied if the Government first explains why the delay occurred and then demonstrates that the tapes are authentic. This submission, however, also is not a sensible construction of the language of § 2518(8) (a) and would essentially nullify the function of the sealing requirement as a safeguard against tampering. The statute requires a satisfactory explanation, not just an explanation. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which the Government could not explain why it delayed in seeking to have tapes sealed. Even deliberate delay would be enough, so long as the Government could establish the integrity of the tapes; yet deliberate delay could hardly be called a satisfactory explanation. To hold that proof of nontampering is a substitute for a satisfactory explanation is foreclosed by the plain words of the sealing provision.
It is true that offering to prove that tapes are authentic would be consistent with Congress’ concern about tampering, but even if we were confident that tampering could always be easily detected, we would not be at liberty to agree with the Government, for it is obvious that Congress had another view when it imposed the sealing safeguard.
The Government contends that it has an incentive to seal tapes immediately because otherwise, even under its proposed test, it will face lengthy pretrial suppression hearings in which it must establish the authenticity of tape recorded conversations. This is no more than a statement that only rarely would there be a delay and does not answer the issue posed where there is a delay that is not satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the incentive argument is suspect since timely sealing, as the Government concedes, Tr. of Oral Arg. 10-11, 22-23, does not foreclose a challenge to authenticity, which in any event would require lengthy proceedings.
We conclude that the “satisfactory explanation” language in § 2518(8)(a) must be understood to require that the Government explain not only why a delay occurred but also why it is excusable. This approach surely is more consistent with the language and purpose of § 2518(8)(a).
Finally, we must consider whether the Government established good cause for the sealing delays that occurred in this case. The Government contends in this Court that its delays were the result of a good-faith, objectively reasonable misunderstanding of the statutory term “extension. ” According to the Government, the attorney supervising the investigation and electronic surveillance of respondents believed that he was hot required to seek sealing of the tapes until there was a meaningful hiatus in the investigation as a whole. In arguing that this understanding of the law was objectively reasonable, the Government relies primarily on two Second Circuit cases interpreting the statutory term “extension.”
In one case, the Second Circuit held that an electronic surveillance order that was entered at least 16 days after a prior order had expired was to be regarded as an “extension” within the meaning of § 2518 because it “was clearly part of the same investigation of the same individuals conducting the same criminal enterprise” as was being investigated under the prior order. United States v. Principie, 531 F. 2d 1132, 1142, and n. 14 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 905 (1977). In a subsequent case, again involving a gap between the expiration of an order and an “extension,” the court indicated that under the circumstances presented later orders could be deemed extensions of prior ones and stated that where an “intercept is of the same premises and involves substantially the same persons, an extension under these circumstances requires sealing only at the conclusion of the whole surveillance.” United States v. Scafidi, 564 F. 2d 633, 641 (1977), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 903 (1978).
These cases do not establish that the Government’s asserted understanding of the law in this case was correct; indeed, the Second Circuit’s decision in this case indicates the contrary, but the cases do support the conclusion that the “extension” theory now pressed upon us was objectively reasonable at the time of the delays. Thus, we conclude that the excuse now advanced by the Government is objectively reasonable. In establishing a reasonable excuse for a sealing delay, the Government is not required to prove that a particular understanding of the law is correct but rather only that its interpretation was objectively reasonable at the time. To the extent the Second Circuit in this case required an absolutely correct interpretation of the law, we think it held the Government to too strict a standard.
Nevertheless, we must remand this case for further proceedings. A “satisfactory explanation” within the meaning of § 2518(8)(a) cannot merely be a reasonable excuse for the delay presented at the appellate level. Rather, our review of the sufficiency of the Government’s explanation for a delay should be based on the evidence presented and submissions made in the District Court. Therein lies the problem in this ease. Whether the supervising attorney actually advanced the Government’s “extension” theory in the District Court is not clear. Compare App. 4-5 (no sealing required for an ongoing investigation until a “meaningful hiatus” occurred), and id., at 26-27 (same), with id., at 36 (separate orders viewed as extensions of an interrelated investigation), and id., at 40 (same). Thus, even though the misunderstanding now pressed by the Government was objectively reasonable, that explanation is not “satisfactory” within the meaning of the statute unless it was relied on at the suppression hearing to explain the sealing delays. Because the Second Circuit did not address this threshold question, the case must be remanded for a determination whether the Government’s explanation to the District Court substantially corresponds to the explanation it now advances.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Title III also contains a general suppression remedy, not applicable in this case, that provides for suppression when electronic communications have been unlawfully intercepted, were intercepted pursuant to a court order that is facially invalid, or were not intercepted in conformity with the order of authorization. See 18 U. S. C. §2518(10).
Section 2517(3) provides that “[a]ny person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any information concerning a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may disclose the contents of that communication or such derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any proceeding held under the authority of the United States or of any State or political subdivision thereof.”
Nothing in §2518(8)(a) itself clearly indicates whether district courts have any authority or discretion to deny a governmental request for sealing. The Government suggested at oral argument that district courts may have such authority but did not indicate that, if so, they have ever exercised it. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9. Respondents’ countered that under the statute district courts have a mandatory duty to seal tapes, regardless of the timing of the request. Id., at 36-37, 47.
See, e. g., United States v. Gigante, 538 F. 2d 502, 506-507 (CA2 1976); United States v. Johnson, 225 U. S. App. D. C. 33, 42, 696 F. 2d 115, 124 (1982); United States v. Massino, 784 F. 2d 153, 156 (CA2 1986); United States v. Mora, 821 F. 2d 860, 864-865 (CA1 1987).
It also is true that some Courts of Appeals have agreed with the Government in this respect. See, e. g., United States v. Falcone, 505 F. 2d 478, 484 (CA3 1974); United States v. Sklaroff, 506 F. 2d 837, 840-841 (CA5 1975); United States v. Cohen, 530 F. 2d 43, 46 (CA5 1976); United States v. Lawson, 545 F. 2d 557, 564 (CA7 1975); United States v. Diadone, 558 F. 2d 775, 780 (CA5 1977); McMillan v. United States, 558 F. 2d 877, 878-879 (CA8 1977); United States v. Angelini, 565 F. 2d 469, 471-473 (CA7 1977). As explained above, we read § 2518(8)(a) differently.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
As a means of providing health care to the aged and disabled, Congress enacted the Medicare program in 1965. See Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 79 Stat. 291, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395 et seq. Under the program, providers of health care services can enter into agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to which they are reimbursed for certain costs associated with the treatment of Medicare beneficiaries. To operate the program, the Secretary issued regulations imposing limits on the amount of repayment based on a range of factors designed to approximate the cost of providing general routine patient service. The question before us is whether the Secretary must afford the six petitioning hospitals an opportunity to establish that they are entitled to reimbursement for costs in excess of such limits.
I
A
A complex statutory and regulatory regime governs reimbursement, rough description of which is necessary background to this case. To begin, Congress has required the Secretary to repay the lesser of the “reasonable cost” or “customary charg[e].” See 42 U. S. C. § 1395f(b)(l). Rather than attempt to define “reasonable cost” with precision, Congress empowered the Secretary to issue appropriate regulations setting forth the methods to be used in computing such costs. See § ISDSxCvXlXA).
Prior to 1972, the Secretary’s regulations contemplated reimbursement of the entirety of a provider’s services to Medicare patients unless its costs were found to be “substantially out of line” with those of similar institutions. See, e. g., 20 CFR § 405.451(c) (1967). In 1972, apparently fueled by concern that providers were passing on inefficient and excessive expenses, see H. R. Rep. No. 92-231, pp. 82-85 (1971); S. Rep. No. 92-1230, pp. 188-189 (1972), Congress amended the statute to specify that “reasonable costs” meant only those “actually incurred, excluding therefrom any part of incurred cost[s] found to be unnecessary in the efficient delivery of needed health services,” 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(l)(A), and to authorize the Secretary — as part of the “methods” of determining costs — to establish appropriate cost limits, see ibid.
Accordingly, the Secretary promulgated regulations, updated yearly and establishing routine cost limits based on factors such as the type of health care provider (hospital, skilled nursing facility, etc.), type of services it rendered, its geographical location, size, and mix of patients treated. See 20 CFR §405.460 (1975). Hospitals are divided in terms of bed size, and of whether they are urban — i. e., located in a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) — or rural. As of 1979, the labor-related component of provider costs was to be determined by a wage index keyed to the hospital’s location. See, e. g,, 46 Fed. Reg. 33637 (1981).
The regulations generally provide that reimbursable costs must be within the cost limits. The regulations also allow for adjustments to the limits as applied to a provider’s particular claim. A provider classified as a rural hospital can apply for reclassification as an urban one. 42 CFR § 413.30(d) (1992). An exemption from the applicable cost limits can be obtained under certain specified situations— e. g., when excess expenses are due to “extraordinary circumstances,” or when the provider is the sole hospital in a community, a new provider, or a rural hospital with fewer than 50 beds. § 413.30(e). In addition, exceptions are available for, inter alia, “atypical services,” extraordinary circumstances beyond the provider’s control, unusual labor costs, or essential community services. § 413.30(f).
Two statutory provisions are of central importance to this litigation. First, apparently to protect providers’ liquidity, the statute contemplates a system of interim, advance payments during the year. Specifically, the Secretary “shall periodically determine the amount which should be paid . . . and the provider of services shall be paid, at such time or times as the Secretary believes appropriate (but not less often than monthly) . . . the amounts so determined, with necessary adjustments on account of previously made overpayments or underpayments.” 42 U. S. C. §1395g(a). These interim payments by definition are only approximate ones, based on the provider’s preaudit, estimated costs of anticipated services. See 42 CFR §§ 413.64(e), (f) (1992). Second, the regulations were required to “provide for the making of suitable retroactive corrective adjustments where, for a provider of services for any fiscal period, the aggregate reimbursement produced by the methods of determining costs proves to be either inadequate or excessive.” 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(l)(A)(ii) (clause (ii)).
B
Petitioners are six Nebraska hospitals certified as “providers” of health care services and classified as “rural” for Medicare purposes. Between 1980 and 1984, their costs exceeded the corresponding cost limits. Pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1395oo, they filed an appeal to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB) in which they challenged the validity of the applicable cost limits on two grounds. First, they claimed that the wage index that was used to calculate reasonable cost of labor did not account for the use of part-time employees. Because petitioners used a greater proportion of part-time employees than the national average, this had the effect of artificially lowering their index values. In support of their claim, they pointed to Congress’ decision in 1983 ordering the Secretary to conduct a wage index study to consider the distortion due to part-time employment, Medicare and Medicaid Budget Reconciliation Amendments of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, § 2316(a), 98 Stat. 1081, followed by the Secretary’s own revision of the wage index in 1986 which accounted for part-time employees, 51 Fed. Reg. 16772 (1986), and to Congress’ directive that the revised index be applied to discharges occurring after May 1,1986, Medicare and Medicaid Budget Reconciliation Amendments of 1985, Pub. L. 99-272, § 9103(a), 100 Stat. 156. Second, they asserted that under the cost limits a rural hospital could not show that it incurred the same wage costs as its urban counterparts when in fact its location next to urban hospitals forced it to compete for employees by offering equivalent compensation. Petitioners also complained that the cost limits were applied conclusively rather than presumptively. Invoking clause (ii), which provides for “suitable retroactive corrective adjustments,” they argued that they were entitled to reimbursement of all costs they eould show to be reasonable, even if they were in excess of the applicable cost limit.
Because the PRRB believed that it lacked the authority to award the desired relief, it granted petitioners’ request for expeditedjudicialreview. See42U. S. C. § 1395oo(f )(1). Adhering to the Eighth Circuit’s decision in St. Paul-Ramsey Medical Center v. Bowen, 816 F. 2d 417 (1987), the District Court ruled for petitioners, holding that clause (ii) compelled the Secretary to reimburse all costs shown to be reasonable, regardless of whether they surpassed the amount calculated under the cost limit schedule.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. Good Samaritan Hospital v. Sullivan, 952 F. 2d 1017 (1991). The court relied on our decision in Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 U. S. 204 (1988), in which we held that clause (ii) does not permit retroactive rule-making. 952 F. 2d, at 1023. It reasoned that petitioners’ request for adjustments to correct “inequalities in the system ... would amount to a retroactive change in the methods used to compute costs that, after Georgetown, is invalid.” Id., at 1024. Instead, the Court of Appeals adopted the Secretary’s more modest view of clause (ii) as permitting only a “year-end book balancing of the monthly installments” with the amount determined to be “reasonable” under the applicable regulations. Ibid. Under this approach, clause (ii) establishes the mechanism through which the total of the interim payments extended pursuant to § 1395g (which merely purport to be estimates of actual costs) are reconciled with the postaudit amounts determined at year’s end to be owed under the methods determining allowable costs. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. 506 U. S. 914 (1992).
II
A
The starting point in interpreting a statute is its language, for “[i]f the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842 (1984). See also NLRB v. Food & Commercial Workers, 484 U. S. 112, 123 (1987). Clause (ii) instructs the Secretary to “provide for the making of suitable retroactive corrective adjustments where, for a provider of services for any fiscal period, the aggregate reimbursement produced by the methods of determining costs proves to be either inadequate or excessive.” Petitioners argue that the mandate is clear: The methods for determining reasonable costs having been determined pursuant to § 1395x(v)(l)(A), clause (ii) must be read to mean that such methods nonetheless might yield “inadequate or excessive” amounts in any particular instance. Where such is the case, it is submitted, the clause mandates a correction that will provide full reimbursement for reasonable costs.
In contrast, the Secretary asserts that the “aggregate reimbursement” refers to the sum total of the interim payments made pursuant to §1395g. These payments are, of course, based on the methods chosen by the Secretary to determine reasonable costs, but they are only anticipatory estimates of what the providers’ reimbursable costs will be, made before all relevant data are available. At year’s end, when the provider’s reimbursable costs for services actually provided during that year are on hand, the preaudit “aggregate” of the interim payments can be compared to the post-audit amounts due under the methods. Because the interim payments might have been erroneously calculated, their total might not match amounts owed, and adjustments must be performed to reconcile the two. See 42 CFR §§ 413.64(e), (f) (1992).
In our view, the language of clause (ii) does not itself clearly settle the issue before us. The clause is ambiguous in two respects. First, the “aggregate reimbursement produced by the methods of determining costs” could mean either (in petitioners’ view) the amount due given proper application of the Secretary’s regulations, or (in the Secretary’s view) the total of the interim payments, themselves derived from application of the methods to rough, incomplete data. Second, the clause refers to “inadequate” and “excessive” reimbursements, but without at any point stating the standard against which inadequacy or excessiveness is to be measured. Petitioners contend that the implicit referent must be the reasonable costs as established by the providers, without regard to the methods; the Secretary concludes that it must be the reasonable costs as determined by the agency applying the methods.
Each of the conflicting constructions is plausible but each has its difficulty. Petitioners contend that although the interim reimbursements might lead to inaccurate repayments, they are not part of the methods of determining costs to which § 1395x(v)(l)(A) refers, but rather are payment methods governed by § 1395g. Moreover, the book-balancing role the Secretary would have us assign to clause (ii) arguably is already performed by §1395g, which mandates periodic reimbursement “prior to audit or settlement by the General Accounting Office... with necessary adjustments on account of previously made overpayments or underpayments.” The Secretary counters that, while clause (ii) is directed at year-end adjustments and designed to ensure that providers are reimbursed their reasonable costs, § 1395g addresses periodic adjustments to be made during the course of the fiscal year; § 1395g thus has its own role to play and is not surplusage.
The Secretary also argues that words such as “corrective” and “adjustments” more readily evoke the simple mathematical rectifications that she contemplates than the complex process of revisiting applicable methods and comparing the amounts paid with an ill-defined standard of “reasonable” costs that is called for by petitioners’ approach. It is true that § 1395x(v)(l)(A) defines reasonable cost as “the cost actually incurred, excluding therefrom any part of incurred cost found to be unnecessary in the efficient delivery of needed health services,” and petitioners contend that this is the yardstick against which reimbursements must be measured. But the statute proceeds to explain that reasonable cost “shall be determined in accordance with regulations establishing the method or methods to be used.” In similar fashion, the 1972 amendments allow for the provision of “limits on the direct or indirect overall incurred costs or incurred costs of specific items or services or groups of items or services to be recognized as reasonable.” Ibid, (emphasis added). In short, aside from the implementing agency’s determination pursuant to its regulations, as to which Congress granted broad discretion, there is no available standard of reasonableness that could form a ready basis for “correct[ion]” or “adjustment].”
B
Because both the parties and the Court of Appeals are of the view that Georgetown is controlling, we turn our attention for a moment to our decision in that case. In 1983, a District Court struck down the Secretary’s 1981 new cost rule for failure .to comply with notice and comment requirements. After following proper procedures, the Secretary promulgated the same rule in 1984 and sought to apply the method retroactively for the time it had been held invalid. 488 U. S., at 206-207. Drawing on the authority of clause (ii), the Secretary thus began to recoup “overpayments” claimed to have been made to hospitals as a result of the District Court’s decision. The precise question we faced was whether clause (ii) permitted such retroactive rule-making. We held that it did not. As we explained, although clause (ii) “permits some form of retroactive action [it does not] provid[e] authority for the retroactive promulgation of cost-limit rules.” Id., at 209. Rather,
“clause (ii) directs the Secretary to establish a procedure for making case-by-case adjustment to reimbursement payments where the regulations prescribing computation methods do not reach the correct result in individual cases. The structure and language of the statute require the conclusion that the retroactivity provision applies only to case-by-ease adjudication, not to rule-making.” Ibid, (footnote omitted).
As we further stated: “[N]othing in clause (ii) suggests that it permits changes in the methods used to compute costs; rather, it expressly contemplates corrective adjustments to the aggregate amounts or reimbursement produced pursuant to those methods.” Id., at 211 (emphasis in original).
But while Georgetown eliminated across-the-board, retroactive rulemaking from the scope of clause (ii), it did not foreclose either of the two interpretations urged in this case: case-by-case adjustments based on a comparison of interim payments with “reasonable” costs as determined by the Secretary; and case-by-ease adjustments based on a comparison of amounts due under the regulations with “reasonable” costs as demonstrated by the provider. Cf. id., at 209, n. 1.
Ill
A
Confronted with an ambiguous statutory provision, we generally will defer to a permissible interpretation espoused by the agency entrusted with its implementation. See National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U. S. 407, 417 (1992); Department of Treasury, IRS v. FLRA, 494 U. S. 922, 933 (1990); K mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U. S. 281, 291-292 (1988). Of particular relevance is the agency’s contemporaneous construction which “we have allowed ... to carry the day against doubts that might exist from a reading of the bare words of a statute.” FHA v. The Darlington, Inc., 358 U. S. 84, 90 (1958). See also Aluminum Co. of America v. Central Lincoln Peoples’ Utility Dist., 467 U. S. 380, 390 (1984).
In this case, the regulatory framework put in place by the agency in furtherance of the Medicare program supports the book-balancing approach to clause (ii). Nowhere in the regulations was there mention of a mechanism for implementing the kind of substantive recalculation and deviation from approved methods suggested by petitioners. On the other hand, the regulations provided on more than one occasion for the year-end book-balancing adjustment that, in the Secretary’s opinion, is mandated by clause (ii). For instance, 20 CFR § 405.451(b)(1) (1967) stated:
“These regulations also provide for the making of suitable retroactive adjustments after the provider has submitted fiscal and statistical reports. The retroactive adjustment will represent the difference between the amount received by the provider during the year . . . and the amount determined in accordance with an accepted method of cost apportionment to be the actual cost of services rendered to beneficiaries during the year.”
Use of the words “suitable retroactive adjustment,” borrowed from clause (ii), demonstrates the agency’s understanding. As we wrote in Georgetown: “It is clear from the language of these provisions that they are intended to implement the Secretary’s authority under clause (ii).” 488 U. S., at 211, n. 2 (emphasis added). What is more, “[tjhese are the only regulations that expressly contemplate the making of retroactive corrective adjustments.” Id., at 212 (emphasis added). From the outset, then, the agency viewed clause (ii) as a directive for retroactive adjustment of payments for allowable costs, as determined by the methods.
In the aftermath of the 1972 amendments adding the cost limit provision, the agency appears to have ascribed the same role to clause (ii), namely to retroactively correct the difference between interim payments and reasonable costs— only, as a result of the amendments, the adjustment would now be based on the new definition of reasonable costs, which includes the cost limits that as a general rule were not to be exceeded. As previously described, however, the regulations promulgated by the Secretary permitted various exceptions, exemptions, and adjustments to the limits. See 20 CFR § 405.460(f) (1975); supra, at 406. A provider could obtain a reclassification “on the basis of evidence that [its] classification is at variance with the criteria specified in promulgating limits.” 20 CFR § 405.460(f)(1) (1975). Exemptions for sole community hospitals have expanded to include new providers, rural hospitals with less than 50 beds; exceptions now extend to atypical services, circumstances such as strikes or floods, educational services, essential community services, unusual labor costs. See 42 CFR §413.80 (1992). The agency’s development — and continued augmentation — of a list of situations in which the cost limits would be waived is difficult to harmonize with an interpretation of clause (ii) that would give a provider the right to contest the application of any particular and statutorily authorized method to its own circumstances. Rather, it is consistent with a view that the cost limits by definition entailed generalizations that would benefit some providers while harming others, and with a desire to refine these approximations through the Secretary’s creation of exceptions and exemptions.
B
Petitioners argue that any deference to the agency’s current position is unwarranted in light of its shifting views on the matter. It is true that over the years the agency has embraced a variety of approaches. Compare, e. g., Regents of Univ. of California v. Heckler, 771 F. 2d 1182 (CA9 1985) (agency contends that clause (ii) permits only book balancing); Whitecliff v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 53, 536 F. 2d 347 (1976) (same), with Georgetown, supra (agency argues that clause (ii) allows retroactive rulemaking). In response, the Secretary attributes such inconsistency to the lower courts’ erroneous interpretations of clause (ii). If providers could obtain substantive retroactive adjustments in the event of alleged underpayment, the argument goes, then so, in the face of alleged underpayment, would the agency. However, in the aftermath of Georgetown, she notes that the agency returned to its earlier position.
The Secretary is not estopped from changing a view she believes to have been grounded upon a mistaken legal interpretation. See Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner, 353 U. S. 180, 180-183 (1957). Indeed, “[a]n administrative agency is not disqualified from changing its mind; and when it does, the courts still sit in review of the administrative decision and should not approach the statutory construction issue de novo and without regard to the administrative understanding of the statutes.” NLRB v. Iron Workers, 434 U. S. 335, 351 (1978). See also NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., 494 U. S. 775, 787 (1990); NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U. S. 251, 265-266 (1975). On the other hand, the consistency of an agency’s position is a factor in assessing the weight that position is due. As we have stated: “An agency interpretation of a relevant provision which conflicts with the agency’s earlier interpretation is ‘entitled to considerably less deference’ than a consistently held agency view.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 446, n. 30 (1987) (quoting Watt v. Alaska, 451 U. S. 259, 273 (1981)). How much weight should be given to the agency’s views in such a situation, and in particular where its shifts might have resulted from intervening and possibly erroneous judicial decisions and its current position from one of our own rulings, will depend on the facts of individual eases. Cf. Federal Election Comm’n v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U. S. 27, 37 (1981).
C
In the circumstances of this ease, where the agency’s interpretation of a statute is at least as plausible as competing ones, there is little, if any, reason not to defer to its construction. We should be especially reluctant to reject the agency’s current view which, as we see it, so closely fits “the design of the statute as a whole and... its object and policy.” Crandon v. United States, 494 U. S. 152, 158 (1990).
Section 1395 explicitly delegates to the Secretary the authority to develop regulatory methods for the estimation of reasonable costs. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(l)(A). To be sure, by virtue of their being generalizations, they necessarily will fail to yield exact numbers — to the detriment of health care providers at times, to their benefit at other times. Presumably, the methods could use a more exact mode of calculating depreciation, cf. Daughters of Miriam Center for the Aged v. Mathews, 590 F. 2d 1250 (CA3 1978), or to account for proximity to a college or university because it can distort the wage index, cf. Austin, Texas, Brackenridge Hospital v. Heckler, 753 F. 2d 1307, 1316 (CA5 1985), or to a high-crime zone in which heightened, and expensive, security is called for. All of these variables, and many others, affect actual costs; factoring them in the methods undoubtedly would improve their accuracy. But “[w]here, as here, the statute expressly entrusts the Secretary with the responsibility for implementing a provision by regulation, our review is limited to determining whether the regulations promulgated exceeded the Secretary’s statutory authority and whether they are arbitrary and capricious.” Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U. S. 458, 466 (1983) (footnote and citations omitted).
Besides being textually defensible, the Secretary’s restrictive reading of clause (ii) comports with this broad delegation of authority. Congress saw fit to empower the agency to devise methods to estimate actual costs, and the agency has opted for the use of certain generalizations, with additional fine-tuning by way of exceptions, exemptions, reclassifications, and by making allowances for possible variations in costs consistent with efficiency. See supra, at 406, n. 3. What the agency forbids is the kind of wide-range, ad hoc reassessments of the accuracy of the chosen methods implicit in petitioners’ interpretation. Indeed, and for all practical purposes, petitioners’ contention is that the methods chosen by the agency did not take into account sufficient variables, namely, the proportion of part-time workers and proximity to urban centers. It is, in all but name, a challenge to the validity of the methods — albeit in an individual case — including the cost limits, the exceptions and the exemptions, and to their adequacy as gauges of reasonable costs. The Secretary has construed the statute to allow such attacks, not via clause (ii), but rather, in keeping with the broad authority with which she is possessed, by way of the arbitrary and capricious provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706.
IV
The issue is not without its difficulties whichever way we turn. Though not the sole permissible one, the agency’s interpretation of clause (ii), manifested in regulations promulgated soon after enactment and expressed today, “give[s] reasonable content to the statute’s textual ambiguities. ” Department of Treasury, IRS v. FLRA, 494 U. S., at 938. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Section 1395x(v)(1)(A) provides in pertinent part that the Secretary “shall” determine reasonable costs “in accordance with regulations establishing the method or methods to be used, and the items to be included, in determining such costs for various types or classes of institutions, agencies, and services.”
Regulations regarding the determination of reimbursable costs were originally codified at 20 CFR §§405.401-405.454 (1967). They have twice been redesignated, first in 1977, at 42 CFR pt. 405, see 42 Fed. Reg. 52826 (1977), and then in 1986, at 42 CFR pt. 413, see 51 Fed. Reg. 34790 (1986). Unless reference to a particular date is appropriate, the 1986 designation will be used in this opinion.
Congress substantially modified the payment system by instituting the Prospective Payment System (PPS), effective October 1, 1983. Under this new system, providers are reimbursed a fixed amount for each discharge, based on the patient’s diagnosis, and regardless of actual cost. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395ww(d). Because the providers’ claims in this litigation involve costs incurred from 1980 to 1983, PPS is not at issue. Moreover, PPS does not apply to skilled nursing facilities or home health agencies, nor does it apply to all hospitals. See §§1395ww(d), (b); 42 CFR §§412.22-412.23 (1992).
Petitioners concede that they do not qualify for any of the exceptions or exemptions provided in the regulations. Brief for Petitioners 22, n. 19.
The court did not rule on the hospitals’ claim that the wage index and rural/urban classifications were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §706.
In addition, the Court of Appeals held that failure to account for part-time employment and for proximity to urban hospitals in the cost limits was not arbitrary and capricious, since “[b]oth the wage index and the rural/urban distinction were based on objective data and regulations.” 952 F. 2d, at 1025.
Compare Good, Samaritan Hospital v. Sullivan, 952 F. 2d 1017 (CA8 1991) (ease below) (construing clause (ii) to provide merely for year-end book balancing); Sierra Medical Center v. Sullivan, 902 F. 2d 388 (CA5 1990) (same); Hennepin County v. Sullivan, 280 U. S. App. D. C. 13, 883 F. 2d 85 (1989) (same), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 1043 (1990); Daughters of Miriam Center for the Aged v. Mathews, 590 F. 2d 1250 (CA3 1978) (same), with Mt. Diablo Hospital v. Sullivan, 963 F. 2d 1175 (CA9 1992) (construing clause (ii) to require Secretary to reimburse all “reasonable costs,” including those in excess of the cost limits), cert. pending, No. 92-720; Medical Center Hospital v. Bowen, 839 F. 2d 1504 (CA11 1988) (same); Fairfax Nursing Center, Inc. v. Califano, 590 F. 2d 1297 (CA4 1979) (same); Springdale Convalescent Center v. Mathews, 545 F. 2d 943 (CA5 1977) (same); Whitecliff, Inc. v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 53, 536 F. 2d 347 (1976) (same); Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center v. Richardson, 486 F. 2d 663 (CA2 1973) (same).
The Secretary observes, however, that had clause (ii) not been enacted, “the authority for some similar year-end mechanism might have been inferred under the Act as a whole, including 42 U. S. C. [§]1395g.” Brief for Respondent 27, n. 16.
Also of potential significance is Congress’ reference to “aggregate reimbursement” as opposed to mere “reimbursement.” “Aggregate” signifies “sum total,” see Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 64 (9th ed. 1983), and its use therefore might suggest that Congress had in mind the outcome of adding up the interim payments.
While both parties invoke legislative history, in this case it is of little, if any, assistance. Petitioners point to a comment in the Committee Reports explaining that the cost limits were merely “presumptive” and that “[plroviders would, of course, have the right to obtain reconsideration of their classification for purposes of cost limits applied to them and to obtain relief from the effect of the cost limits on the basis of evidence of the need for such an exception.” S. Rep. No. 92-1230, pp. 188-189 (1972). As the Secretary notes, it is entirely possible that by providing for exceptions, exemptions, and reclassifications, the agency satisfied this demand. Indeed, the only specific exemption mentioned in the Committee Reports— sole community hospitals — was put into effect by the agency. See id., at 188; 42 CFR § 413.30(e)(1) (1992). The legislative history adduced by the Secretary is no more persuasive.
Other regulations, by comparison, appeared to be directed at the periodic preaudit adjustments to be made during the course of the year as expressly required by § 1395g. See, e. g., 20 CFR § 405.454(e) (1967).
The agency’s explanation of how it was computing cost limits in 1981 further illustrates this basic understanding: “The revised limits, like the current limits, are set at 112 percent of the mean labor-related costs and mean non-labor costs of each comparison group. The 12 percent allowance above the mean is intended to account for variations in costs that are consistent with efficiency but are not explicitly accounted for under our methodology for deriving and adjusting the limits, or by the exceptions or exemptions provided by our regulations.” 46 Fed. Reg. 33639 (1981) (emphasis added). Like the exceptions and exemptions themselves, such an allowance cannot easily be reconciled with the notion that clause (ii) permits adjustments whenever costs consistent with efficiency are unaccounted for.
Such a delegation of authority is not atypical in the context of the Social Security Act. Indeed, we noted that “Congress has ‘conferred on the Secretary exceptionally broad authority to prescribe standards for applying certain sections of the Act.’” Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U. S. 458, 466 (1983) (quoting Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U. S. 34, 43 (1981)).
There is no doubt that under petitioners’ expansive reading of clause (ii) nothing would prevent the Secretary from demanding reimbursement where she could show that application of the methods resulted in overpayment. For instance, the modified wage index, whose generalized retroactive application we rejected in Georgetown, arguably could be imposed on a hospital-by-hospital basis. Such an outcome, by undermining providers’ ability to predict costs, runs counter to one of Congress’ apparent motivations in authorizing cost limits. See S. Rep. No. 92-1230, at 188 (because limits on costs recognized as reasonable would be set prospectively, “the provider would know in advance the limits to Government recognition of incurred costs and have the opportunity to act to avoid having costs that are not reimbursable”).
Moreover, we note that in its 1981 amendment to § 1395x(v), Congress explicitly endorsed the agency’s method of implementing the statute by providing that
“[t]he Secretary, in determining the amount of the payments that may be made . . . may not recognize as reasonable (in the efficient delivery of health services) routine operating costs for the provision of general inpatient hospital services by a hospital to the extent these costs exceed 108 percent of the mean of such routine operating costs per diem for hospitals, or, in the judgment of the Secretary, such lower percentage or such comparable or lower limit as the Secretary may determine. The Secretary may provide for such exemptions and exceptions to such limitation as he deems appropriate.” 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(l)(L)(i) (1976 ed., Supp. V), repealed, Pub. L. 97-248, § 101(a)(2), 96 Stat. 335.
See also H. R. Rep. No. 97-158, pp. 326-327 (1981).
As remarked earlier, see n. 12, swpm, the thrust of this scheme (imposing a firm ceiling set above the mean, purportedly to account for possible inaccuracies in the methods, and allowing the Secretary to provide for appropriate waivers) is at least at some variance with the notion that a dissatisfied provider can exceed the imposed limits and invoke its own waivers for any reason the Secretary has failed to take into account.
In fact, petitioners invoked this provision below, see App. 13-14, but the Court of Appeals rejected their APA claims, and they were not renewed 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: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioners were convicted of a felony in an Arkansas state court and sentenced to serve one year in the state penitentiary. The State Supreme Court affirmed, one judge dissenting on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. 211 Ark. 836, 202 S. W. 2d 770. A petition for certiorari here alleged deprivation of important rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We granted certiorari because the record indicated that at least one of the questions presented was substantial. That question, in the present state of the record, is the only one we find it appropriate to consider. The question is: “Were the petitioners denied due process of law ... in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the circumstance that their convictions were affirmed under a criminal statute for violation of which they had not been charged?”
The present convictions are under an information. The petitioners urge that the information charged them with a violation of § 2 of Act 193 of the 1943 Arkansas Legislature and that they were tried and convicted of violating only § 2. The State Supreme Court affirmed their convictions on the ground that the information had charged and the evidence had shown that the petitioners had violated § 1 of the Arkansas Act which describes an offense separate and distinct from the offense described in § 2.
The information charged:
. . Walter Ted Campbell, acting in concert with other persons, assembled at the Southern Cotton Oil Company’s plant in Pulaski County, Arkansas, where a labor dispute existed, and by force and violence prevented Otha Williams from engaging in a lawful vocation. The said Roy Cole, Louis Jones and Jessie Bean, in the County and State aforesaid, on the 26th day of December, 1945, did unlawfully and feloniously, acting in concert with eath [sic] other, promote, encourage and aid such unlawful assemblage, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.”
The foregoing language describing the offense charged in the information is substantially identical with the following language of § 2 of the Arkansas Act. That section provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person acting in concert with one or more other persons, to assemble at or near any place where a ‘labor dispute’ exists and by force or violence prevent . . . any person from engaging in any lawful vocation, or for any person acting ... in concert with one or more other persons, to promote, encourage or aid any such unlawful assemblage.”
The record indicates that at the request of the prosecuting attorney, the trial judge read § 2 to the jury. He then instructed them that § 2 “includes two offenses, first, the concert of action between two or more persons resulting in the prevention of a person by means of force and violence from engaging in a lawful vocation. And, second, in promoting, encouraging or aiding of such unlawful assemblage by concert of action among the defendants as is charged in the information here. The latter offense is the one on trial in this case.”
The trial court also instructed the jury that they could not convict petitioners unless “convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they promoted, encouraged, and aided in an unlawful assemblage at the plant of the Southern Cotton Oil Company, for the purpose of preventing Otha Williams from engaging in a lawful vocation.” This instruction, like the preceding one, told the jury that the trial of petitioners was for violation of § 2, since § 2 makes an unlawful assemblage an ingredient of the offense it defines and § 1 does not. Thus the petitioners were clearly tried and convicted by the jury for promoting an unlawful assemblage made an offense by § 2, and were not tried for the offense of using force and violence as described in § 1.
When the ease reached the State Supreme Court on appeal, that court recognized that the information as drawn did include a charge that petitioners violated § 2 of the Act. That court also held that the information accused petitioners of “using force and violence to prevent Williams from working," and that the “use of force or violence, or threat of the use of force or violence, is made unlawful by Sec. 1.” For this reason the Supreme Court said that it affirmed the convictions of the petitioners “without invoking any part of Sec. 2 of the Act . . . That court accordingly refused to pass upon petitioners’ federal constitutional challenges to § 2. It later denied a petition for rehearing in which petitioners argued: “To sustain a conviction on grounds not charged in the information and which the jury had no opportunity to pass upon, deprives the defendants of a fair trial and a trial by jury, and denies the defendants that due process of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
We therefore have this situation. The petitioners read the information as charging them with an offense under § 2 of the Act, the language of which the information had used. The trial judge construed the information as charging an offense under § 2. He instructed the jury to that effect. He charged the jury that petitioners were on trial for the offense of promoting an unlawful assemblage, not for the offense “of using force and violence.” Without completely ignoring the judge’s charge, the jury could not have convicted petitioners for having committed the separate, distinct, and substantially different offense defined in § l. Yet the State Supreme Court refused to consider the validity of the convictions under § 2, for violation of which petitioners were tried and convicted. It affirmed their convictions as though they had been tried for violating § 1, an offense for which they were neither tried nor convicted.
No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal. In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273, decided today, and cases there cited. If, as the State Supreme Court held, petitioners were charged with a violation of § 1, it is doubtful both that the information fairly informed them of that charge and that they sought to defend themselves against such a charge; it is certain that they were not tried for or found guilty of it. It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 362.
Furthermore, since Arkansas provides for an appeal to the State Supreme Court and on that appeal considers questions raised under the Federal Constitution, the proceedings in that court are a part of the process of law under which the petitioners’ convictions must stand or fall. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 327. Cf. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 113. That court has not affirmed these convictions on the basis of the trial petitioners were afforded. The convictions were for a violation of § 2. Petitioners urged in the State Supreme Court that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions of a violation of § 2. They also raised serious objections to the validity of that section under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. None of their contentions were passed upon by the State Supreme Court. It affirmed their convictions as though they had been tried and convicted of a violation of § 1 when in truth they had been tried and convicted only of a violation of a single offense charged in § 2, an offense which is distinctly and substantially different from the offense charged in § 1. To conform to due process of law, petitioners were entitled to have the validity of their convictions appraised on consideration of the case as it was tried and as the issues were determined in the trial court.
We are constrained to hold that the petitioners have been denied safeguards guaranteed by due process of law — safeguards essential to liberty in a government dedicated to justice under law.
In the present state of the record we cannot pass upon those contentions which challenge the validity of § 2 of the Arkansas Act. The judgment is reversed and remanded to the State Supreme Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
The State Supreme Court held that Bean’s conviction was based on insufficient evidence, reversed his conviction, and directed that the cause be dismissed as to him.
“Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person by the use of force or violence, or threat of the use of force or violence, to prevent or attempt to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful vocation within this State. Any person guilty of violating this section shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by confinement in the State Penitentiary for not less than one (1) year, nor more than two (2) years.” Act 193, Arkansas Acts of 1943.
A previous conviction of petitioners under an indictment charging them with a violation of § 1 was set aside by the State Supreme Court because of the erroneous admission of evidence by the trial court. Cole v. State, 210 Ark. 433, 196 S. W. 2d 582.
“Under any reasonable construction Section 1 creates separate offenses, as does Section 2, and an indictment that alleges crimes covered by a part of Section 1 does not impose upon the defendant a duty to defend under Section 2 or against 'threat’ provisions of Section 1.” Cole v. State, 210 Ark. 433, 441, 196 S. W. 2d 582, 586.
The objections pressed in the Arkansas Supreme Court and also argued here were: (1) that petitioners were deprived of freedom of speech and assembly by reason of their convictions under § 2; (2) that their convictions were based upon a statute or charges too vague and indefinite to conform to due process; and (3) that Act 193 deprived them of the equal protection of the laws by making certain conduct, which otherwise would have been a misdemeanor, a felony when committed by striking workmen.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was initiated by Utah to resolve a dispute between it and the United States as to shorelands around the Great Salt Lake. Utah’s claim to the lands is premised on the navigability of the' lake at the date of statehood, viz., January 4, 1896. If indeed the lake were navigable at that time, the claim of Utah would override any claim of the United States, with the possible exception of a claim based on the doctrine of reliction, not now before us.
The operation of the “equal footing” principle has accorded newly admitted States the same property interests in submerged lands as was enjoyed by the Thirteen Original States as successors to the British Crown. Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 222-223, 228-230. That means that Utah’s claim to the original bed of the Great Salt Lake — whether now submerged or exposed — ultimately rests on whether the lake was navigable (Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 410, 416-417) at the time of Utah’s admission. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 26-28. It was to that issue that we directed the Special Master, Hon. J. Cullen Ganey, to address himself. See Utah v. United States, 394 U. S. 89. In the present report the Special Master found that at the time in question the Great Salt Lake was navigable. We approve that finding.
The question of navigability is a federal question. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 563. Moreover, the fact that the Great Salt Lake is not part of a navigable interstate or international commercial highway in no way interferes with the principle of public ownership of its bed. United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64, 75; United States v. Oregon, 295 U. S. 1, 14. The test of navigability of waters was stated in The Daniel Ball, supra, at 563:
“Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in' fact when they are used, or are susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce, over which trade and. travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water. . . .”
While that statement was addressed to the navigability of “rivers” it applies to all water courses. ' United States v. Oregon, supra, at 14.
The United States strongly contests the finding of the Special Master that the Great Salt Lake was navigable. Although the evidence is 'not extensive, we think it is sufficient .to sustain the findings. There were,- for example, nine boats used from time to time to haul cattle and' sheep from the mainland to one of the islands or from one of the islands to the mainland. The hauling apparently was done by the owners of the livestock, not by a carrier for the purpose of making money. Hence it is suggested that this was not the use of the lake as a navigable highway in the customary sense of the word. That is to say, the business of the boats was ranching and not carrying water-borne freight. We think that is an4 irrelevant detail. The lake was used as a highway and that is the gist of the federal test.
It is suggested that the carriage was also limited in the sense of serving only the few people who performed ranching operations along the' shores of the lake. But that again does not detract from the basic finding that the lake served as a highway and it .is that feature that distinguishes between navigability and non-navigability.
There was, in addition to the boats used by ranchers, one boat used by an outsider who carried Sheep to an island for the owners of the sheep. It is said that one sheep boat for hire does not make an artery for commerce; but one sheep boat for hire is in keeping with the theme of actual navigability of the waters of the lake in earlier years.
There was, in addition, a boat known as the City of Corinne which was launched in May 1871 for the purpose of carrying passengers and freight; but its life in that capacity apparently lasted less‘than a year. In 1872 it was converted into an excursion boat which apparently' plied the waters of the lake until 1881. There are other boats that hauled sheep to and from an island in the lake and also hauled ore, and salt, and cedar posts. Still another boat was used to carry salt from various salt works around the lake to a railroad connection.
The United States says the trade conducted by these various vessels was sporadic and their careers were short. It is true that most of the traffic which we have mentioned took place in the 1880's, while Utah became a State in 1896. Moreover, it is said that the level of the lake had so changed by 1896 that navigation was not practical. The Master’s Report effectively refutes that contention. It says that on January 4, 1896, the lake was 30.2 feet deep. He finds that on that date “the Lake was physically capable of being used in its ordinary condition as a highway for floating and affording passage to water craft in the manner over which trade and travel was or might be conducted in the customary modes of . travel on water at that time.” He found that the lake on January 4, 1896, “could have floated and -afforded passage to large boats, barges and similar craft currently in general use on inland navigable bodies of water in the United States.” He found that the areas of the lake that had a depth sufficient for navigation “were several miles wide, extending substantially through the length and width of the Lake.”
Most of the history of actual water transportation, to be sure, took place on the lake in the 1880’s, yet the findings of the Master are that the water conditions which obtained on January 4, 1896, still permitted navigation at that time.
In sum, it is clear that Utah is entitled to the decree for which it asks. The Special Master has submitted with his report a proposed decree which we attach as an Appendix to this opinion. We invite the parties to address themselves to that decree with-the view, of agreeing, if possible, upon the issues which have now been settled by this litigation.
So ordered.
Me. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
1. The United States of America, its departments and agencies, are enjoined, subject to any regulations which the Congress may impose in the interest of navigation or pollution control, from asserting against the State of Utah any claim of right, title and interest:
(a) to the bed of the Great Salt Lake lying below the meander line of Great Salt Lake as duly surveyed heretofore or in accordance with Section 1 of the Act of, June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192, with the exception of any lands within the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge and the Weber B.asin federal reclamation project,
(b) to the natural resources and living organisms in ■ or beneath- the bed of the Great Salt Lake as delineated in (a) above, and
(c) to the natural resources and living organisms either within the waters of the Great Salt Lake, or extracted therefrom, lying below the meander line of the Great Salt Lake, as delineated in (a) above, except brine and minerals in solution in the brine or precipitated dr ex- . tracted therefrom in whatever federal lands there may be below said meander line, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the same, as set forth in Section 3 of the Act of June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192.
2. The State of Utah is not required to pay the United States, through the Secretary of the Interior, for the lands, including any minerals, lying below the meander .line of the Great Salt Lake, as delineated in 1 (a), above, of this decree.
3. The prayer of the United States of America in its Answer to the State of Utah’s Complaint that this Court “confirm, declare and establish that the United States is the owner of all right, title and interest in all the lands described in Section 2 of the Act of June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192, as amended by the Act of August 23, 1966, 80 Stat. 349, and that the State of Utah is without any right, title or interest in such lands, save for the right to have these lands conveyed to it by the United States, and to pay for them, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 3, 1966, as amended,” is denied.
Respectfully submitted,'
J. Cullen Ganet,
Senior Circuit Judge,
Special Master.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The factual background and the question presented in this case are the same as in Jackson v. Taylor, ante, p. 569, decided today. The case reaches us from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 234 F. 2d 615, which had reversed the District Court. We granted certiorari, 352 U. S. 940.
There are additional reasons to those in Jackson v. Taylor advanced for reversal in this case. Fowler contends that the 20-year sentence is arbitrarily severe, even though within the statutory maximum, citing United States v. Voorhees, 4 U. S. C. M. A. 509, 16 C. M. R. 83 (1954). But as we said in Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137 (1953), this Court exerts “no supervisory power over the courts which enforce [military law]; the rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty, and the civil courts are not the agencies which must determine the precise balance to be struck in this adjustment. The Framers expressly entrusted that task to Congress.” Id., at 140. If there is injustice in the sentence imposed it is for the Executive to correct, for since the board of review has authority to act, we have no jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of its discretion. That power is placed by the Congress in the hands of those entrusted with the administration of military justice, or if clemency is in order, the Executive. It may be that the board’s judgment was harsh or that the military’s highest court should have intervened as it did in the Voorhees case, but we have no jurisdiction in that regard. As long ago as 1902 this Court recognized that it was a “salutary rule that the sentences of courts martial, when affirmed by the military tribunal of last resort, cannot be revised by the civil courts save only when void because of an absolute want of power, and not merely voidable because of the defective exercise of power possessed.” Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U. S. 365, 401.
We note that petitioner’s reliance on Voorhees’ case is misplaced when he cites it as apposite to the problem here presented. While the Court of Military Appeals held there that the board should have ordered a rehearing, the rehearing was to include a reconsideration of the finding of guilt as well as the sentence. Though, as Judge Lati-mer indicates in his opinion, the board of review had the power to approve the sentence, dismissal from the service, such approval was found by that court to be an abuse of the discretion placed in the board under the particular circumstances of the case. We, of course, do not sit to pass on the exercise of discretion by the military authorities. Judge Latimer further indicated the Court of Military Appeals’ recognition of the power of the board of review to affirm such parts, or amount of a sentence, as it finds correct in fact and law. The case, then, instead of supporting petitioner’s position, indicates authority for the power of the board to modify the sentence. See United States v. Bigger, 2 U. S. C. M. A. 297, 8 C. M. R. 97 (1953).
The argument that the adjustment of the sentence by the board deprives the petitioner of two appeals likewise is without merit. He contends that if the resentencing were done by a court-martial he would have a review of that resentencing by the convening authority as well as the board of review. But Congress did not intend any such result. The accused has already had his day before the court-martial and the convening authority. It is not for us to say that the procedure established by Congress is unwise. There are no constitutional questions before us. We have determined that the board of review had jurisdiction to modify the sentence. Our inquiry cannot be extended beyond that question.
For these reasons, and those stated in Jackson v. Taylor, ante, p. 569, the judgment is
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Brennan dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan in No. 619, Jackson v. Taylor, ante, p. 581.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Jackson, announced by Mr. Justice Reed.
This appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia presents another variation in the seemingly endless problems raised by efforts of the several states to tax commerce as it moves among them.
In the 1920’s the railroads of the country took over the express business theretofore separately handled. Their instrumentality was this appellant, a Delaware corporation, chartered for interstate and intrastate operation throughout the Union and actually so operating in every state except Virginia. It sought to do a general express business there, but that State has a constitutional provision which forbids a foreign corporation to exercise any public-service powers or functions therein. This prohibition was invoked by the State Corporation Commission to deny appellant authority to do any intrastate business. This exclusion was sustained by Virginia’s highest court and by this Court.
As a consequence of the State’s own policy, this appellant does no business in Virginia which the State has power to prohibit but does only such as it can conduct under protection of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. To handle such intrastate express as falls within the power of the State to control, a separate Virginia subsidiary necessarily was organized. That local company annually has been assessed and has paid the type of tax here in controversy, based upon its total gross receipts. Those payments are not before us.
Virginia provides by statute a separate and detailed system of taxation for express companies. It allocates to state taxation, free of all local levies, two kinds of property, viz., intangible personal property and money. It sets off real estate and tangible personal property for local levies at the same rates as other similar properties. These, taxable at different rates, are all included in the statute under the rubric “Taxes on property of express companies.” Then follows a section headed “Annual license tax” providing that “for the privilege of doing business in this State” express companies shall pay “in addition to . . . the property tax as herein provided” an “annual license tax” upon gross receipts earned in the State “on business passing through, into or out of this State.”
Appellant has protested the gross-receipts tax, and for some years the protesting company and the state authorities appear to have come together on a compromise formula, as to the portion of receipts attributable to Virginia, the details of which need not concern us, since it does not affect the issue of power now adequately raised, passed upon by the State Corporation Commission and the Supreme Court of Appeals and duly brought before us.
Since admittedly the State did not gr,ant any privilege but on the contrary denied every privilege in its power to withhold, and since it concedes that appellant does nothing within the State except interstate commerce, appellant contends that the assessment is invalid for contravention of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution.
The State counters with the contention that we should regard this, not as a privilege tax, even though it was labeled as such by the statute imposing it, but, instead, as a property tax measured by gross income and laid on the intangible value of good-will or going-concern status. The Corporation Commission said that the physical properties were assessed at dead value or bare-bones value for local taxation, while here the “live, or going concern value” is being separately taxed by the State “for the protection and services rendered by it.” The State’s highest court approved. While great respect is due these conclusions, it has long been held that in a case involving the line between permissible state taxation of property at its full value, including going-concern value, and prohibited taxation of gross receipts from interstate commerce, “neither the state courts nor the legislatures, by giving the tax a particular name or by the use of some form of words, can take away our duty to consider its nature and effect,” Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 227, in which inquiry “we are concerned only with its practical operation.” Lawrence v. State Tax Comm’n, 286 U. S. 276, 280. See Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 443-444.
We start with the taxing statute, in which the Legislature gave a trinity of characterizations to the tax. It was declared to be in addition to the “property tax,” not an additional property tax; it was named “an annual license tax,” and it was laid “for the privilege of doing business in this State.” It is not an easy conclusion that the Legislature did not know the actual character of the tax it was laying or that it misconceived what it was taxing. If the tax was in purpose and effect one on property, tangible or intangible, no reason is apparent for casting it in the mold of a privilege tax. Indeed, as the Corporation Commission finally said, the opposite is true, and some other basis for the tax must be found if it is to be saved as valid. This both the Commission and the court below sought to do.
The Virginia court, in this and earlier cases, considered that gross earnings measure the value of a good-will or going-concern element which is a separate intangible property of the company.
Of course, we have held, and it is but common sense to hold, that a physical asset may fluctuate in value according to the income it can be made to produce. A live horse is worth more than a dead one, though the physical object may be the same, and a smooth-going automobile is worth more than an unassem-bled collection of all its parts. The physical facilities used in carrying on a prosperous business are worth more than the same assets in bankruptcy liquidation or on sale by the sheriff. No one denies the right of the State, when assessing tangible property, to use any fair formula which will give effect to the intangible factors which influence real values. Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U. S. 185. But Virginia has not done this.
Instead, the practical effect of the tax conforms to its statutory description as one whose impact is squarely upon gross receipts without consideration of their effect on the value of any of the classes of property recognized elsewhere in the statute. A summary of appellant’s total taxation for 1951 will illustrate this point. It reported money on deposit in Virginia of $109,906.38, on which it paid a tax of $219.81 at the rate of twenty cents per $100. We may drop this item from consideration of additional going-concern value, for money is money and is a medium of exchange which does not deflate or inflate according to the owner’s use of it. A dollar to an express company is worth as much as and no more than a dollar to one of its employees. But this company had real property and tangible personal property, items no doubt possessing a going-concern as well as an intrinsic value. These properties were assessed at $129,279, on which it paid taxes of $3,389.65 at local rates, probably varied but averaging 2.6 per centum.
Appellant’s tax, under the questioned portion of the statute, amounted to $66,454.71, so that its tax on a gross-receipts basis was over fifty percent of the total value of its real and tangible personal property. It is this tax which Virginia says is really a tax on the intangible value of this tangible property.
Neither the state court nor the Commission has seen fit to state any amount which it considers to be the going-concern valuation. We know the amount of the tax, and we know the rates of taxation, and from that can compute a possible valuation base. If this going-concern value be treated as separable “intangible property,” the statutory rate is fifty cents per $100, at which rate tangible property worth only $129,279 must be deemed to have an intangible going-concern value of $13,290,942. In other words, every dollar invested in the tangible property of an express business is deemed worth over $100 for tax purposes. This may not overtax the express company, but it does overtax our credulity, and neither the court nor the Commission, while treating this as an intangible, expressly treated it as entitled to the intangible property rate or classification.
But the $66,454.71 of tax and the statutory gross-earnings tax rate of 2 3/20 per centum produce a base of $3,090,916.55, which is exactly the amount of gross revenues reported by appellant. To ascribe a going-concern value of over three million dollars to tangible property of $129,279 is on its face an extreme attribution. To base the value on appellant’s gross revenues is to assume that every dollar of annual intake adds a dollar of intangible value to the company’s assets regardless of how much it cost in labor, interest and other expense, including other taxes, to produce it. On the other hand, as a forthright tax on gross receipts, the tax involves no irrational or impractical assumption.
We have sustained and would now sustain the power of a state to tax, without discrimination, all property within its jurisdiction and to include in its assessment, or to assess separately, the value added by the property’s assemblage into a going business, even if that business be solely interstate commerce. Cf. Meyer v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 223 U. S. 298; Baker v. Druesedow, 263 U. S. 137; Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U. S. 185. The impact of the tax is thus upon the proportionate total worth of the property. But the tax in dispute here does not depend on owning any physical property, nor upon the value thereof, but would be levied on gross revenues even if the company found some way to dispense with all local, physical property. The fact that its measure is gross revenue is consistent with a tax on the privilege of doing a volume of business which would yield that revenue, just as the Legislature indicated. But we have declined to regard mere gross receipts as a sound measure of going-concern value in a practical world of commerce, where values depend on profitableness of a business, not merely its volume. Cf. United States Glue Co. v. Oak Creek, 247 U. S. 321, 328-329.
Here the State excises every receipt from movement of express in interstate commerce. It takes a portion of gross revenue from “all receipts earned in this State on business passing through, into or out of this State.” It contends that this obvious burden on interstate commerce is validated by state protection of a localized incident in the course of the business. The three incidents are originating the interstate movement, which requires local pickup of the parcels; terminating the movement, which requires delivery, and movement through the State. If each of these incidents is sufficient warrant for taxing gross revenues from wholly interstate commerce, a concern doing a nationwide business is vulnerable to a gross-revenue tax in every one of the forty-eight states. But it is argued that this is permissible, provided the states formulate their burden so as each to burden it proportionately, not encroaching on the other’s right to burden. It is enough to say that we recently have ruled that local incidents such as gathering up or putting down interstate commodities as an integral part of their interstate movement are not adequate grounds for a state license, privilege or occupation tax. Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. O’Connor, 340 U. S. 602; Memphis Steam Laundry Cleaner, Inc. v. Stone, 342 U. S. 389; Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Calvert, 347 U. S. 157; New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. State Board, 280 U. S. 338.
The Supreme Court of Appeals placed reliance upon our dismissal of the appeals in Baltimore Steam Packet Co. v. Virginia, 343 U. S. 923, and Norfolk, Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Virginia, 343 U. S. 923, and may well have been misled, since we assigned no reasons and cited no authority. In those cases, the Virginia court held an almost identical tax to be a property tax. Commonwealth v. Baltimore Steam Packet Co., 193 Va. 55, 68 S. E. 2d 137. But a vital distinction, so far as our jurisdiction is concerned, will account for dismissal of the appeals. One of those appellants was a Virginia corporation and derived its privilege to exist from that State. Both were engaged in intrastate as well as interstate commerce and were therefore subject to some privilege tax from the State. For our purposes, it mattered not whether the right to tax was based on those companies’ privileges or on their property, since they were taxable on either basis. This fact distinguishes those dismissed cases from the one at bar and from Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. O’Connor, supra. Those appeals did not question the fairness of apportionment of revenues between the interstate and intrastate business so as to require such consideration as we gave in Central Greyhound Lines v. Medley, 334 U. S. 653. It was therefore a mistake to assume that this Court, by dismissal of the appeals, approved the holding of the Virginia court that this statute imposes what in reality is a property tax though otherwise named and shaped.
We think we can only regard this tax as being in fact and effect just what the Legislature said it was — a privilege tax, and one that cannot be applied to an exclusively interstate business.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for any further proceeding not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Va. Const., Art. XII, § 163.
Case No. 3900, Virginia Corporation Commission Report (1929), p. 252.
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Commonwealth ex rel. State Corporation Comm’n, 153 Va. 498, 150 S. E. 419.
282 U. S. 440.
The tax in question is laid under Va. Code, 1950, § 58-547. This section and the section immediately preceding it read as follows:
“§ 58-546. Taxes on property of express companies. — Each and every one of the express companies doing business in this State shall, on or before the first day of October of each and every year, pay to the State and to the several counties, cities and towns of the State wherein they may have taxable properties located, the taxes levied on such property as follows:
“(1) The State tax on the intangible personal property (other than shares of stock, and bonds issued by counties, cities and towns or other political subdivisions of this State) owned by every such company shall be at the rate of fifty cents on every one hundred dollars of the assessed value thereof;
“(2) The State tax on the money of every such company shall be twenty cents on every one hundred dollars of the assessed value thereof;
“(3) There shall be no local levies assessed on such intangible personal property or money;
“(4) On the real estate and tangible personal property of every such company there shall be local levies at the same rate or rates as are assessed upon other real, estate and tangible personal property located in such localities, the proceeds of which local levies shall be applied as is provided by law.
“The provisions of this section shall apply to the assessment for the tax year nineteen hundred forty-nine and annually thereafter, unless otherwise provided by law.
“§ 58-547. Annual license tax. — Every such company, for the privilege of doing business in this State, in addition to the annual regis-
(¡ration fee and the property tax as herein provided, shall pay an annual license tax as follows:
“The tax shall be equal to two and three-twentieths per centum upon the gross receipts from operations of such companies and each of them within this State. When such companies are operating partly within and partly without this State, the gross receipts within this State shall be deemed to be all receipts on business beginning and ending within this State and all receipts earned in this State on business passing through, into or out of this State; provided, unless otherwise clearly shown, such last-mentioned receipts shall be deemed to be that portion of the total receipts from such business which the entire mileage over which such business is done bears to the mileage operated within this State.
“The provisions of this section shall apply to the assessment for the tax year nineteen hundred forty-nine and annually thereafter, unless otherwise provided by law.”
Cases Nos. 10,629 and 10,767, Virginia Corporation Commission Report (1952). The Commission was quoting from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals in Commonwealth v. Baltimore Steam Packet Co., 193 Va. 55, 70, 68 S. E. 2d 137, 147.
The figures discussed in the text are summarized in the following chart for the year 1951.
The Corporation Commission commented on the Baltimore Steam Packet case in this manner: “So, when the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that the license taxes on steamship and express companies were property taxes, all danger of an adverse decision in the Supreme Court of the United States was averted, and that court dismissed the appeal without comment, presumably on the ground that no federal question worth discussing was involved.” Cases Nos. 10,629 and 10,767, Virginia Corporation Commission Report (1952).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question to be decided is whether real property declared to be surplus under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 765, but the record title to which is in the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, continues to be subject to local taxation under the exemption of § 8 of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act, 47 Stat. 5. The Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of Michigan have held that it does. The Court of Claims has reached the opposite conclusion. In view of this conflict we agreed to hear this case, but postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 361 U. S. 859.
On the question of jurisdiction, we believe that appellant did not make the required “explicit and timely insistence in the state courts that a state statute, as applied, is repugnant to the federal Constitution, treaties or laws. . . . And it has long been settled that an attack upon a tax assessment or levy, such as [appellant] here made, on the ground that it infringes a taxpayer’s federal rights, privileges, or immunities, will not sustain an appeal . . . Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Alderson, 324 U. S. 182, 185 (1945). The appeal is therefore dismissed. While the case is not properly here by appeal, we treat the same as a petition for certiorari under 28 U. S. C. § 2103. The petition is granted. On the merits, we conclude that the property involved is not within the waiver provision of the federal Act.
The language of § 8 of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act was borrowed from earlier federal legislation dealing with federal financial institutions. The congressional policy appears to have been to waive tax exemption on real property owned by government corporations whose functions were primarily financial in nature. Originally conceived for the purpose of making loans to distressed business concerns, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was in this category. Apparently Congress was concerned that property obtained by the Corporation through its financial operations in aid of economic recovery policies would lose its taxable status. Through § 8, therefore, Congress preserved the right of state and local governmental bodies to tax property even though it came into the hands of the Corporation. Success crowned the economic efforts of the Corporation, and, as the country approached the critical period immediately preceding its entry into World War II, Congress in 1940 extended the Corporation's functions to include the stockpiling of critical supplies and the operation of plants engaged in the manufacture of war material. 54 Stat. 573. It was soon apparent that large tracts of land would be necessary in this operation, and the waiver was extended to the real estate holdings of the Defense Plant Corporation, a subsidiary of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. 55 Stat. 248.
The termination of the war quickly threw substantial portions of such property into disuse, there being no further need for the mass production of war material. The President created the War Assets Administration for the purpose of disposing of all government surplus property. After March 25, 1946, government agencies possessing property surplus to official needs were required so to declare it and to transfer it to the Administration for disposal. By declaration of May 29, 1946, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation declared the subject property to be surplus to its needs and responsibilities. Under the Surplus Property Act, this declaration transferred to the War Assets Administration the functions of: caring for and handling the property pending disposal (§3 (g) and § 6); making disposition of the property on such terms as it saw fit (§ 9 (b) and § 15 (a)), including donation under certain conditions (§13 (b)); and the power of execution and delivery of all necessary papers incident to transfer of title (§15 (b)). It further provided that all funds derived from such disposition would be covered into the United States Treasury as miscellaneous receipts (§ 30 (a)). Pursuant to this declaration by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the War Assets Administration took possession of this property on May 29, 1946, and its successor, the General Services Administration, retained possession until September 1, 1949, during which period the property was used as a storage depot and a sales center for surplus property held by the Administration. On the latter date, the property was leased to appellant's predecessor. The lease described the lessor as the “Reconstruction Finance Corporation . . . and the United States of America, both acting by and through the General Services Administrator under . . . the Surplus Property Act of 1944.”
Appellees assessed ad valorem real property taxes on the realty against the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, as owner, for the fiscal tax years 1951 to 1955, inclusive. Appellant paid the taxes and filed this suit after claims for refund had been denied. The trial court entered judgment against appellant. On appeal, the Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and denied the claim for refund. 51 Cal. 2d 759, 336 P. 2d 521.
There would be no question as to the exemption of the real property involved had the record title been in the name of the United States. Since March 17, 1955, in fact, it has been so recorded; on that date the Reconstruction Finance Corporation executed and recorded a quitclaim deed to the United States.
The Supreme Court of California correctly posed as the underlying question, "whether the land ceased to be ‘real property of the’ Reconstruction Finance Corporation” after it was declared surplus and became subject to the provisions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944. That court found that, since no deed was executed transferring title out of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation until 1955, it remained “property of the Corporation” and hence subject to taxation until that time. We believe the court placed too much reliance on the fact that the bare record title to the property remained in the name of the Corporation.
It appears to us that the purpose of the waiver provision was to permit taxation of real property being used by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in the performance of its functions. Such use was terminated when the property was declared surplus in 1946. At that time another agency of the Government took both the occupancy and complete control of the property for the purpose of management and disposition. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, under the specific provisions of the Surplus Property Act, thereby lost all power and control over the property, which came into the hands of the Administrator for the account of the United States, any proceeds therefrom being ordered paid into the United States Treasury. Thereafter, the Administrator elected, as he had the statutory power to do, to lease the property to appellant’s predecessor. The real property, however, remained in the account of the United States, not the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. As the Supreme Court of California recognized, the general rule is “that lands owned by the United States of America or its in-strumentalities are immune from state and local taxation.” We think that the land here was “owned” by the United States.
We believe that California overlooks the fact that, while the 1949 lease was formally made in the name of both the United States and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, as lessors, it recited on its face that the property was “surplus property of the Government of the United States” and subject to the Surplus Property Act of 1944. Furthermore, this lease noted that the property had “been assigned to War Assets Administration for disposal,” and that “the Department of Air Force has determined that the use of the leased premises by the Lessee herein is necessary for the production of military equipment for the National Defense.” Moreover, the property had been occupied by the War Assets Administration during the two years immediately preceding its lease. The appellees’ contention seems to be that, since the lease was in the name of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation as well as the United States, the land was “property of the Corporation.” We hardly think such a conclusion inevitable. We believe that the appropriate test would turn on practical ownership of the property rather than the naked legal title. This is the more necessary with respect to public property where the record title may often be in a government agency or department — or, for that matter, in an official of the Government — rather than in the name of the United States. Here the Reconstruction Finance Corporation had no proprietary interest in the property, no possession or control thereof, was performing none of its functions with regard thereto, and could receive none of the income or future benefits therefrom. Even though it held the record title, such holding, under the circumstances here, could be only for the benefit of the United States. All of the incidents of beneficial ownership ended by the express mandate of the statute when the property was declared surplus and transferred to another agency for disposition.
When confronted with the same issue as presented by the instant case, the Court of Claims reached a conclusion directly contrary to that of the Supreme Court of California. Board of County Comm’rs of Sedgwick County v. United States, 123 Ct. Cl. 304, 105 F. Supp. 995. The Court of Claims there noted that, after the declaration of surplus, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation had no “physical possession, control, or custody of the property. It had neither the use nor the right to use the property.” The court went on to conclude that “[t]here is no indication that Congress intended to waive immunity from taxation under these circumstances.” 123 Ct. Cl., at 324, 105 F. Supp., at 1001. We agree with the Court of Claims “that the cloak of immunity descended upon the property [when it was declared surplus] and no tax liability for the property could arise thereafter.” 123 Ct. Cl., at 324, 105 F. Supp., at 1002.
Since the crucial element is the intent of Congress, it is important to note the enactment of a 1955 statute providing the States relief from the effects of federal immunity. 40 U. S. C. §§ 521-524. The congressional declaration of purpose in that statute “recognizes that the transfer of real property having a taxable status from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation ... to another Government department has often operated to remove such property from the tax rolls . . . .” “Transfer” was defined to include “a transfer of custody and control of, or accountability for the care and handling of,” the property, as well as “transfer of legal title.” The statute goes on to provide for certain payments in lieu of taxes where such a transfer occurs. The relevance of this statute lies in a congressional sanction of the rule of the Sedgwick County case, construing the waiver provision.
Wé'cannot say that Congress in 1932 intended to waive the tax exemption on “real property of the Corporation” after the Corporation found the property surplus to its needs and responsibilities and transferred it to another agency, for management and disposition as United States property. To say that the Government’s land remained taxable merely because no formal deed was executed transferring title, either to itself or any of its designated agencies, would but make a local tollgate of a technicality.
Nor can we agree that the short administrative practice claimed here continued the waiver in effect. Even if the responsible agency had permitted the paper title to the Government’s property to remain in the Reconstruction Finance Corporation for the sole purpose of allowing it to be taxed, the congressional mandate in the Surplus Property Act of 1944 could not be overridden. As to such matters, any adjustments between the federal and the local governments are strictly legislative ones for the Congress, United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U. S. 466, 474 (1958), and not within the discretion of the executive agencies.
The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. .
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent.
Section 8 (as amended):
“. . . any real property of the Corporation shall be subject to . . . State, Territorial, county, municipal, or local taxation to the same extent according to its value as other real property is taxed.” 61 Stat. 205; 15 U. S. C. § 607.
Continental Motors Corp. v. Township of Muskegon, 346 Mich. 141, 77 N. W. 2d 370.
Board of County Comm’rs of Sedgwick County v. United States, 123 Ct. Cl. 304, 105 F. Supp. 995. In a case involving property in a similar posture, the Ninth Circuit reached a result in accord with Sedgwick County, and contrary to the California and Michigan courts. United States v. Shofner Iron & Steel Works, 168 F. 2d 286. In Shofner, the ultimate issue was not tax immunity, but ejectment of a defendant from government property.
28 U. S. C. § 1257 provides:
“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:
“ (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 any title, right, privilege or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution, treaties or statutes of . . . the United States.”
28 U. S. C. §2103:
“If an appeal to the Supreme Court is improvidently taken from the decision of the highest court of a State in a case where the proper mode of a review is by petition for certiorari, this alone shall not be ground for dismissal; but the papers whereon'the appeal was taken shall be regarded and acted on as a petition for writ of certiorari and as if duly presented to the Supreme Court at the time the appeal was taken. . . .”
See 13 Stat. 99, 111, 12 U. S. C. § 548 (national banking associations) ; 38 Stat. 251, 258, 12 U. S. C. § 531 (Federal Reserve Banks); 39 Stat. 380, 12 U. S. C. §§ 931, 933 (Federal Land Banks); 42 Stat. 1469, 12 U. S. C. § 1261 (National Agricultural Credit Corporation).
See Exec. Order No. 9689, dated Jan. 31, 1946, 11 Fed. Reg. 1265.
See Surplus Property Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 765.
The Act did not require the execution of a deed to the Administration.
As of July 1, 1949, Congress transferred all of the functions of the War Assets Administration to the General Services Administration. See Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, c. 288, 63 Stat. 377.
By the terms of the lease, the lessee undertook to pay all taxes legally assessed against the property.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Fortas
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Douglas join.
This is the fourth time in little more than four years that this Court has reviewed convictions by the Louisiana courts for alleged violations, in a civil rights context, of that State’s breach of the peace statute. In the three preceding cases the convictions were reversed. Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157, decided in December 1961, involved sitins by Negroes at lunch counters catering only to whites. Taylor v. Louisiana, 370 U. S. 154, decided in June 1962, concerned a sit-in by Negroes in a waiting room at a bus depot, reserved “for whites only.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, decided in January 1965, involved the leader of some 2,000 Negroes who demonstrated in the vicinity of a courthouse and jail to protest the arrest of fellow demonstrators. In each of these cases the demonstration was orderly. In each, the purpose of the participants was to protest the denial to Negroes of rights guaranteed them by state and federal constitutions and to petition their governments for redress of grievances. In none was there evidence that the participants planned or intended disorder. In none were there circumstances which might have led to a breach of the peace chargeable to the protesting participants.
In Gamer the Court found the record utterly barren of evidence to support convictions under Title 14, Article 103 (7) of the Louisiana Criminal Code, which then defined the crime of “disturbing the peace” in specific detail. The record contained no evidence of boisterous or disorderly actions or of “passive conduct likely to cause a public disturbance.” 368 U. S., at 173-174. In Taylor, which arose under the Louisiana statute as amended to read in its present form, see p. 138, infra, the Court in a per curiam opinion set aside the convictions despite evidence of “restlessness” among the white onlookers. Finally, in Cox, the Court held that the facts would not permit application of Louisiana’s breach of the peace statute, despite the large scale of the demonstrations and the fact that petitioner’s speech occasioned “grumbling” on the part of white onlookers. Petitioner and the demonstrators as a group, though “well behaved,” were far from silent, 379 U. S., at 543, 546. As an “additional reason” why the conviction could not be sustained, the Court, citing Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, and Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, held that were the statute to be defined and applied as the Louisiana Supreme Court had done, it would be unconstitutional because the vagueness and breadth of the definition “would allow persons to be punished merely for peacefully expressing unpopular views.” 379 U. S., at 551. See Edwards v. South Carolina, supra, at 237.
Since the present case was decided under precisely the statute involved in Cox but before our decision in that case was announced, it might well be supposed that, without further ado, we would vacate and remand in light of Cox. But because the incident leading to the present convictions occurred in a public library and might be thought to raise materially different questions, we have heard argument and have considered the case in extenso.
The locus of the events was the Audubon Regional Library in the town of Clinton, Louisiana, Parish of East Feliciana. The front room of the building was used as a public library facility where patrons might obtain library services. It was a small room, containing two tables and one chair (apart from the branch assistant’s desk and chairs), a stove, a card catalogue, and open book shelves. The room was referred to by the regional librarian, Mrs. Perkins, as “the adult reading-room, the adult service-room.” The library permitted “registeréd borrowers” to “browse” among the books in the room or to borrow books. A “registered borrower” was one who could produce an identification card showing that he was registered by the Audubon Regional Library. Other space in the building included the headquarters of the regional library.
The Audubon Regional Library is operated jointly by the Parishes of East Feliciana, West Feliciana, and St. Helena. It has three branches and two bookmobiles. The bookmobiles served 33 schools, both white and Negro, as well as “individuals.” One of the bookmobiles was red, the other blue. The red bookmobile served only white persons. The blue bookmobile served only Negroes. It is a permissible inference that no Negroes used the branch libraries.
The registration cards issued to Negroes were stamped with the word “Negro.” A Negro in possession of such a card was entitled to borrow books, but only from the blue bookmobile. A white person could not receive service from the blue bookmobile. He would have to wait until the red bookmobile came around, or would have to go to a branch library.
This tidy plan was challenged on Saturday, March 7, 1964, at about 11:30 a. m. Five young Negro males, all residents of East or West Feliciana Parishes, went into the adult reading or service room of the Audubon Regional Library at Clinton. The branch assistant, Mrs. Katie Reeves, was alone in the room. She met the men “between the tables” and asked if she “could help.” Petitioner Brown requested a book, “The Story of the Negro” by Arna Bontemps. Mrs. Reeves checked the card catalogue, ascertained that the Branch did not have the book, so advised Mr. Brown, and told him that she would request the book from the State Library, that he would be notified upon its receipt and that “he could either pick it up or it would be mailed to him.” She told him that “his point of service was a bookmobile or it could be mailed to him.” Mrs. Reeves testified that she expected that the men would then leave; they did'not, and she asked them to leave. They did not. Petitioner Brown sat down and the others stood near him. They said nothing; there was no noise or boisterous talking. Mrs. Reeves called Mrs. Perkins, the regional librarian, who was in another room. Mrs. Perkins asked the men to leave. They remained.
Neither Mrs. Reeves nor Mrs. Perkins had called the sheriff, but in “10 to 15 minutes” from the time of the arrival of the men at the library, the sheriff and deputies arrived. The sheriff asked the Negroes to leave. They said they would not. The sheriff then arrested them. The sheriff had been notified that morning that members of the Congress of Racial Equality “were going to sit-in” at the library. Ordinarily, the sheriff testified, CORE tells him when they are going to demonstrate or picket. The sheriff was standing at his “place of business” when he saw “these 5 colored males coming down the street.” He saw them enter the library. He called the jail to notify his deputies, and he reached the library immediately after the deputies got there. When the sheriff arrived, there was no noise, no disturbance. He testified that he arrested them “for not leaving a public building when asked to do so by an officer.”
The library obtained the requested book and mailed it to Mr. Brown on March 28, 1964. An accompanying card said, “You may return the book either by mail or to the Blue Bookmobile.” The reference to the color of the vehicle was obviously not designed to facilitate identification of the library vehicle. The blue bookmobile is for Negroes and for Negroes only.
In the course of argument before this Court, counsel for both the State and petitioners stated that the Clinton Branch was closed after the incident of March 7. Counsel for the State also advised the court that the use of cards stamped “Negro” continues to be the practice of the regional library.
On March 25, 1964, Mr. Brown and his four companions were tried and found guilty. Brown was sentenced to pay $150 and costs, and in default thereof to spend 90 days in the parish jail. His companions were sentenced to $35 and costs, or 15 days in jail. The charge was that they had congregated together in the public library of Clinton, Louisiana, “with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace and under circumstances such that a breach of the peace might be occasioned thereby” and had failed and refused “to leave said premises when ordered to do so” by the librarian and by the sheriff.
The Louisiana breach of peace statute under which they were accused reads as follows: “Whoever with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby: (1) crowds or congregates with others . . . in . . . a . . . public place or building . . . and who fails or refuses to disperse and move on, or disperse or move on, when ordered so to do by any law enforcement officer ... or any other authorized person . . . shall be guilty of disturbing the peace.”
Under Louisiana law, these convictions were not ap-pealable. See Garner v. Louisiana, supra, at 161-162. Petitioners sought discretionary review by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which denied their application, finding no error. This Court granted certiorari, 381 U. S. 901, and we reverse.
We may briefly dispose of certain threshold problems. Petitioners cannot constitutionally be convicted merely because they did not comply with an order to leave the library. See Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U. S. 87, 90-91; Wright v. Georgia, 373 U. S. 284, 291-293; Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U. S. 61; cf. Cox v. Louisiana, supra, at 579 (separate opinion of Mr. Justice Black). The statute itself reads in the conjunctive; it requires both the defined breach of peace and an order to move on. Without reference to the statute, it must be noted that petitioners’ presence in the library was unquestionably lawful. It was a public facility, open to the public. Negroes could not be denied access since white persons were welcome. Wright v. Georgia, supra, at 292; Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526; Johnson v. Virginia, supra. Petitioners’ deportment while in the library was unexceptionable. They were neither loud, boisterous, obstreperous, indecorous nor impolite. There is no claim that, apart from the continuation — for ten or fifteen minutes — of their presence itself, their conduct provided a basis for the order to leave, or for a charge of breach of the peace.
We come, then, to the barebones of the problem. Petitioners, five adult Negro men, remained in the library room for a total of ten or fifteen minutes. The first few moments were occupied by a ritualistic request for service and a response. We may assume that the response constituted service, and we need not consider whether it was merely a gambit in the ritual. This ceremony being out of the way, the Negroes proceeded to the business in hand. They sat and stood in the room, quietly, as monuments of protest against the segregation of the library. They were arrested and charged and convicted of breach of the peace under a specific statute.
If we compare this situation with that in Gamer, we must inevitably conclude that here, too, there is not the slightest evidence which would or could sustain the application of the statute to petitioners. The statute requires a showing either of “intent to provoke a breach of the peace,” or of “circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned” by the acts in question. There is not in this case the slightest hint of either. We need not be beguiled by the ritual of the request for a copy of “The Story of the Negro.” We need not assume that petitioner Brown and his friends were in search of a book for night reading. We instead rest upon the manifest fact that they intended to and did stage a peaceful and orderly protest demonstration, with no “intent to provoke a breach of the peace.” See Garner v. Louisiana, supra, at 174.
Nor were the circumstances such that a breach of the peace might be “occasioned” by their actions, as the statute alternatively provides. The library room was empty, except for the librarians. There were no other patrons. There were no onlookers except for the vigilant and forewarned sheriff and his deputies. Petitioners did nothing and said nothing even remotely provocative. The danger, if any existed, was surely less than in the course of the sit-in at the “white” lunch counters in Gamer. And surely there was less danger that a breach of the peace might occur from Mrs. Katie Reeves and Mrs. Perkins in the adult reading room of the Clinton Branch Library than that disorder might result from the “restless” white people in the bus depot waiting room in Taylor, or from the 100 to 300 “grumbling” white onlookers in Cox. But in each of these cases, this Court refused to countenance convictions under Louisiana’s breach of the peace statute.
The argument of the State of Louisiana, however, is that the issue presented by this case is much simpler than our statement would indicate. The issue, asserts the State, is simply that petitioners were using the library room “as a place in which to loaf or make a nuisance of themselves.” The State argues that the “test” — the permissible civil rights demonstration — was concluded when petitioners entered the library, asked for service and were served. Having satisfied themselves, the argument runs, that they could get service, they should have departed. Instead, they simply sat there, “staring vacantly,” and this was “enough to unnerve a woman in the situation Mrs. Reeves was in.”
This is a piquant version of the affair, but the matter is hardly to be decided on points. It was not a game. It could not be won so handily by the gesture of service to this particular request. There is no dispute that the library system was segregated, and no possible doubt that these petitioners were there to protest this fact. But even if we were to agree with the State’s ingenuous characterization of the events, we would have to reverse. There was no violation of the statute which petitioners are accused of breaching; no disorder, no intent to provoke a breach of the peace and no circumstances indicating that a breach might be occasioned by petitioners’ actions. The sole statutory provision invoked by the State contains not a word about occupying the reading room of a public library for more than 15 minutes, any more than it purports to punish the bare refusal to obey an unexplained command to withdraw from a public street, see Garner, supra, or public building. We can find nothing in the language of the statute, in fact, which would elevate the giving of cause for Mrs. Reeves’ discomfort, however we may sympathize with her, to a crime against the State of Louisiana. Cf. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U. S. 87, 101 (concurring opinion).
But there is another and sharper answer which is called for. We are here dealing with an aspect of a basic constitutional right — the right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteeing freedom of speech and of assembly, and freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Constitution of the State of Louisiana reiterates these guaranties. See Art. I, §§ 3, 5. As this Court has repeatedly stated, these rights are not confined to verbal expression. They embrace appropriate types of action which certainly include the right in a peaceable and orderly manner to protest by silent and reproachful presence, in a place where the protestant has every right to be, the unconstitutional segregation of public facilities. Accordingly, even if the accused action were within the scope of the statutory instrument, we would be required to assess the constitutional impact of its application, and we would have to hold that the statute cannot constitutionally be applied to punish petitioners’ actions in the circumstances of this case. See Edwards v. South Carolina, supra, at 235. The statute was deliberately and purposefully applied solely to terminate the reasonable, orderly, and limited exercise of the right to protest the unconstitutional segregation of a public facility. Interference with this right, so exercised, by state action is intolerable under our Constitution. Wright v. Georgia, supra, at 292.
It is an unhappy circumstance that the locus of these events was a public library — a place dedicated to quiet, to knowledge, and to beauty. It is a sad commentary that this hallowed place in the Parish of East Feliciana bore the ugly stamp of racism. It is sad, too, that it was a public library which, reasonably enough in the circumstances, was the stage for a confrontation between those discriminated against and the representatives of the offending parishes. Fortunately, the circumstances here were such that no claim can be made that use of the library by others was disturbed by the demonstration. Perhaps the time and method were carefully chosen with this in mind. Were it otherwise, a factor not present in this case would have to be considered. Here, there was no disturbance of others, no disruption of library activities, and no violation of any library regulations.
A State or its instrumentality may, of course, regulate the use of its libraries or other public facilities. But it must do so in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner, equally applicable to all and administered with equality to all. It may not do so as to some and not as to all. It may not provide certain facilities for whites and others for Negroes. And it may not invoke regulations as to use — whether they are ad hoc or general — as a pretext for pursuing those engaged in lawful, constitutionally protected exercise of their fundamental rights. Cf. Wright v. Georgia, supra, at 293.
The decision below is
Reversed.
Participants in an orderly demonstration in a public place are not chargeable with the danger, unprovoked except by the fact of the constitutionally protected demonstration itself, that their critics might react with disorder or violence. See Cox v. Louisiana, supra, at 551-552; Wright v. Georgia, 373 U. S. 284, 293; cf. Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1. Compare Feiner v. New York, 340 U. S. 315, where one speaker was haranguing 75 or 80 “restless” listeners; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (“fighting words”); cf. Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 289 (concurring opinion of Frankfurter, J.). See generally on the problem of the “heckler’s veto,” Kalven, The Negro and the First Amendment, pp. 140-160 (1965).
The statute then read: “Disturbing the peace is the doing of any of the following in such a manner as would foreseeably disturb or alarm the public:
“(1) Engaging in a fistic encounter; or
“(2) Using of any unnecessarily loud, offensive, or insulting language; or
“(3) Appearing in an intoxicated condition; or
“(4) Engaging in any act in a violent and tumultuous manner by any three or more persons; or
“(5) Holding of an unlawful assembly; or
“(6) Interruption of any lawful assembly of people; or
“(7) Commission of any other act in such a manner as to unreasonably disturb or alarm the public.”
While it was not disputed that the demonstration was “orderly and well-controlled,” the demonstrators clapped and sang and petitioner spoke in protest of arrests of certain other civil rights demonstrators. In addition to the breach of the peace charge, Cox was charged with obstructing public passageways and with demonstrating near a courthouse. Convictions on these grounds were also reversed. See 379 U. S. 536, 559.
The inference finds support in testimony both of the sheriff and of Mrs. Laura Spears, a witness for the defense who was employed as the assistant in charge of the blue bookmobile.
La. Rev. Stat. §14:103.1 (Cum. Supp. 1962).
See, e. g., N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 428-431; Garner v. Louisiana, supra, at 201 (separate opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan); N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 460-463; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369. See Kalven, op. cit. supra, n. 1, at 129-138.
Cf. Wright v. Georgia, 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: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, of first-degree murder, and was sentenced to death in accordance with the verdict of the jury. After the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, 278 Ala. 437, 179 So. 2d 20, the petitioner instituted this habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. District Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., denied relief, 257 F. Supp. 1013, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 385 F. 2d 102, rehearing denied, 393 F. 2d 932, 395 F. 2d 169. We granted certiorari. 393 U. S. 822.
I.
Although there was substantial additional evidence of the petitioner’s guilt, his conviction was based in part on a confession he had made some days after his arrest. His request for habeas corpus relief rested on a claim that the introduction of that confession into evidence violated his rights under the Constitution. Since his trial antedated our decisions in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, that claim is essentially a contention that under the constitutional standards prevailing prior to those decisions, his confession was made involuntarily. See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719; Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737.
After holding a full hearing regarding the issue and considering the state court record, the District Court, in an opinion applying the proper constitutional standards, was unable to conclude that the petitioner’s confession was “other than voluntarily made.” The confession, the court found, “simply was not coerced.” 257 F. Supp., at 1017, 1016. The Court of Appeals, likewise applying appropriate standards, similarly could “find from the record here no plausible suggestion that Boulden’s will was overborne . . . .” 385 F. 2d, at 107.
Little purpose would be served by an extensive summation of the record in the District Court proceedings and in the state trial court. The question whether a confession was voluntarily made necessarily turns on the “totality of the circumstances” in any particular case, and most of the relevant circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s confession are set out in the opinions of the District Court and the Court of Appeals. Suffice it to say that we have made an independent study of the entire record and have determined that, although the issue is a relatively close one, the conclusion reached by the District Court and the Court of Appeals was justified.
II.
In seeking habeas corpus the petitioner challenged only the admission of his confession into evidence, and his petition for certiorari was limited to that claim. In his brief and in oral argument on the merits, however, he has raised a substantial additional question: whether the jury that sentenced him to death was selected in accordance with the principles underlying our decision last Term in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510.
We held in Witherspoon that “a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction.” 391 U. S., at 522. In the present case, the record indicates that no less than 15 prospective jurors were excluded by the prosecution under an Alabama statute that provides:
“On the trial for any offense which may be punished capitally, ... it is a good cause of challenge by the state that the person has a fixed opinion against capital . . . punishmen[t] .
That statutory standard has been construed by the Alabama Supreme Court to authorize the exclusion of potential jurors who, although “opposed to capital punishment, . .. would hang some men.” Untreinor v. State, 146 Ala. 26, 33, 41 So. 285, 287.
However, as we emphasized in Witherspoon, “The critical question ... is not how the phrases employed in this area have been construed by courts and commentators. What matters is how they might be understood— or misunderstood — by prospective jurors.” 391 U. S., at 516, n. 9. “The most that can be demanded of a venireman in this regard,” we said, “is that he be willing to consider all of the penalties provided by state law, and that he not be irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings. If the voir dire testimony in a given case indicates that veniremen were excluded on any broader basis than this, the death sentence cannot be carried out . . . .” Id., at 522, n. 21. We made it clear that “[u]nless a venireman states unambiguously that he would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment no matter what the trial might reveal, it simply cannot be assumed that that is his position.” Id., at 516, n. 9.
It appears that at the petitioner’s trial two prospective jurors were excluded only after they had acknowledged that they would “never” be willing to impose the death penalty. Eleven veniremen, however, appear to have been excused for cause simply on the basis of their affirmative answers to the question whether, in the statutory language, they had “a fixed opinion against” capital punishment. The following excerpt from the record is typical of those instances:
“THE COURT: Do you have a fixed opinion against capital punishment?
“MR. SEIBERT: Yes, sir.
“MR. HUNDLEY: We challenge.
“THE COURT: Defendant?
“MR. CHENAULT: No questions.
“THE COURT: Stand aside. You are excused.”
Two other veniremen seem to have been excluded merely by virtue of their statements that they did not “believe in” capital punishment. Yet it is entirely possible that a person who has “a fixed opinion against” or who does not “believe in” capital punishment might nevertheless be perfectly able as a juror to abide by existing law— to follow conscientiously the instructions of a trial judge and to consider fairly the imposition of the death sentence in a particular case.
It appears, therefore, that the sentence of death imposed upon the petitioner cannot constitutionally stand under Witherspoon v. Illinois. We do not, however, finally decide that question here, for several reasons. First, the Witherspoon issue was not raised in the District Court, in the Court of Appeals, or in the petition for certiorari filed in this Court. A further hearing directed to the issue might conceivably modify in some fashion the conclusion so strongly suggested by the record now before us. Further, it is not clear whether the petitioner has exhausted his state remedies with respect to this issue. Finally, in the event it turns out, as now appears, that relief from this death sentence must be ordered, a local federal court will be far better equipped than are we to frame an appropriate decree with due regard to available Alabama procedures.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court, where the issue that has belatedly been brought to our attention may be properly and fully considered.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black, while still adhering to his dissent in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 532, acquiesces in the Court’s judgment and opinion.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Two confessions were in fact obtained, although only the second was actually introduced into evidence. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals properly noted that the second confession might have been the “end product of the earlier” one, in that “the accused [may have been] acutely aware that he had earlier made admissions against his interest and was, therefore, merely repeating his ostensibly uneraseable [sic] words of confession.” 385 F. 2d, at 106. See Darwin v. Connecticut, 391 U. S. 346; Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U. S. 35; cf. United States v. Bayer, 331 U. S. 532, 540. Consequently, in order to determine whether the second confession was properly admitted, they passed upon the voluntariness of the first as well as the second confession. We have considered the record in like fashion.
There is evidence that even before his two formal confessions were obtained, the petitioner had, shortly after his arrest, admitted killing the deceased. The evidence was controverted, both as to whether the petitioner made any such admission and as to whether, if he did, the admission was voluntary. It is suggested in dissent that because the opinions of the District Court and the Court of Appeals do not explicitly refer to that evidence, it must be assumed that those courts did not consider it, and that the conclusions they reached should therefore not be sustained. We cannot agree. The petitioner has consistently contended that the events immediately following his arrest contributed to the involuntariness of his later confessions, and we are unable to assume that the evidence referred to was not considered by the District Court and the Court of Appeals. In any event, our own decision with respect to the voluntariness issue has been reached with that evidence fully in mind.
In affirming the petitioner’s conviction, the Alabama Supreme Court had reached a like conclusion. 278 Ala., at 446-452, 179 So. 2d, at 28-34.
Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U. S. 191, 197.
See Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315, 316.
Ala. Code, Tit. 30, § 57.
“THE COURT: . . . Do you have a fixed opinion against capital or penitentiary punishment?
“JOHN L. NELSON raised his hand.
“MR. HUNDLEY: Challenge.
“THE COURT: Do you have a fixed opinion against capital or penitentiary punishment?
“MR. NELSON: Capital punishment.
“THE COURT: You think you would never be willing to inflict the death penalty in any type case ?
“MR. NELSON: Yes, sir.
“MR. HUNDLEY: We challenge.
“THE COURT: Defendant?
“MR. CHENAULT: No questions.
“THE COURT: Stand aside, Mr. Nelson.
“E. 0. MOON raised his hand.
“THE COURT: Do you have a fixed opinion against capital or penitentiary punishment ?
“MR. MOON: Capital punishment.
“THE COURT: You mean you would never inflict the death penalty on [sic] any case?
“MR. MOON: That’s right.
“MR. HUNDLEY: Challenge.
“THE COURT: Defendant?
“MR. CHENAULT: No questions.
“THE COURT: Stand aside, Mr. Moon.”
“THE COURT: What is your position on capital punishment or penitentiary punishment?
“MR. COLLIER: I don’t believe in capital punishment.
“THE COURT: State?
“MR. HUNDLEY: Challenge.
“THE COURT: Any questions, Mr. Chenault?
“MR. CHENAULT: No questions.
“THE COURT: You are excused. . . .
“MR. PATTON: . . . and I don’t believe in capital punishment.
“MR. HUNDLEY: I’ll challenge Mr. Patton on that answer, on the ground he doesn’t believe in capital punishment.
“THE COURT: Any questions by the defendant?
“MR. CHENAULT: No questions.
“THE COURT: We . . . will let you stand aside.”
As the initial portion of this colloquy and that set out in footnote 6 indicate, Alabama law also authorizes the exclusion of any potential juror who has a “fixed opinion against . . . penitentiary” punishment. Ala. Code, Tit. 30, § 57. Two veniremen were excused when they merely responded affirmatively to the disjunc-tively phrased question whether they had “a fixed opinion against capital or penitentiary punishment.” It is thus not possible to discern from the record which type of punishment they objected to, although the more likely assumption would be that it was capital punishment. We did not in Witherspoon pass upon the validity of the “penitentiary” analogue to death-qualification of jurors, and we intimate today no opinion regarding that question.
The Court of Appeals’ decision was rendered prior to our decision in Witherspoon.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kagan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552, requires federal agencies to make Government records available to the public, subject to nine exemptions for specific categories of material. This case concerns the scope of Exemption 2, which protects from disclosure material that is “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.” § 552(b)(2). Respondent Department of the Navy (Navy or Government) invoked Exemption 2 to deny a FOIA request for data and maps used to help store explosives at a naval base in Washington State. We hold that Exemption 2 does not stretch so far.
I
Congress enacted FOIA to overhaul the public-disclosure section of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §1002 (1964 ed.). That section of the APA “was plagued with vague phrases” and gradually became more “a withholding statute than a disclosure statute.” EPA v. Mink, 410 U. S. 73, 79 (1973). Congress intended FOIA to “permit access to official information long shielded unnecessarily from public view.” Id., at 80. FOIA thus mandates that an agency disclose records on request, unless they fall within one of nine exemptions. These exemptions are “explicitly made exclusive,” id., at 79, and must be “narrowly construed,” FBI v. Abramson, 456 U. S. 615, 630 (1982).
At issue here is Exemption 2, which shields from compelled disclosure documents “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.” § 552(b)(2). Congress enacted Exemption 2 to replace the APA’s exemption for “any matter relating solely to the internal management of an agency,” 5 U. S. C. § 1002 (1964 ed.). Believing that the “sweep” of the phrase “internal management” had led to excessive withholding, Congress drafted Exemption 2 “to have a narrower reach.” Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U. S. 352, 362-363 (1976).
We considered the extent of that reach in Department of Air Force v. Rose. There, we rejected the Government’s invocation of Exemption 2 to withhold case summaries of honor and ethics hearings at the United States Air Force Academy. The exemption, we suggested, primarily targets material concerning employee relations or human resources: “‘use of parking facilities or regulations of lunch hours, statements of policy as to sick leave, and the like.’” Id., at 363 (quoting S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1965) (hereinafter S. Rep.)); see Rose, 425 U. S., at 367. “[T]he general thrust” of Exemption 2, we explained, “is simply to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining [such information] for public inspection.” Id., at 369. We concluded that the case summaries did not fall within the exemption because they “d[id] not concern only routine matters” of “merely internal significance.” Id., at 370. But we stated a possible caveat to our interpretation of Exemption 2: That understanding of the provision’s coverage governed, we wrote, “at least where the situation is not one where disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation.” Id., at 369.
In Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 670 F. 2d 1051 (1981) (en banc), the D. C. Circuit converted this caveat into a new definition of Exemption 2’s scope. Crooker approved the use of Exemption 2 to shield a manual designed to train Government agents in law enforcement surveillance techniques. The D. C. Circuit noted that it previously had understood Exemption 2 to “refe[r] only to ‘pay, pensions, vacations, hours of work, lunch hours, parking[,] etc.’” Id., at 1056 (quoting Jordan v. Department of Justice, 591 F. 2d 753, 763 (1978)). But the court now thought Exemption 2 should also cover any “predominantly internal” materials, Crooker, 670 F. 2d, at 1056-1057, whose disclosure would “significantly ris[k] circumvention of agency regulations or statutes,” id., at 1074. This construction of Exemption 2, the court reasoned, flowed from FOIA’s “overall design,” its legislative history, “and even common sense,” because Congress could not have meant to “enac[t] a statute whose provisions undermined... the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies.” Ibid.
In the ensuing years, three Courts of Appeals adopted the D. C. Circuit’s interpretation of Exemption 2. See 575 F. 3d 959, 965 (CA9 2009) (case below); Massey v. FBI, 3 F. 3d 620, 622 (CA2 1993); Kaganove v. EPA, 856 F. 2d 884, 889 (CA7 1988). And that interpretation spawned a new terminology: Courts applying the Crooker approach now refer to the “Low 2” exemption when discussing materials concerning human resources and employee relations, and to the “High 2” exemption when assessing records whose disclosure would risk circumvention of the law. See, e. g., 575 F. 3d, at 963; Schiller v. NLRB, 964 F. 2d 1205, 1208 (CADC 1992). Congress, as well, took notice of the D. C. Circuit’s decision, borrowing language from Crooker to amend Exemption 7(E) when next enacting revisions to FOIA. The amended version of Exemption 7(E) shields certain “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes” if their disclosure “could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” § 552(b)(7)(E); see Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986, § 1802(a), 100 Stat. 3207-49.
II
The FOIA request at issue here arises from the Navy’s operations at Naval Magazine Indian Island, a base in Puget Sound, Washington. The Navy keeps weapons, ammunition, and explosives on the island. To aid in the storage and transport of these munitions, the Navy uses data known as Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) information. 575 F. 3d, at 962. ESQD information prescribes “minimum separation distances” for explosives and helps the Navy design and construct storage facilities to prevent chain reactions in case of detonation. Ibid. The ESQD calculations are often incorporated into specialized maps depicting the effects of hypothetical explosions. See, e. g., App. 52.
In 2003 and 2004, petitioner Glen Milner, a Puget Sound resident, submitted FOIA requests for all ESQD information relating to Indian Island. 575 F. 3d, at 962. The Navy refused to release the data, stating that disclosure would threaten the security of the base and surrounding community. In support of its decision to withhold the records, the Navy invoked Exemption 2. Ibid.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the Navy, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on the High 2 interpretation developed in Crooker. 575 F. 3d, at 963. The Court of Appeals explained that the ESQD information “is predominantly used for the internal purpose of instructing agency personnel on how to do their jobs.” Id., at 968. And disclosure of the material, the court determined, “would risk circumvention of the law” by “pointing] out the best targets for those bent on wreaking havoc” — for example, “[a] terrorist who wished to hit the most damaging target.” Id., at 971. The ESQD information, the court concluded, therefore qualified for a High 2 exemption. Ibid.
We granted certiorari in light of the Circuit split respecting Exemption 2’s meaning, 561 U. S. 1024 (2010), and we now reverse.
Ill
Our consideration of Exemption 2’s scope starts with its text. See, e. g., Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 194 (1985) (“Statutory construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose”). Judicial decisions since FOIA’s enactment have analyzed and reanalyzed the meaning of the exemption. But comparatively little attention has focused on the provision’s 12 simple words: “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.”
The key word in that dozen — the one that most clearly marks the provision’s boundaries — is “personnel.” When used as an adjective, as it is here to modify “rules and practices,” that term refers to human resources matters. “Personnel,” in this common parlance, means “the selection, placement, and training of employees and... the formulation of policies, procedures, and relations with [or involving] employees or their representatives.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1687 (1966) (hereinafter Webster’s). So, for example, a “personnel department” is “the department of a business firm that deals with problems affecting the employees of the firm and that usually interviews applicants for jobs.” Random House Dictionary 1075 (1966) (hereinafter Random House). “Personnel management” is similarly “the phase of management concerned with the engagement and effective utilization of manpower to obtain optimum efficiency of human resources.” Webster’s 1687. And a “personnel agency” is “an agency for placing employable persons in jobs; employment agency.” Random House 1075.
FOIA itself provides an additional example in Exemption 6. See Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 143 (1994) (“A term appearing in several places in a statutory text is generally read the same way each time it appears”). That exemption, just a few short paragraphs down from Exemption 2, protects from disclosure “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” § 552(b)(6). Here too, the statute uses the term “personnel” as a modifier meaning “human resources.” See Tr. of Oral Arg. 32 (“[The Court:] It’s [an] H. R. file, right? [The Government:] That’s generally true”). As we recognized in Rose, “the common and congressional meaning of... 'personnel file’ ” is the file “showing, for example, where [an employee] was born, the names of his parents, where he has lived from time to time, his... school records, results of examinations, [and] evaluations of his work performance.” 425 U. S., at 377. It is the file typically maintained in the human resources office — otherwise known (to recall an example offered above) as the “personnel department.” Ibid.
Exemption 2 uses “personnel” in the exact same way. An agency’s “personnel rules and practices” are its rules and practices dealing with employee relations or human resources. The D. C. Circuit, in a pre-Crooker decision, gave as examples “matters relating to pay, pensions, vacations, hours of work, lunch hours, parking, etc.” Jordan, 591 F. 2d, at 763; see supra, at 566. That “etc.” is important; we doubt any court could know enough about the Federal Government’s operations to formulate a comprehensive list. But all the rules and practices referenced in Exemption 2 share a critical feature: They concern the conditions of employment in federal agencies — such matters as hiring and firing, work rules and discipline, compensation and benefits. Courts in practice have had little difficulty identifying the records that qualify for withholding under this reading: They are what now commonly fall within the Low 2 exemption. Our construction of the statutory language simply makes clear that Low 2 is all of 2 (and that High 2 is not 2 at all, see infra, at 573-577).
The statute’s purpose reinforces this understanding of the exemption. We have often noted “the Act’s goal of broad disclosure” and insisted that the exemptions be “given a narrow compass.” Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U. S. 136, 151 (1989); see Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn., 532 U. S. 1, 7-8 (2001). This practice of “constru[ing] FOIA exemptions narrowly,” Department of Justice v. Landano, 508 U. S. 165, 181 (1993), stands on especially firm footing with respect to Exemption 2. As described earlier, Congress worded that provision to hem in the prior APA exemption for “any matter relating solely to the internal management of an agency,” which agencies had used to prevent access to masses of documents. See Rose, 425 U. S., at 362. We would ill-serve Congress’s purpose by construing Exemption 2 to reauthorize the expansive withholding that Congress wanted to halt. Our reading instead gives the exemption the “narrower reach” Congress intended, id., at 363, through the simple device of confining the provision’s meaning to its words.
The Government resists giving “personnel” its plain meaning on the ground that Congress, when drafting Exemption 2, considered but chose not to enact language exempting “internal employment rules and practices.” Brief for Respondent 30-34, and n. 11 (internal quotation marks omitted). This drafting history, the Navy maintains, proves that Congress did not wish “to limit the Exemption to employment-related matters,” id., at 31, even if the adjective “personnel” conveys that meaning in other contexts, id., at 41. But we think the Navy’s evidence insufficient: The scant history concerning this word change as easily supports the inference that Congress merely swapped one synonym for another. Cf. Mead Corp. v. Tilley, 490 U. S. 714, 723 (1989) (noting with respect to the “unexplained disappearance of one word from an unenacted bill” that “mute intermediate legislative maneuvers are not reliable” aids to statutory interpretation (internal quotation marks omitted)). Those of us who make use of legislative history believe that clear evidence of congressional intent may illuminate ambiguous text. We will not take the opposite tack of allowing ambiguous legislative history to muddy clear statutory language.
Exemption 2, as we have construed it, does not reach the ESQD information at issue here. These data and maps calculate and visually portray the magnitude of hypothetical detonations. By no stretch of imagination do they relate to “personnel rules and practices,” as that term is most naturally understood. They concern the physical rules governing explosives, not the workplace rules governing sailors; they address the handling of dangerous materials, not the treatment of employees. The Navy therefore may not use Exemption 2, interpreted in accord with its plain meaning to cover human resources matters, to prevent disclosure of the requested maps and data.
IV
The.Government offers two alternative readings of Exemption 2 to support withholding the ESQD information. We cannot square either with the statute.
A
The Navy first encourages us to adopt the construction of Exemption 2 pioneered by Crooker, which shields material not only if it meets the criteria set out above (Low 2), but also if it is “predominant[ly] interna[l]” and its “disclosure would significantly risk[ ] circumvention of federal agency functions” (High 2). Brief for Respondent 41 (internal quotation marks omitted). The dissent, too, favors this reading of the statute. Post, at 585. But the Crooker interpretation, as already suggested, suffers from a patent flaw: It is disconnected from Exemption 2’s text. The High 2 test (in addition to substituting the word “predominantly” for “solely,” see n. 1, supra) ignores the plain meaning of the adjective “personnel,” see supra, at 569-572 and this page, and adopts a circumvention requirement with no basis or referent in Exemption 2’s language. Indeed, the only way to arrive at High 2 is by taking a red pen to the statute — “cutting out some” words and “pasting in others” until little of the actual provision remains. Elliott v. Department of Agriculture, 596 F. 3d 842, 845 (CADC 2010). Because this is so, High 2 is better labeled “Non 2” (and Low 2... just 2).
In support of its text-light approach to the statute, the Government relies primarily on legislative history, placing particular emphasis on the House Report concerning FOIA. See Brief for Respondent 33-38. A statement in that Report buttresses the High 2 understanding of the exemption and, indeed, specifically rejects the Low 2 construction. According to the Report: “Operating rules, guidelines, and manuals of procedure for Government investigators or examiners would be exempt from disclosure [under Exemption 2], but this exemption would not cover... employee relations and working conditions and routine administrative procedures.” H. R. Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1966). But the Senate Report says exactly the opposite, explaining in support of a Low 2 interpretation that the phrase “internal personnel rules and practices of an agency” means “rules as to personnel's use of parking facilities or regulation of lunch hours, statements of policy as to sick leave, and the like.” S. Rep., at 8. In Rose, we gave reasons for thinking the Senate Report the more reliable of the two. See 425 U. S., at 366. But the more fundamental point is what we said before: Legislative history, for those who take it into account, is meant to clear up ambiguity, not create it. See supra, at 572; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 49 (1950) (declining to consult legislative history when that “history is more conflicting than the text is ambiguous”). When presented, on the one hand, with clear statutory language and, on the other, with dueling committee reports, we must choose the language.
The Government also advances, in support of Crooker’s High 2 approach, an argument based on subsequent legislative action. Congress, the Government notes, amended Exemption 7(E) in 1986 to cover law enforcement records whose production “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” § 552(b)(7)(E). That amendment, the Government contends, codified Crooker’s “circumvention of the law” standard and, in so doing, ratified Crooker’s holding. Brief for Respondent 42-43. The dissent likewise counts as significant that Congress “t[ook] note” of Crooker in revising FOIA. Post, at 592; see post, at 586.
But the Government and the dissent neglect the key feature of the 1986 amendment: Congress modified not Exemption 2 (the subject of Crooker), but instead Exemption 7(E). And the Crooker construction of Exemption 2 renders Exemption 7(E) superfluous and so deprives that amendment of any effect. See, e. g., TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 19, 31 (2001) (noting canon that statutes should be read to avoid making any provision “superfluous, void, or insignificant” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We cannot think of any document eligible for withholding under Exemption 7(E) that the High 2 reading does not capture: The circumvention standard is the same, and the law enforcement records listed in Exemption 7(E) are “predominantly internal.” So if Congress had agreed with Crooker’s reading of Exemption 2, it would have had no reason to alter Exemption 7(E). In that event, Congress would either have left the statute alone (on the theory that Crooker would do the necessary work) or would have amended Exemption 2 specifically to ratify Crooker. The decision instead to amend Exemption 7(E) suggests that Congress approved the circumvention standard only as to law enforcement materials, and not as to the wider set of records High 2 covers. Perhaps this legislative action does not show that Congress affirmatively disagreed with Crooker; maybe Congress was agnostic about whether the circumvention standard should apply to other records. But one thing is clear: The 1986 amendment does not ratify, approve, or otherwise signal agreement with Crooker’s interpretation of Exemption 2. This argument therefore cannot save the High 2 construction.
The dissent offers one last reason to embrace High 2, and indeed stakes most of its wager on this argument. Crooker, the dissent asserts, “has been consistently relied upon and followed for 30 years” by other lower courts. Post, at 592; see post, at 585-586. But this claim, too, trips at the starting gate. It would be immaterial even if true, because we have no warrant to ignore clear statutory language on the ground that other courts have done so. And in any event, it is not true. Prior to Crooker, three Circuits adopted the reading of Exemption 2 we think right, and they have not changed their minds. See n. 2, supra. Since Crooker, three other Circuits have accepted the High 2 reading. See supra, at 567. One Circuit has reserved judgment on the High 2-Low 2 debate. See Audubon Soc. v. United States Forest Serv., 104 F. 3d 1201, 1203-1204 (CA10 1997). And the rest have not considered the matter. (No one should think Crooker has been extensively discussed or debated in the Courts of Appeals. In the past three decades, Crooker’s analysis of Exemption 2 has been cited a sum total of five times in federal appellate decisions outside the D. C. Circuit — on average, once every six years.) The result is a 4-to-3 split among the Circuits. We will not flout all usual rules of statutory interpretation to take the side of the bare majority.
B
Presumably because Crooker so departs from Exemption 2’s language, the Government also offers another construction, which it says we might adopt “on a clean slate,” “based on the plain text... alone.” Brief for Respondent 15. On this reading, the exemption “encompasses records concerning an agency’s internal rules and practices for its personnel to follow in the discharge of their governmental functions.” Id., at 20; see also id., at 13-14 (Exemption 2 “applies generally to matters concerning internal rules and practices to guide agency personnel in performing their duties”). According to the Government, this interpretation makes sense because “the phrase 'personnel rules and practices of an agency’ is logically understood to mean an agency’s rules and practices for its personnel.” Id., at 20 (emphasis added).
But the purported logic in the Government’s definition eludes us. We would not say, in ordinary parlance, that a “personnel file” is any file an employee uses, or that a “personnel department” is any department in which an employee serves. No more would we say that a “personnel rule or practice” is any rule or practice that assists an employee in doing her job. The use of the term “personnel” in each of these phrases connotes not that the file or department or practice/rule is for personnel, but rather that the file or department or practice/rule is about personnel — i. e., that it relates to employee relations or human resources. This case well illustrates the point. The records requested, as earlier noted, are explosives data and maps showing the distances that potential blasts travel. This information no doubt assists Navy personnel in storing munitions. But that is not to say that the data and maps relate to “personnel rules and practices.” No one staring at these charts of explosions and using ordinary language would describe them in this manner.
Indeed, the Government’s “clean slate” construction reaches such documents only by stripping the word “personnel” of any real meaning. Under this interpretation, an agency’s “internal personnel rules and practices” appears to mean all its internal rules and practices. That is because agencies necessarily operate through personnel, and so all their internal rules and practices are for personnel. The modifier “personnel,” then, does no modifying work; it does not limit the class of internal rules and practices that Exemption 2 covers. What is most naturally viewed as the provision’s key word — the term that ought to define its scope — does nothing more than state the truism that in an agency it is “personnel” who follow internal rules and practices.
And this odd reading would produce a sweeping exemption, posing the risk that FOIA would become less a disclosure than “a withholding statute.” Mink, 410 U. S., at 79. Many documents an agency generates in some way aid employees in carrying out their responsibilities. If Exemption 2 were to reach all these records, it would tend to engulf other FOIA exemptions, rendering ineffective the limitations Congress placed on their application. Exemption 7, for example, shields records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only if one of six specified criteria is met. § 552(b)(7). Yet on the Government’s view, an agency could bypass these restrictions by invoking Exemption 2 whenever law enforcement records guide personnel in performing their duties. Indeed, an agency could use Exemption 2 as an all-purpose back-up provision to withhold sensitive records that do not fall within any of FOIA’s more targeted exemptions.
Interpreted in this way, Exemption 2 — call it “Super 2” now — would extend, rather than narrow, the APA’s former exemption for records relating to the “internal management of an agency.” 5 U. S. C. § 1002 (1964 ed.). We doubt that even the “internal management” provision, which Congress thought allowed too much withholding, see supra, at 565, would have protected all information that guides employees in the discharge of their duties, including the explosives data and maps in this case. And perhaps needless to say, this reading of Exemption 2 violates the rule favoring narrow construction of FOIA exemptions. See, e. g., Abramson, 456 U. S., at 630; Rose, 425 U. S., at 361. Super 2 in fact has no basis in the text, context, or purpose of FOIA, and we accordingly reject it.
V
Although we cannot interpret Exemption 2 as the Government proposes, we recognize the strength of the Navy’s interest in protecting the ESQD data and maps and other similar information. The Government has informed us that “[pjublicly disclosing the [ESQD] information would significantly risk undermining the Navy’s ability to safely and securely store military ordnance,” Brief for Respondent 47, and we have no reason to doubt that representation. The Ninth Circuit similarly cautioned that disclosure of this information could be used to “wrea[k] havoc” and “make catastrophe more likely.” 575 F. 3d, at 971. Concerns of this kind — a sense that certain sensitive information should be exempt from disclosure — in part led the Crooker court to formulate the High 2 standard. See 670 F. 2d, at 1074 (contending that “common sense” supported the High 2 interpretation because Congress would not have wanted FOIA to “under-min[e]... the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies”). And we acknowledge that our decision today upsets three decades of agency practice relying on Crooker, and therefore may force considerable adjustments.
We also note, however, that the Government has other tools at hand to shield national security information and other sensitive materials. Most notably, Exemption 1 of FOIA prevents access to classified documents. § 552(b)(1); see 575 F. 3d, at 980 (W. Fletcher, J., dissenting) (Exemption 1 is “specifically designed to allow government agencies to withhold information that might jeopardize our national security”). The Government generally may classify material even after receiving a FOIA request, see Exec. Order No. 13526, § 1.7(d), 75 Fed. Reg. 711 (2009); an agency therefore may wait until that time to decide whether the dangers of disclosure outweigh the costs of classification. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29-30. Exemption 3 also may mitigate the Government’s security concerns. That provision applies to records that any other statute exempts from disclosure, § 552(b)(3) (2006 ed., Supp. IV), thus offering Congress an established, streamlined method to authorize the withholding of specific records that FOIA would not otherwise protect. And Exemption 7, as already noted, protects “information compiled for law enforcement purposes” that meets one of six criteria, including if its release “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.” §552(b)(7)(F) (2006 ed.). The Navy argued below that the ESQD data and maps fall within Exemption 7(F), see n. 3, supra, and that claim remains open for the Ninth Circuit to address on remand.
If these or other exemptions do not cover records whose release would threaten the Nation’s vital interests, the Government may of course seek relief from Congress. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 48. All we hold today is that Congress has not enacted the FOIA exemption the Government desires. We leave to Congress, as is appropriate, the question whether it should do so.
VI
Exemption 2, consistent with the plain meaning of the term “personnel rules and practices,” encompasses only records relating to issues of employee relations and human resources. The explosives maps and data requested here do not qualify for withholding under that exemption. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The court adopted the “predominantly internal” standard as a way of implementing the exemption’s requirement that materials “relat[ej solely to” an agency’s internal personnel rules and practices. The word “solely,” the court reasoned, “has to be given the construction, consonant with reasonableness, of ‘predominantly’ ” because otherwise “solely” would conflict with the expansive term “related.” 670 F. 2d, at 1056 (some internal quotation marks omitted).
Three other Courts of Appeals had previously taken a narrower view of Exemption 2’s scope, consistent with the interpretation adopted in Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U. S. 352 (1976). See Cox v. Department of Justice, 576 F. 2d 1302, 1309-1310 (CA8 1978) (concluding that Exemption 2 covers only an agency’s internal "housekeeping matters” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Stokes v. Brennan, 476 F. 2d 699, 703 (CA5 1973) (holding that Exemption 2 “must not be read so broadly as to exempt” an Occupational Safety and Health Administration manual for training compliance officers); Hawkes v. IRS, 467 F. 2d 787, 797 (CA6 1972) (“[T]he internal practices and policies referred to in [Exemption 2] relate only to... employee-employer type concerns”). These Circuits have never revised their understandings of the exemption. See n. 7, infra.
The Navy also invoked Exemption 7(F), which applies to “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such... records... could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.” 5 U. S. C. § 552(b)(7)(F). The courts below did not decide whether the Navy could withhold the ESQD data under that exemption. 575 F. 3d 959, 971, n. 8 (CA9 2009); No. CV-06-01301 (WD Wash., Oct. 30, 2007), App. to Pet. for Cert. 4, 25, 2007 WL 3228049, *8.
Government records also must satisfy the other requirements of Exemption 2 to be exempt from disclosure. Information must “relat[e] solely” — meaning, as usual, “exclusively or only,” Random House 1354 — to the agency’s “personnel rules and practices.” And the information must be “internal”; that is, the agency must typically keep the records to itself for its own use. See Webster’s 1180 (“internal” means “existing or situated within the limits... of something”). An agency’s human resources documents will often meet these conditions.
The dissent would reject this longstanding rule of construction in favor of an approach asking courts “to turn Congress’ public information objectives into workable agency practice.” Post, at 592 (opinion of Breyer, J.). But nothing in FOIA either explicitly or implicitly grants courts discretion to expand (or contract) an exemption on this basis. In enacting FOIA, Congress struck the balance it thought right — generally favoring disclosure, subject only to a handful of specified exemptions — and did so across the length and breadth of the Federal Government. See, e. g., John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U. S. 146, 152-153 (1989). The judicial role is to enforce that congressionally determined balance rather than, as the dissent suggests, post, at 588-589, to assess case by case, department by department, and task by task whether disclosure interferes with good government.
We are perplexed that the dissent takes seriously Crooker’s notion that the Reports are “ ‘reconcilable.’ ” Post, at 588. To strip the matter to its essentials, the House Report says: “Exemption 2 means A, but not B.” The Senate Report says: “Exemption 2 means B.” That is the very definition of “irreconcilable.”
The dissent’s view that “two of th[ese] Circuits [have] not adher[ed] to their early positions” is incorrect. Post, at 586. In Abraham & Rose, P. L. C. v. United States, 138 F. 3d 1075, 1082 (1998), cited by the dissent, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Government’s claim that Exemption 2 shielded records of federal tax lien filings. The court nowhere discussed the High 2 versus Low 2 question at issue here. Its only reference to Crooker concerned the part of that decision interpreting “solely” to mean “predominantly.” See 138 F. 3d, at 1080; see also n. 1, supra. Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit once again held, in Rugiero v. Department of Justice, 257 F. 3d 534, 549 (2001), that Exemption 2 applies to “routine matters of merely internal significance.” In Sladek v. Bensinger, 605 F. 2d 899, 902 (1979),
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | E | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the authority of a court in the United States to entertain a claim brought by foreign plaintiffs against a foreign defendant based on events occurring entirely outside the United States. The litigation commenced in 2004, when twenty-two Argentinian residents 1 filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft (Daimler),2 a German public stock company, headquartered in Stuttgart, that manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany. The complaint alleged that during Argentina's 1976-1983 "Dirty War," Daimler's Argentinian subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz Argentina (MB Argentina) collaborated with state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill certain MB Argentina workers, among them, plaintiffs or persons closely related to plaintiffs. Damages for the alleged human-rights violations were sought from Daimler under the laws of the United States, California, and Argentina. Jurisdiction over the lawsuit was predicated on the California contacts of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), a subsidiary of Daimler incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey. MBUSA distributes Daimler-manufactured vehicles to independent dealerships throughout the United States, including California.
The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment precludes the District Court from exercising jurisdiction over Daimler in this case, given the absence of any California connection to the atrocities, perpetrators, or victims described in the complaint. Plaintiffs invoked the court's general or all-purpose jurisdiction. California, they urge, is a place where Daimler may be sued on any and all claims against it, wherever in the world the claims may arise. For example, as plaintiffs' counsel affirmed, under the proffered jurisdictional theory, if a Daimler-manufactured vehicle overturned in Poland, injuring a Polish driver and passenger, the injured parties could maintain a design defect suit in California. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29. Exercises of personal jurisdiction so exorbitant, we hold, are barred by due process constraints on the assertion of adjudicatory authority.
In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ----, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011), we addressed the distinction between general or all-purpose jurisdiction, and specific or conduct-linked jurisdiction. As to the former, we held that a court may assert jurisdiction over a foreign corporation "to hear any and all claims against [it]" only when the corporation's affiliations with the State in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive "as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." Id., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2851. Instructed by Goodyear, we conclude Daimler is not "at home" in California, and cannot be sued there for injuries plaintiffs attribute to MB Argentina's conduct in Argentina.
I
In 2004, plaintiffs (respondents here) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that MB Argentina collaborated with Argentinian state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill plaintiffs and their relatives during the military dictatorship in place there from 1976 through 1983, a period known as Argentina's "Dirty War." Based on those allegations, plaintiffs asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 106 Stat. 73, note following 28 U.S.C. § 1350, as well as claims for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the laws of California and Argentina. The incidents recounted in the complaint center on MB Argentina's plant in Gonzalez Catan, Argentina; no part of MB Argentina's alleged collaboration with Argentinian authorities took place in California or anywhere else in the United States.
Plaintiffs' operative complaint names only one corporate defendant: Daimler, the petitioner here. Plaintiffs seek to hold Daimler vicariously liable for MB Argentina's alleged malfeasance. Daimler is a German Aktiengesellschaft (public stock company) that manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany and has its headquarters in Stuttgart. At times relevant to this case, MB Argentina was a subsidiary wholly owned by Daimler's predecessor in interest.
Daimler moved to dismiss the action for want of personal jurisdiction. Opposing the motion, plaintiffs submitted declarations and exhibits purporting to demonstrate the presence of Daimler itself in California. Alternatively, plaintiffs maintained that jurisdiction over Daimler could be founded on the California contacts of MBUSA, a distinct corporate entity that, according to plaintiffs, should be treated as Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes.
MBUSA, an indirect subsidiary of Daimler, is a Delaware limited liability corporation.3 MBUSA serves as Daimler's exclusive importer and distributor in the United States, purchasing Mercedes-Benz automobiles from Daimler in Germany, then importing those vehicles, and ultimately distributing them to independent dealerships located throughout the Nation. Although MBUSA's principal place of business is in New Jersey, MBUSA has multiple California-based facilities, including a regional office in Costa Mesa, a Vehicle Preparation Center in Carson, and a Classic Center in Irvine. According to the record developed below, MBUSA is the largest supplier of luxury vehicles to the California market. In particular, over 10% of all sales of new vehicles in the United States take place in California, and MBUSA's California sales account for 2.4% of Daimler's worldwide sales.
The relationship between Daimler and MBUSA is delineated in a General Distributor Agreement, which sets forth requirements for MBUSA's distribution of Mercedes-Benz vehicles in the United States. That agreement established MBUSA as an "independent contracto[r]" that "buy[s] and sell[s] [vehicles]... as an independent business for [its] own account." App. 179a. The agreement "does not make [MBUSA]... a general or special agent, partner, joint venturer or employee of DAIMLERCHRYSLER or any DaimlerChrysler Group Company"; MBUSA "ha[s] no authority to make binding obligations for or act on behalf of DAIMLERCHRYSLER or any DaimlerChrysler Group Company." Ibid.
After allowing jurisdictional discovery on plaintiffs' agency allegations, the District Court granted Daimler's motion to dismiss. Daimler's own affiliations with California, the court first determined, were insufficient to support the exercise of all-purpose jurisdiction over the corporation. Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler AG, No. C-04-00194 RMW (N.D.Cal., Nov. 22, 2005), App. to Pet. for Cert. 111a-112a, 2005 WL 3157472, *9-*10. Next, the court declined to attribute MBUSA's California contacts to Daimler on an agency theory, concluding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent. Id., at 117a, 133a, 2005 WL 3157472, *12, *19;
Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler AG, No. C-04-00194 RMW (N.D.Cal., Feb. 12, 2007), App. to Pet. for Cert. 83a-85a, 2007 WL 486389, *2.
The Ninth Circuit at first affirmed the District Court's judgment. Addressing solely the question of agency, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs had not shown the existence of an agency relationship of the kind that might warrant attribution of MBUSA's contacts to Daimler. Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 579 F.3d 1088, 1096-1097 (2009). Judge Reinhardt dissented. In his view, the agency test was satisfied and considerations of "reasonableness" did not bar the exercise of jurisdiction. Id., at 1098-1106. Granting plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, the panel withdrew its initial opinion and replaced it with one authored by Judge Reinhardt, which elaborated on reasoning he initially expressed in dissent. Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909 (C.A.9 2011).
Daimler petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc, urging that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Daimler could not be reconciled with this Court's decision in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ----, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). Over the dissent of eight judges, the Ninth Circuit denied Daimler's petition. See Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 676 F.3d 774 (2011) (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
We granted certiorari to decide whether, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Daimler is amenable to suit in California courts for claims involving only foreign plaintiffs and conduct occurring entirely abroad. 569 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1995, 185 L.Ed.2d 865 (2013).
II
Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(k)(1)(A) (service of process is effective to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant "who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located"). Under California's long-arm statute, California state courts may exercise personal jurisdiction "on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 410.10 (West 2004). California's long-arm statute allows the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the full extent permissible under the U.S. Constitution. We therefore inquire whether the Ninth Circuit's holding comports with the limits imposed by federal due process. See, e.g., Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 464, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985).
III
In Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878), decided shortly after the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court held that a tribunal's jurisdiction over persons reaches no farther than the geographic bounds of the forum. See id., at 720 ("The authority of every tribunal is necessarily restricted by the territorial limits of the State in which it is established."). See also Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 197, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) (Under Pennoyer, "any attempt 'directly' to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over persons or property would offend sister States and exceed the inherent limits of the State's power."). In time, however, that strict territorial approach yielded to a less rigid understanding, spurred by "changes in the technology of transportation and communication, and the tremendous growth of interstate business activity."
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 617, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990) (opinion of SCALIA, J.).
"The canonical opinion in this area remains International Shoe [ Co. v. Washington ], 326 U.S. 310 [66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) ], in which we held that a State may authorize its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if the defendant has 'certain minimum contacts with [the State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."'" Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2853 (quoting International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154). Following International Shoe, "the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, rather than the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the States on which the rules of Pennoyer rest, became the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction." Shaffer, 433 U.S., at 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569.
International Shoe's conception of "fair play and substantial justice" presaged the development of two categories of personal jurisdiction. The first category is represented by International Shoe itself, a case in which the in-state activities of the corporate defendant "ha[d] not only been continuous and systematic, but also g[a]ve rise to the liabilities sued on." 326 U.S., at 317, 66 S.Ct. 154.4International Shoe recognized, as well, that "the commission of some single or occasional acts of the corporate agent in a state" may sometimes be enough to subject the corporation to jurisdiction in that State's tribunals with respect to suits relating to that in-state activity. Id., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154. Adjudicatory authority of this order, in which the suit "aris[es] out of or relate[s] to the defendant's contacts with the forum," Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984), is today called "specific jurisdiction." See Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2853 (citing von Mehren & Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis, 79 Harv. L.Rev. 1121, 1144-1163 (1966) (hereinafter von Mehren & Trautman)).
International Shoe distinguished between, on the one hand, exercises of specific jurisdiction, as just described, and on the other, situations where a foreign corporation's "continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities." 326 U.S., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154. As we have since explained, "[a] court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State." Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2851; see id., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2853-2854;Helicopteros, 466 U.S., at 414, n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 1868.5
Since International Shoe, "specific jurisdiction has become the centerpiece of modern jurisdiction theory, while general jurisdiction [has played] a reduced role." Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2854 (quoting Twitchell, The Myth of General Jurisdiction, 101 Harv. L.Rev. 610, 628 (1988)). International Shoe's momentous departure from Pennoyer's rigidly territorial focus, we have noted, unleashed a rapid expansion of tribunals' ability to hear claims against out-of-state defendants when the episode-in-suit occurred in the forum or the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum.6 Our subsequent decisions have continued to bear out the prediction that "specific jurisdiction will come into sharper relief and form a considerably more significant part of the scene." von Mehren & Trautman 1164.7
Our post-International Shoe opinions on general jurisdiction, by comparison, are few. "[The Court's] 1952 decision in Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co. remains the textbook case of general jurisdiction appropriately exercised over a foreign corporation that has not consented to suit in the forum." Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2856 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The defendant in Perkins, Benguet, was a company incorporated under the laws of the Philippines, where it operated gold and silver mines. Benguet ceased its mining operations during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II; its president moved to Ohio, where he kept an office, maintained the company's files, and oversaw the company's activities. Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 448, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952). The plaintiff, an Ohio resident, sued Benguet on a claim that neither arose in Ohio nor related to the corporation's activities in that State. We held that the Ohio courts could exercise general jurisdiction over Benguet without offending due process. Ibid. That was so, we later noted, because "Ohio was the corporation's principal, if temporary, place of business." Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 780, n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984).8
The next case on point, Helicopteros, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404, arose from a helicopter crash in Peru. Four U.S. citizens perished in that accident; their survivors and representatives brought suit in Texas state court against the helicopter's owner and operator, a Colombian corporation. That company's contacts with Texas were confined to "sending its chief executive officer to Houston for a contract-negotiation session; accepting into its New York bank account checks drawn on a Houston bank; purchasing helicopters, equipment, and training services from [a Texas-based helicopter company] for substantial sums; and sending personnel to [Texas] for training." Id., at 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868. Notably, those contacts bore no apparent relationship to the accident that gave rise to the suit. We held that the company's Texas connections did not resemble the "continuous and systematic general business contacts... found to exist in Perkins." Ibid. "[M]ere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals," we clarified, "are not enough to warrant a State's assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions." Id., at 418, 104 S.Ct. 1868.
Most recently, in Goodyear, we answered the question: "Are foreign subsidiaries of a United States parent corporation amenable to suit in state court on claims unrelated to any activity of the subsidiaries in the forum State? " 564 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2850. That case arose from a bus accident outside Paris that killed two boys from North Carolina. The boys' parents brought a wrongful-death suit in North Carolina state court alleging that the bus's tire was defectively manufactured. The complaint named as defendants not only The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear), an Ohio corporation, but also Goodyear's Turkish, French, and Luxembourgian subsidiaries. Those foreign subsidiaries, which manufactured tires for sale in Europe and Asia, lacked any affiliation with North Carolina. A small percentage of tires manufactured by the foreign subsidiaries were distributed in North Carolina, however, and on that ground, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held the subsidiaries amenable to the general jurisdiction of North Carolina courts.
We reversed, observing that the North Carolina court's analysis "elided the essential difference between case-specific and all-purpose (general) jurisdiction." Id., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2855. Although the placement of a product into the stream of commerce "may bolster an affiliation germane to specific jurisdiction," we explained, such contacts "do not warrant a determination that, based on those ties, the forum has general jurisdiction over a defendant." Id., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2857.As International Shoe itself teaches, a corporation's "continuous activity of some sorts within a state is not enough to support the demand that the corporation be amenable to suits unrelated to that activity." 326 U.S., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154. Because Goodyear's foreign subsidiaries were "in no sense at home in North Carolina," we held, those subsidiaries could not be required to submit to the general jurisdiction of that State's courts. 564 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2857. See also J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 2797-2798, 180 L.Ed.2d 765 (2011) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (noting unanimous agreement that a foreign manufacturer, which engaged an independent U.S.-based distributor to sell its machines throughout the United States, could not be exposed to all-purpose jurisdiction in New Jersey courts based on those contacts).
As is evident from Perkins, Helicopteros, and Goodyear, general and specific jurisdiction have followed markedly different trajectories post-International Shoe. Specific jurisdiction has been cut loose from Pennoyer's sway, but we have declined to stretch general jurisdiction beyond limits traditionally recognized.9 As this Court has increasingly trained on the "relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation," Shaffer, 433 U.S., at 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569,i.e., specific jurisdiction,10 general jurisdiction has come to occupy a less dominant place in the contemporary scheme.11
IV
With this background, we turn directly to the question whether Daimler's affiliations with California are sufficient to subject it to the general (all-purpose) personal jurisdiction of that State's courts. In the proceedings below, the parties agreed on, or failed to contest, certain points we now take as given. Plaintiffs have never attempted to fit this case into the specific jurisdiction category. Nor did plaintiffs challenge on appeal the District Court's holding that Daimler's own contacts with California were, by themselves, too sporadic to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction. While plaintiffs ultimately persuaded the Ninth Circuit to impute MBUSA's California contacts to Daimler on an agency theory, at no point have they maintained that MBUSA is an alter ego of Daimler.
Daimler, on the other hand, failed to object below to plaintiffs' assertion that the California courts could exercise all-purpose jurisdiction over MBUSA. 12 But see Brief for Petitioner 23, n. 4 (suggestion that in light of Goodyear, MBUSA may not be amenable to general jurisdiction in California); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16, n. 5 (hereinafter U.S. Brief) (same). We will assume then, for purposes of this decision only, that MBUSA qualifies as at home in California.
A
In sustaining the exercise of general jurisdiction over Daimler, the Ninth Circuit relied on an agency theory, determining that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes and then attributing MBUSA's California contacts to Daimler. The Ninth Circuit's agency analysis derived from Circuit precedent considering principally whether the subsidiary "performs services that are sufficiently important to the foreign corporation that if it did not have a representative to perform them, the corporation's own officials would undertake to perform substantially similar services." 644 F.3d, at 920 (quoting Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 928 (C.A.9 2001); emphasis deleted).
This Court has not yet addressed whether a foreign corporation may be subjected to a court's general jurisdiction based on the contacts of its in-state subsidiary. Daimler argues, and several Courts of Appeals have held, that a subsidiary's jurisdictional contacts can be imputed to its parent only when the former is so dominated by the latter as to be its alter ego. The Ninth Circuit adopted a less rigorous test based on what it described as an "agency" relationship. Agencies, we note, come in many sizes and shapes: "One may be an agent for some business purposes and not others so that the fact that one may be an agent for one purpose does not make him or her an agent for every purpose." 2A C. J. S., Agency § 43, p. 367 (2013) (footnote omitted). 13 A subsidiary, for example, might be its parent's agent for claims arising in the place where the subsidiary operates, yet not its agent regarding claims arising elsewhere. The Court of Appeals did not advert to that prospect. But we need not pass judgment on invocation of an agency theory in the context of general jurisdiction, for in no event can the appeals court's analysis be sustained.
The Ninth Circuit's agency finding rested primarily on its observation that MBUSA's services were "important" to Daimler, as gauged by Daimler's hypothetical readiness to perform those services itself if MBUSA did not exist. Formulated this way, the inquiry into importance stacks the deck, for it will always yield a pro-jurisdiction answer: "Anything a corporation does through an independent contractor, subsidiary, or distributor is presumably something that the corporation would do 'by other means' if the independent contractor, subsidiary, or distributor did not exist." 676 F.3d, at 777 (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).14 The Ninth Circuit's agency theory thus appears to subject foreign corporations to general jurisdiction whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate, an outcome that would sweep beyond even the "sprawling view of general jurisdiction" we rejected in Goodyear. 564 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2856.15
B
Even if we were to assume that MBUSA is at home in California, and further to assume MBUSA's contacts are imputable to Daimler, there would still be no basis to subject Daimler to general jurisdiction in California, for Daimler's slim contacts with the State hardly render it at home there. 16
Goodyear made clear that only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there. "For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home." 564 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2853-2854 (citing Brilmayer et al., A General Look at General Jurisdiction, 66 Texas L.Rev. 721, 728 (1988)). With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are "paradig[m]... bases for general jurisdiction." Id., at 735. See also Twitchell, 101 Harv. L.Rev., at 633. Those affiliations have the virtue of being unique-that is, each ordinarily indicates only one place-as well as easily ascertainable. Cf. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010) ("Simple jurisdictional rules... promote greater predictability."). These bases afford plaintiffs recourse to at least one clear and certain forum in which a corporate defendant may be sued on any and all claims.
Goodyear did not hold that a corporation may be subject to general jurisdiction only in a forum where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business; it simply typed those places paradigm all-purpose forums. Plaintiffs would have us look beyond the exemplar bases Goodyear identified, and approve the exercise of general jurisdiction in every State in which a corporation "engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business." Brief for Respondents 16-17, and nn. 7-8. That formulation, we hold, is unacceptably grasping.
As noted, see supra, at 753 - 754, the words "continuous and systematic" were used in International Shoe to describe instances in which the exercise of specific jurisdiction would be appropriate. See 326 U.S., at 317, 66 S.Ct. 154 (jurisdiction can be asserted where a corporation's in-state activities are not only "continuous and systematic, but also give rise to the liabilities sued on").17 Turning to all-purpose jurisdiction, in contrast, International Shoe speaks of "instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit... on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities." Id., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154 (emphasis added). See also Twitchell, Why We Keep Doing Business With Doing-Business Jurisdiction, 2001 U. Chi. Legal Forum 171, 184 ( International Shoe "is clearly not saying that dispute-blind jurisdiction exists whenever 'continuous and systematic' contacts are found.").18 Accordingly, the inquiry under Goodyear is not whether a foreign corporation's in-forum contacts can be said to be in some sense "continuous and systematic," it is whether that corporation's "affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." 564 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2851.19
Here, neither Daimler nor MBUSA is incorporated in California, nor does either entity have its principal place of business there. If Daimler's California activities sufficed to allow adjudication of this Argentina-rooted case in California, the same global reach would presumably be available in every other State in which MBUSA's sales are sizable. Such exorbitant exercises of all-purpose jurisdiction would scarcely permit out-of-state defendants "to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit." Burger King Corp., 471 U.S., at 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (internal quotation marks omitted).
It was therefore error for the Ninth Circuit to conclude that Daimler, even with MBUSA's contacts attributed to it, was at home in California, and hence subject to suit there on claims by foreign plaintiffs having nothing to do with anything that occurred or had its principal impact in California. 20
C
Finally, the transnational context of this dispute bears attention. The Court of Appeals emphasized, as supportive of the exercise of general jurisdiction, plaintiffs' assertion of claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 106 Stat. 73, note following 28 U.S.C. § 1350. See 644 F.3d, at 927 ("American federal courts, be they in California or any other state, have a strong interest in adjudicating and redressing international human rights abuses."). Recent decisions of this Court, however, have rendered plaintiffs' ATS and TVPA claims infirm. See Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1669, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013) (presumption against extraterritorial application controls claims under the ATS); Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 1702, 1705, 182 L.Ed.2d 720 (2012) (only natural persons are subject to liability under the TVPA).
The Ninth Circuit, moreover, paid little heed to the risks to international comity its expansive view of general jurisdiction posed. Other nations do not share the uninhibited approach to personal jurisdiction advanced by the Court of Appeals in this case. In the European Union, for example, a corporation may generally be sued in the nation in which it is "domiciled," a term defined to refer only to the location of the corporation's "statutory seat," "central administration," or "principal place of business." European Parliament and Council Reg. 1215/2012, Arts. 4(1), and 63(1), 2012 O.J. (L. 351) 7, 18. See also id., Art. 7(5), 2012 O.J. 7 (as to "a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment," a corporation may be sued "in the courts for the place where the branch, agency or other establishment is situated" (emphasis added)). The Solicitor General informs us, in this regard, that "foreign governments' objections to some domestic courts' expansive views of general jurisdiction have in the past impeded negotiations of international agreements on the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments." U.S. Brief 2 (citing Juenger, The American Law of General Jurisdiction, 2001 U. Chi. Legal Forum 141, 161-162). See also U.S. Brief 2 (expressing concern that unpredictable applications of general jurisdiction based on activities of U.S.-based subsidiaries could discourage foreign investors); Brief for Respondents 35 (acknowledging that "doing business" basis for general jurisdiction has led to "international friction"). Considerations of international rapport thus reinforce our determination that subjecting Daimler to the general jurisdiction of courts in California would not accord with the "fair play and substantial justice" due process demands. International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)).
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is
Reversed.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court's conclusion that the Due Process Clause prohibits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Daimler in light of the unique circumstances of this case. I concur only in the judgment, however, because I cannot agree with the path the Court takes to arrive at that result.
The Court acknowledges that Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), Daimler's wholly owned subsidiary, has considerable contacts with California. It has multiple facilities in the State, including a regional headquarters. Each year, it distributes in California tens of thousands of cars, the sale of which generated billions of dollars in the year this suit was brought. And it provides service and sales support to customers throughout the State. Daimler has conceded that California courts may exercise general jurisdiction over MBUSA on the basis of these contacts, and the Court assumes that MBUSA's contacts may be attributed to Daimler for the purpose of deciding whether Daimler is also subject to general jurisdiction.
Are these contacts sufficient to permit the exercise of general jurisdiction over Daimler? The Court holds that they are not, for a reason wholly foreign to our due process jurisprudence. The problem, the Court says, is not that Daimler's contacts with California are too few, but that its contacts with other forums are too many. In other words, the Court does not dispute that the presence of multiple offices, the direct distribution of thousands of products accounting for billions of dollars in sales, and continuous interaction with customers throughout a State would be enough to support the exercise of general jurisdiction over some businesses. Daimler is just not one of those businesses, the Court concludes, because its California contacts must be viewed in the context of its extensive "nationwide and worldwide" operations. Ante,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Connecticut requires out-of-state shippers of beer to affirm that their posted prices for products sold to Connecticut wholesalers are, as of the moment of posting, no higher than the prices at which those products are sold in the bordering States of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island. In these appeals, we are called upon to decide whether Connecticut’s beer-price-affirmation statute violates the Commerce Clause.
I
Although appellees challenge Connecticut’s beer-price-affirmation statute as amended in 1984, this litigation has its roots in the 1981 version of Connecticut’s price-affirmation scheme. Having determined that the domestic retail price of beer was consistently higher than the price of beer in the three bordering States, and with the knowledge that, as a result, Connecticut residents living in border areas frequently crossed state lines to purchase beer at lower prices, Connecticut enacted a price-affirmation statute tying Connecticut beer prices to the prices charged in the border States. See United States Brewers Assn., Inc. v. Healy, 532 F. Supp. 1312, 1314, 1316-1317 (Conn. 1982). In an effort to eliminate the price differential between Connecticut and the border States, Connecticut required that brewers and importers (out-of-state shippers) post bottle, can, and case prices for each brand of beer to be sold in Connecticut. Id., at 1317. These posted prices would take effect on the first day of the following month and would continue without change for the rest of that month. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 30 — 63(c) (1975 and Supp. 1982). The 1981 statute further required that out-of-state shippers affirm under oath at the time of posting that their posted prices were and would remain no higher than the lowest prices they would charge for each beer product in the border States during the effective period. §30-63b(b), quoted in 532 F. Supp., at 1314, n. 3. Moreover, in calculating the lowest price offered in the border States, the statute deducted from the reported price the value of any rebates, discounts, special promotions, or other inducements that the out-of-state shippers offered in one or more of the border States. §30-63c(b), quoted in 532 F. Supp., at 1314, n. 4. To the extent that such inducements lowered border-state prices, the statute thus obligated out-of-state shippers to lower their Connecticut prices as well.
In 1982, a brewers’ trade association and various beer producers and importers (a subset of the appellees in the instant litigation) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, challenging the 1981 statute as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. The District Court, relying primarily on this Court’s decision in Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, 384 U. S. 35 (1966), upheld the 1981 law. United States Brewers Assn., Inc. v. Healy, 532 F. Supp., at 1325-1326. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed. It held that the 1981 Connecticut statute was facially invalid under the Commerce Clause because it had the practical effect of prohibiting out-of-state shippers from selling beer in any neighboring State in a given month at a price below what it had posted in Connecticut at the start of that month. The court explained: “Nothing in the Twenty-first Amendment permits Connecticut to set the minimum prices for the sale of beer in any other state, and well-established Commerce Clause principles prohibit the state from controlling the prices set for sales occurring wholly outside its territory.” United States Brewers Assn., Inc. v. Healy, 692 F. 2d 275, 282 (CA2 1982) (Healy I). This Court summarily affirmed. 464 U. S. 909 (1983).
In 1984, the Connecticut Legislature responded to Healy I by amending its beer-price-affirmation statute to its current form. The statute now requires out-of-state shippers to affirm that their posted prices are no higher than prices in the border States only at the time of the Connecticut posting. Conn. Gen. Stat. §30-63b(b) (1989). The legislature also added §30-63b(e), which provides that nothing in §30-63b prohibits out-of-state shippers from changing their out-of-state prices after the affirmed Connecticut price is posted. The legislature, however, did not amend § 30-63a(b), which continued to make it unlawful for out-of-state shippers to sell beer in Connecticut at a price higher than the price at which beer is or would be sold in any bordering State during the month covered by the posting.
In the wake of the 1984 amendments, appellees (a brewers’ trade association and major producers and importers of beer) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and claiming that the effect of the amended law was not different from that of the law struck down in Healy I See United States Brewers Assn. v. Healy, 669 F. Supp. 543, 544-545 (1987). In response to appellees’ complaint, Connecticut filed a “Declaratory Ruling” by the Department of Liquor Control, interpreting the statute as amended as requiring out-of-state shippers to affirm that their posted prices in Connecticut were no higher than their lowest prices in any border State only at the time of posting — the sixth day of each month. Id., at 547, and n. 9. After the moment of posting, the ruling stated, the statute imposes no restrictions on the right of out-of-state shippers to raise or lower their border-state prices at will. Ibid.
Appellees argued, however, that the Connecticut beer-affirmation statute, even as modified by the declaratory ruling, regulated out-of-state transactions, constituted economic protectionism, and unduly burdened interstate commerce, all in violation of the Commerce Clause. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court upheld the statute as modified by the legislature and construed in the Department of Liquor Control’s declaratory ruling, resting its decision on Seagram, supra, and distinguishing this Court’s subsequent decision in Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U. S. 573 (1986), which struck down a statute analogous to Connecticut’s 1981 beer-affirmation statute. The District Court found the 1984 Connecticut law constitutional on its face because, “unlike the version in Healy I and Brown-Forman,” the 1984 law “leaves brewers free to raise or lower prices in the border states before and after posting in Connecticut and does not, therefore, regulate interstate commerce.” 669 F. Supp., at 553.
As in Healy I, the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the 1984 law (even as interpreted by the declaratory ruling), like its predecessor, violated the Commerce Clause by controlling the prices at which out-of-state shippers could sell beer in other States. First, and foremost, the court held that the Connecticut statute’s “purposeful interaction with border-state regulatory schemes” means that shippers cannot, as a practical matter, set prices based on market conditions in a border State without factoring in the effects of those prices on its future Connecticut pricing options. In re Beer Institute, 849 F. 2d 753, 760-761 (CA2 1988) (Healy II). Second, the Court of Appeals found that the 1984 statute unconstitutionally restricted the ability of out-of-state shippers to offer volume discounts in the border States. Id., at 760. Furthermore, relying on Brown-Forman, supra, the court rejected appellants’ argument that the statute was a proper exercise of its regulatory authority under the Twenty-first Amendment. 849 F. 2d, at 761.
We noted probable jurisdiction. 488 U. S. 954 (1988).
II
In deciding this appeal, we engage in our fourth expedition into the area of price-affirmation statutes. The Court first explored this territory in Seagram, where it upheld against numerous constitutional challenges a New York statute that required liquor-label owners or their agents to affirm that “ ‘the bottle and case price of liquor... is no higher than the lowest price’ ” at which such liquor was sold “anywhere in the United States during the preceding month.” 384 U. S., at 39-40, quoting the New York law. The Court ruled that the mere fact that the New York statute was geared to appellants’ pricing policies in other States did not violate the Commerce Clause, because under the Twenty-first Amendment’s broad grant of liquor regulatory authority to the States, New York could insist that liquor prices offered to domestic wholesalers and retailers “be as low as prices offered elsewhere in the country.” Id., at 43. Although the appellant brand owners in Seagram had alleged that the New York law created serious discriminatory effects on their business outside New York, the Court considered these injuries too conjectural to support a facial challenge to the statute and suggested that the purported extraterritorial effects could be assessed in a case where they were clearly presented. Ibid.
Eighteen years after Seagram, we summarily affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment in Healy I, and then, another two years later, granted plenary review in Brown-Forman, supra. The New York law at issue in Brown-Forman required every liquor distiller or producer selling to wholesalers within the State to affirm that the prices charged for every bottle or case of liquor were no higher than the lowest price at which the same product would be sold in any other State during the month covered by the particular affirmation. 476 U. S., at 576. Appellant Brown-Forman was a liquor distiller that offered “promotional allowances” to wholesalers purchasing Brown-Forman products. The New York Liquor Authority, however, did not allow Brown-Forman to operate its rebate scheme in New York and, moreover, determined for the purposes of the affirmation law that the promotional allowances lowered the effective price charged to wholesalers outside New York. Because other States with affirmation laws similar to New York’s did not deem the promotional allowances to lower the price charged to wholesalers, appellant argued that the New York law offered the company the Hob-son’s choice of lowering its New York prices, thereby violating the affirmation laws of other States, or of discontinuing the promotional allowances altogether. This, appellant alleged, amounted to extraterritorial regulation of interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. Id., at 579-582.
This Court agreed, reaffirming and elaborating on our established view that a state law that has the “practical effect” of regulating commerce occurring wholly outside that State’s borders is invalid under the Commerce Clause. We began by reviewing past decisions, starting with Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S. 511 (1935). The Court in Seelig struck down a New York statute that set minimum prices for milk purchased from producers in New York and other States and banned the resale within New York of milk that had been purchased for a lower price. Because Vermont dairy farmers produced milk at a lower cost than New York dairy farmers, the effect of the statute was to eliminate the competitive economic advantage they enjoyed by equalizing the price of milk from all sources. Writing for the Court, Justice Cardozo pronounced that the Commerce Clause does not permit a State “to establish a wage scale or a scale of prices for use in other states, and to bar the sale of the products... unless the scale has been observed.” Id., at 528. Relying on Seelig, the Court in Brown-Forman concluded: “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.” 476 U. S., at 580; see also Schwegmann Brothers Giant Super Markets v. Louisiana Milk Comm’n, 365 F. Supp. 1144, 1152-1156 (MD La. 1973), summarily aff’d, 416 U. S. 922 (1974). After drawing upon Seelig, the Brown-Forman Court also discussed Healy I with approval. There, as we have noted, the Court of Appeals struck down an earlier version of Connecticut’s price-affirmation statute, which was essentially identical to the one at issue in Brown-Forman, because the 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.” 476 U. S., at 581-582.
Applying these principles, we concluded that the New York statute had an impermissible extraterritorial effect: “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.” Id., at 582 (footnote omitted). Although New York might regulate the sale of liquor within its borders, and might seek low prices for its residents, it was prohibited by the Commerce Clause from “ ‘projecting] its legislation into [other States] by regulating the price to be paid’” for liquor in those States. Id., at 583, quoting Seelig, 294 U. S., at 521. Despite the language in Seagram, the Court did not find the prospect of these extraterritorial effects to be speculative. The maj ority rej ected as “Pollyannaish” the dissent’s suggestion that flexible application by the relevant administrative bodies would obviate the problem and noted that the proliferation of affirmation laws after Seagram had greatly multiplied the likelihood that distillers would be subject to blatantly inconsistent obligations.
The Court squarely rejected New York’s argument that the Twenty-first Amendment, which bans the importation or possession of intoxicating liquors into a State “in violation of the laws thereof,” saved the statute from invalidation under the Commerce Clause. Although the Court acknowledged that the Amendment vested in New York considerable au-tenance of a national economic union unfettered by state-imposed limitations on interstate commerce and with the autonomy of the individual States within their respective spheres. Taken together, our cases concerning the extraterritorial effects of state economic regulation stand at a minimum for the following propositions: First, the “Commerce Clause... precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State’s borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State,” Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U. S. 624, 642-643 (1982) (plurality opinion); see also Brown-Forman, 476 U. S., at 581-583; and, specifically, a State may not adopt legislation that has the practical effect of establishing “a scale of prices for use in other states,” Seelig, 294 U. S., at 528. Second, a statute that directly controls commerce occurring wholly outside the boundaries of a State exceeds the inherent limits of the enacting State’s authority and is invalid regardless of whether the statute’s extraterritorial reach was intended by the legislature. The critical inquiry is whether the practical effect of the regulation is to control conduct beyond the boundaries of the State. Brown-Forman, 476 U. S., at 579. Third, the practical effect of the statute must be evaluated not only by considering the consequences of the statute itself, but also by considering how the challenged statute may interact with the legitimate regulatory regimes of other States and what effect would arise if not one, but many or every, State adopted similar legislation. Generally speaking, the Commerce Clause protects against inconsistent legislation arising from the projection of one state regulatory regime into the jurisdiction of another State. Cf. CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U. S. 69, 88-89 (1987). And, specifically, the Commerce Clause dictates that no State may force an out-of-state merchant to seek regulatory approval in one State before undertaking a transaction in another. Brown-Forman, 476 U. S., at 682. thority to regulate the domestic sale of alcohol, the Amendment did not immunize the State from the Commerce Clause’s proscription of state statutes that regulate the sale of alcohol in other States. 476 U. S., at 585. Accordingly, the Court’s conclusion that the New York law regulated out-of-state sales conclusively resolved the Twenty-first Amendment issue against New York. Ibid.
The Court acknowledged that its Brown-Forman decision was in considerable tension with Seagram. The statutes at issue in the two cases were, it observed, factually distinguishable: the Seagram statute was retrospective, tying New York prices to out-of-state prices charged during the previous month, while the Brown-Forman statute was prospective, mandating that New York prices could be no higher than out-of-state prices for the following month. But the Court explicitly refused to give this retrospective/prospective distinction any constitutional significance, and even suggested that the effects of the two statutes might well be the same for the purposes of constitutional analysis. Nonetheless, since the Court was not squarely presented with a retrospective statute, it declined to evaluate Seagram’s continued validity. 476 U. S., at 584, n. 6.
III
In light of this history, we now must assess the constitutionality of the Connecticut statute, which is neither prospective nor retrospective, but rather “contemporaneous.” As explained above, the statute requires only that out-of-state shippers affirm that their prices are no higher than the prices being charged in the border States as of the moment of affirmation.
The principles guiding this assessment, principles made clear in Brown-Forman and in the cases upon which it relied, reflect the Constitution’s special concern both with the main-
When these principles are applied to Connecticut’s contemporaneous price-affirmation statute, the result is clear. The Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the Connecticut statute has the undeniable effect of controlling commercial activity occurring wholly outside the boundary of the State. Moreover, the practical effect of this affirmation law, in conjunction with the many other beer-pricing and affirmation laws that have been or might be enacted throughout the country, is to create just the kind of competing and interlocking local economic regulation that the Commerce Clause was meant to preclude.
First, as explained by the Court of Appeals, the interaction of the Connecticut affirmation statute with the Massachusetts beer-pricing statute (which does not link domestic prices with out-of-state prices) has the practical effect of controlling Massachusetts prices. See 849 F. 2d, at 759. Massachusetts requires brewers to post their prices on the first day of the month to become effective on the first day of the following month. See Mass. Gen. Laws § 138:25B (1986). Five days later, however, those same brewers, in order to sell beer in Connecticut, must affirm that their Connecticut prices for the following month will be no higher than the lowest price that they are charging in any border State. Accordingly, on January 1, when a brewer posts his February prices for Massachusetts, that brewer must take account of the price he hopes to charge in Connecticut during the month of March. Not only will the January posting in Massachusetts establish a ceiling price for the brewer’s March prices in Connecticut, but also, under the requirements of the Massachusetts law, the brewer will be locked into his Massachusetts price for the entire month of February (absent administrative leave) even though the Connecticut posting will have occurred on February 6. Thus, as a practical matter, Connecticut’s nominally “contemporaneous” affirmation statute “prospectively” precludes the alteration of out-of-state prices after the moment of affirmation. More generally, the end result of the Connecticut statute’s incorporation of out-of-state prices, as the Court of Appeals concluded, is that “[a] brewer can... undertake competitive pricing based on the market realities of either Massachusetts or Connecticut, but not both, because the Connecticut statute ties pricing to the regulatory schemes of the border states.” 849 F. 2d, at 759. In other words, the Connecticut statute has the extraterritorial effect, condemned in Brown-Forman, of preventing brewers from undertaking competitive pricing in Massachusetts based on prevailing market conditions.
Second, because New York law requires that promotional discounts remain in effect for 180 days, see N. Y. Aleo. Bev. Cont. Law §55-b(2) (McKinney 1987), and the Connecticut statute treats promotional discounts as a reduction in price, the interaction of the New York and Connecticut laws is such that brewers may offer promotional discounts in New York only at the cost of locking in their discounted New York price as the ceiling for their Connecticut prices for the full 180 days of the New York promotional discount.
Third, because volume discounts are permitted in Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, but not in Connecticut, the effect of Connecticut’s affirmation scheme is to deter volume discounts in each of these other States, because the lowest of the volume-discounted prices would have to be offered as the regular price for an entire month in Connecticut. See 849 F. 2d, at 760.
With respect to both promotional and volume discounts, then, the effect of the Connecticut statute is essentially indistinguishable from the extraterritorial effect found unconstitutional in Broivn-Forman. The Connecticut statute, like the New York law struck down in Broivn-Forman, requires out-of-state shippers to forgo the implementation of competitive-pricing schemes in out-of-state markets because those pricing decisions are imported by statute into the Connecticut market regardless of local competitive conditions. As we specifically reaffirmed in Brown-Forman, States may not deprive businesses and consumers in other States of “whatever competitive advantages they may possess” based on the conditions of the local market. 476 U. S., at 580. The Connecticut statute does precisely this.
The Commerce Clause problem with the Connecticut statute appears in even starker relief when it is recalled that if Connecticut may enact a contemporaneous affirmation statute, so may each of the border States and, indeed, so may every other State in the Nation. Suppose, for example, that the border States each enacted statutes essentially identical to Connecticut’s. Under those circumstances, in January, when a brewer posts his February prices in Connecticut and the border States, he must determine those prices knowing that the lowest bottle, can, or case price in any State would become the maximum bottle, can, or case price the brewer would be permitted to charge throughout the region for the month of March. This is true because in February, when the brewer posts his March prices in each State, he will have to affirm that no bottle, can, or case price is higher than the lowest bottle, can, or case price in the region — and these “current” prices would have been determined by the January. posting. Put differently, unless a beer supplier declined to sell in one of the States for an entire month, the maximum price in each State would be capped by previous prices in the other State. This maximum price would almost surely be the minimum price as well, since any reduction in either State would permanently lower the ceiling in both. Nor would such “price gridlock” be limited to individual regions. The short-circuiting of normal pricing decisions based on local conditions would be carried to a national scale if a significant group of States enacted contemporaneous affirmation statutes that linked in-state prices to the lowest price in any State in the country. This kind of potential regional and even national regulation of the pricing mechanism for goods is reserved by the Commerce Clause to the Federal Government and may not be accomplished piecemeal through the extraterritorial reach of individual state statutes.
IV
The Connecticut statute, moreover, violates the Com--merce Clause in a second respect: On its face, the statute discriminates against brewers and shippers of beer engaged in interstate commerce. In its previous decisions, this Court has followed a consistent practice of striking down state statutes that clearly discriminate against interstate commerce, see, e. g., New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, 486 U. S. 269 (1988); Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U. S. 941 (1982); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U. S. 27 (1980), unless that discrimination is demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism, see, e. g., Maine v. Taylor, 477 U. S. 131 (1986). By its plain terms, the Connecticut affirmation statute applies solely to interstate brewers or shippers of beer, that is, either Connecticut brewers who sell both in Connecticut and in at least one border State or out-of-state shippers who sell both in Connecticut and in at least one border State. Under the statute, a manufacturer or shipper of beer is free to charge wholesalers within Connecticut whatever price it might choose so long as that manufacturer or shipper does not sell its beer in a border State. This discriminatory treatment establishes a substantial disincentive for companies doing business in Connecticut to engage in interstate commerce, essentially penalizing Connecticut brewers if they seek border-state markets and out-of-state shippers if they choose to sell both in Connecticut and in a border State. We perceive no neutral justification for this patent discrimination. Connecticut has claimed throughout this litigation that its price-affirmation laws are designed to ensure the lowest possible prices for Connecticut consumers. While this may be a legitimate justification for the statute, it is not advanced by, in effect, exempting brewers and shippers engaging in solely domestic sales from the price regulations imposed on brewers and shippers who engage in sales throughout the region.
V
A
Appellants advance two basic arguments in defense of Connecticut’s statute: first, that the Twenty-first Amendment sanctions Connecticut’s affirmation statute regardless of its effect on interstate commerce; and, second, that the statute is constitutional under this Court’s analysis in Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, 384 U. S. 35 (1966), in which the Court stated that a retrospective affirmation statute does not violate the Commerce Clause merely because it is geared to prices in other States. Appellants’ reliance on the Twenty-first Amendment is foreclosed by Brown-Forman, where we explicitly rejected an identical argument. In Brown-Forman, the Court specifically held that the Twenty-first Amendment does not immunize state laws from invalidation under the Commerce Clause when those laws have the practical effect of regulating liquor sales in other States. 476 U. S., at 585. Here, as in Brown-Forman, our finding of unconstitutional extraterritorial effects disposes of the Twenty-first Amendment issue. Appellants’ reliance on Seagram is similarly foreclosed by Brown-Forman. While our decision in Brown-Forman did not overrule Seagram, it strictly limited the scope of that decision to retrospective affirmation statutes.
B
More important, Brown-Forman removed the legal underpinnings of Seagram’s Commerce Clause analysis. 476 U. S., at 581-584, and n. 6. Seagram rested on the following reasoning: the Twenty-first Amendment gives States wide latitude in the field of liquor regulation; although such state regulation might violate the Commerce Clause in some extreme instances, in particular where a State’s regulations controlled liquor commerce outside the State’s boundaries, the extraterritorial effects of New York’s retrospective affirmation statute were too conjectural to support such a claim. 384 U. S., at 42-43. Brown-Forman, however, holds unequivocally that to the extent that an affirmation statute has the practical effect of regulating out-of-state liquor prices, it cannot stand under the Commerce Clause irrespective of the Twenty-first Amendment. 476 U. S., at 585. In striking down the statute at issue, the Court in Broivn-Forman found, in light of 20 years of experience with the affirmation laws that proliferated after Seagram, that prospective affirmation statutes have such extraterritorial effects. Indeed, Brown-Forman leaves Seagram intact only to the extent that the Court in the former case felt no compulsion, in a case not directly raising the question, to address whether retrospective affirmation shared the extraterritorial effects of prospective affirmation laws. 476 U. S., at 584, n. 6.
In the interest of removing any lingering uncertainty about the constitutional validity of affirmation statutes and of avoiding further litigation on the subject of liquor-price affirmation, we recognize today what was all but determined in Brown-Forman: to the extent that Seagram holds that retrospective affirmation statutes do not facially violate the Commerce Clause, it is no longer good law. Retrospective affirmation statutes, like other affirmation statutes, have the inherent practical extraterritorial effect of regulating liquor prices in other States. By tying maximum future prices in one State to the lowest prices in other States as determined at a specified time in the past, retrospective affirmation laws control pricing decisions in nonaffirmation States by requiring that those decisions reflect not only local market conditions, but also market conditions in the affirmation States — market conditions that would be irrelevant absent the binding force of the affirmation statutes. Every pricing decision made in a nonaffirmation State will reflect the certain knowledge that the price chosen will become in the future the maximum permissible price in the States requiring affirmation. For the reasons noted today and in Broivn-Forman, this extraterritorial effect violates the Commerce Clause.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The Commerce Clause states: “The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce... among the several States....” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. This Court long has recognized that this affirmative grant of authority to Congress also encompasses an implicit or “dormant” limitation on the authority of the States to enact legislation affecting interstate commerce. See, e. g., Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322, 326, and n. 2 (1979); H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 534-535 (1949).
The Connecticut beer industry is divided into three marketing levels: (1) brewers and importers, (2) wholesalers, and (3) retailers. Participants in each tier of the industry must obtain a license to sell to the tier below, with the retailers selling to the consuming public. While generally each wholesaler carries the products of more than one brewer or importer (because Connecticut currently has no brewery of its own, brewers and importers are referred to collectively as “out-of-state shippers”), wholesalers may resell these products only to retailers within the geographic area specified in their respective licenses. United States Brewers Assn. v. Healy, 669 F. Supp. 543, 545-546 (Conn. 1987); United States Brewers Assn., Inc. v. Healy, 532 F. Supp. 1312, 1317 (Conn. 1982).
The affirmation statute did permit differentials in price based on differing state taxes and transportation costs. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-63c(b) (1989).
The statute also required out-of-state shippers to offer Connecticut wholesalers every package configuration for each brand of beer offered to wholesalers in the border States. §30-63c(b), quoted in 532 F. Supp., at 1314, n. 4.
As amended by 1984 Conn. Pub. Acts 332, § 30-63b(b) provides:
“At the time of posting of the bottle, can, keg or barrel and case price required by section 30-63, every holder of a manufacturer or out-of-state shipper’s permit, or the authorized representative of a manufacturer, shall file with the department of liquor control a written affirmation under oath by the manufacturer or out-of-state shipper of each brand of beer posted certifying that, at the time of posting, the bottle, can or case price, or price per keg, barrel or fractional unit thereof, to the wholesaler permittees is no higher than the lowest price at which each such item of beer is sold, offered for sale, shipped, transported or delivered by such manufacturer or out-of-state shipper to any wholesaler in any state bordering this state.”
In addition, Connecticut regulations now provide for posting on the sixth day of each month. App. 157.
As added by 1984 Conn. Pub. Acts 332, §30-63b(e) provides:
“This section shall not prohibit a manufacturer or out-of-state shipper permittee or the authorized representative of a manufacturer from changing prices to any wholesaler in any other state of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or to any state or agency of a state which owns and operates retail liquor outlets at any time during the calendar month covered by such posting.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-63a(b) provides in relevant part:
“No holder of any manufacturer or out-of-state shipper’s permit shall ship, transport or deliver within this state, or sell or offer for sale to a wholesaler permittee any brand of beer... at a bottle, can or case price, or price per keg, barrel or fractional unit thereof, higher than the lowest price at which such item is then being sold or offered for sale or shipped, transported or delivered by such manufacturer or out-of-state shipper to any wholesaler in any state bordering this state.”
Appellants are the Connecticut officials responsible for enforcing the affirmation statute, and the liquor-wholesalers trade association which entered the case as an intervenor.
The Brown-Forman Court cited a third extraterritorial decision, Edgar v. MITE Carp., 457 U. S. 624 (1982), which, though not discussed at length there, significantly illuminates the contours of the constitutional prohibition on extraterritorial legislation. In MITE Corp., the Court struck down the Illinois Business Takeover Act, which required that a takeover offer for a target company having a specified connection to Illinois be registered with the Secretary of State and mandated that such an offer was not to become effective for 20 days, during which time the offer would be subject to administrative evaluation. The statute empowered the Secretary of State to deny registration of the tender offer under certain conditions, such as inequity or fraud. A plurality found the statute to be infirm under the Commerce Clause because it “directly regulates transactions which take place across state lines, even if wholly outside the State of Illinois.” Id., at 641. The plurality observed that, if the target company had sufficient in-state contacts, the Illinois law, unless complied with, could prevent interstate-securities transactions in stock even if not a single one of the target company’s shareholders was a resident of Illinois. Moreover, the plurality noted that if Illinois were free to enact such legislation, others States similarly were so empowered, “and interstate commerce in securities transactions generated by tender offers would be thoroughly stifled.” Id., at 642. Under the Commerce Clause the projection of these extraterritorial ‘“practical effeet[s],’” regardless of the statute’s intention, “‘ex-ceedfed] the inherent limits of the State’s power.’ ” Id., at 642-643, quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 197 (1977).
At the time of our decision in Brown-Forman, 39 States, including New York, had adopted affirmation laws. Of these, 18, known as “control” States, each purchased all liquor to be distributed and consumed within its borders. These States subscribed to a standard sales contract that required distillers to guarantee that the price charged the State was no higher than the lowest price offered anywhere in the United States. Twenty States had adopted statutes similar to the New York statute
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court. In Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), this Court rejected a plea for a uniform national standard as to what appeals to the prurient interest and as to what is patently offensive; the Court held, instead, that these essentially were questions of fact to be measured by contemporary standards of the community. Id., at 30-34. The instant case presents the issue of the constitutional effect of state law that leaves unregulated the distribution of obscene material to adults, on the determination of contemporary community standards in a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. § 1461 for a mailing that is wholly intrastate. The case also raises the question whether § 1461 is unconstitutionally vague as applied in these circumstances, and the question whether the trial court, during the voir dire of prospective jurors, correctly refused to ask proffered questions relating to community standards.
I
Between February and October 1974 petitioner, Jerry Lee Smith, knowingly caused to be mailed various materials from Des Moines, Iowa, to post office box addresses in Mount Ayr and Guthrie Center, two communities in southern Iowa. This was done at the written request of postal inspectors using fictitious names. The materials so mailed were delivered through the United States postal system to the respective postmasters serving the addresses. The mailings consisted of (1) issues of “Intrigue” magazine, depicting nude males and females engaged in masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, and sexual intercourse; (2) a film entitled “Lovelace,” depicting a nude male and a nude female engaged in masturbation and simulated acts of fellatio, cunnilingus, and sexual intercourse ; and (3) a film entitled “Terrorized Virgin,” depicting two nude males and a nude female engaged in fellatio, cunnilingus, and sexual intercourse.
II
For many years prior to 1974 the statutes of Iowa made it a misdemeanor to sell or offer to sell or to give away “any obscene, lewd, indecent, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, paper,... picture, photograph, writing...” or to deposit in any post office within Iowa any article of that kind. Iowa Code §§ 725.5 and 725.6 (1973).
In 1973, however, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in response to the standards enunciated in Miller v. California, supra, unanimously held that a related and companion Iowa statute, § 725.3 of the 1973 Code, prohibiting the presentation of any obscene or immoral drama, play, exhibition, or entertainment, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. State v. Wedelstedt, 213 N. W. 2d 652. Wedelstedt, at least by implication — and we so assume — invalidated §§ 725.5 and 725.6 as well.
On July 1, 1974, Laws of Iowa 1974, cc. 1267 and 1268, became effective. These specifically repealed §§ 725.3, 725.5, and 725.6 of the 1973 Code. In addition, however, c. 1267 (thereafter codified as the first 10 sections of c. 725 of the 1975 Iowa Code) defined, among other things, “obscene material,” and made it “a public offense” to disseminate obscene material to minors (defined as persons “under the age of eighteen”). Dissemination of obscene material to adults was not made criminal or even proscribed. Section 9 of c. 1267 (now § 725.9 of the 1975 Code) insured that the law would be applied uniformly throughout the State, and that no lesser governmental unit would impose more stringent regulations on obscene material.
In 1976, the Iowa Legislature enacted a “complete revision” of the State’s “substantive criminal laws.” This is entitled the “Iowa Criminal Code” and is generally effective January 1, 1978. The existing definition of “obscene mate-' rial” remains unchanged, but a new provision, § 2804 of the Criminal Code, Iowa Code Ann. (Spec. Pamphlet 1977), although limited in scope, applies by its terms to adults. It reads:
“Any person who knowingly sells or offers for sale material depicting a sex act involving sado-masochistic abuse, excretory functions, a child, or bestiality which the average adult taking the material as a whole in applying contemporary community standards would find that it appeals to the prurient interest and is patently offensive; and the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, scientific, political, or artistic value shall, upon conviction be guilty of a simple misdemeanor.”
In summary, therefore, we have in Iowa (1) until 1973 state statutes that proscribed generally the dissemination of obscene writings and pictures; (2) the judicial nullification of some of those statutory provisions in that year for reasons of overbreadth and vagueness; (3) the enactment, effective July 1, 1974, of replacement obscenity statutes restricted in their application to dissemination to minors; and (4) the enactment in 1976 of a new Code, effective in 1978, with obscenity provisions, somewhat limited in scope, but not restricted in application to dissemination to minors.
Petitioner’s mailings, described above and forming the basis of his federal prosecution, took place in 1974, after the theretofore existing Iowa statutes relating to obscene material had been nullified by Wedelstedt, but obviously before the 1976 legislation imposing misdemeanor liability with respect to certain transactions with adults becomes effective. Because there is no contention that the materials petitioner mailed went to any minor, the 1974 legislation has no application to his case. And the 1976 legislation, of course, has no effect on petitioner’s criminal liability. Cf. Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188 (1977).
Thus, what petitioner did clearly was not a violation of state law at the time he did it. It is to be observed, also, that there is no suggestion that petitioner’s mailings went to any nonconsenting adult or that they were interstate.
Ill
Petitioner was indicted on seven counts of violating 18 U. S. C. § 1461, which prohibits the mailing of obscene materials. He pleaded not guilty. At the start of his trial petitioner proposed and submitted six questions for voir dire The court accepted in substance and utilized the first question; this was designed to reveal whether any juror was connected with an organization devoted to regulating or banning obscene materials. The court declined to ask the other five. One of the questions made inquiry as to whether the jurors had any knowledge of contemporary community standards in the Southern District of Iowa with regard to the depiction of sex and nudity. Two sought to isolate the source of the jurors’ knowledge and their understanding of those standards. The remaining two would have explored the jurors’ knowledge of Iowa law on the subject.
At the trial the Government introduced into evidence the actual materials covered by the indictment. It offered nothing else on the issue of obscenity vel non. Petitioner did not testify. Instead, in defense, he introduced numerous sexually explicit materials that were available for purchase at “adult” bookstores in Des Moines and Davenport, Iowa, several advertisements from the Des Moines Register and Tribune, and a copy of what was then c. 725 of the Iowa Code, prohibiting the dissemination of “obscene material” only to minors. At the close of the Government’s case, and again at the close of all the evidence, petitioner moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the grounds, inter alia, that the Iowa obscenity statute, proscribing only the dissemination of obscene materials to minors, set forth the applicable community standard, and that the prosecution had not proved that the materials at issue offended that standard.
The District Court denied those motions and submitted the case to the jury. The court instructed the jury that contemporary community standards were set by what is in fact accepted in the community as a whole. In making that determination, the jurors were entitled to draw on their own knowledge of the views of the average person in the community as well as the evidence presented as to the state law on obscenity and as to materials available for purchase. App. 22-23.
The jury found petitioner guilty on all seven counts. He was sentenced to concurrent three-year terms of imprisonment, all but three months of which were suspended, and three years’ probation.
In his motion for a new trial, petitioner again asserted that Iowa law defined the community standard in a § 1461 prosecution. In denying this motion, the District Court held that § 1461 was “a federal law which neither incorporates nor depends upon the laws of the states,” App. 33; the federal policy was simply different in this area. Furthermore, the court observed, Iowa’s decision not to regulate distribution of obscene material did not mean that the people of Iowa necessarily “approve[d] of the permitted conduct,” ibid.; whether they did was a question of fact for the jury. The court rejected petitioner’s argument that it was error not to ask the jurors the question about the extent of their knowledge of contemporary community standards. It held that the jurors were entitled to draw on their own knowledge; voir dire on community standards would be no more appropriate than voir dire on the jurors’ concept of “reasonableness.” The court refused to hold that the Government was required to introduce evidence on a community standard in order to sustain its burden of proof. The materials introduced “can and do speak for themselves.” Id., at 34. The court did not address petitioner’s vagueness point.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, by per curiam opinion, agreed with the District Court that the questions submitted by petitioner on community standards, except for the first, were impermissible, since they concerned the ultimate question of guilt or innocence rather than juror qualification. The court noted, however, that it was not holding that no questions whatsoever could be asked in that area. With respect to the effect of state law, the court held that the issue of offense to contemporary community standards was a federal question, and was to be determined by the jury in a federal prosecution. The court noted the admission of Iowa’s obscenity statute into evidence but stated that this was designed to give the jury knowledge of the State’s policy on obscenity when it determined the contemporary community standard. The state policy was not controlling, since the determination was for the jury. The conviction, therefore, was affirmed.
We granted certiorari in order to review the relationship between state legislation regulating or refusing to regulate the distribution of obscene material, and the determination of contemporary community standards in a federal prosecution. 426 U. S. 946 (1976).
IV
The “basic guidelines” for the trier of fact in a state obscenity prosecution were set out in Miller v. California in the form of a three-part test:
“(a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest... ; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” 413 U. S., at 24 (citations omitted).
In two companion cases, the Court held that the Miller standards were equally applicable to federal legislation. United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U. S. 123, 129-130 (1973) (importation of obscene material, 19 U. S. C. § 1305 (a)); United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139, 145 (1973) (movement of obscene material in interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C. § 1462). In Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 (1974), it held, specifically, that the Miller standards applied in a § 1461 prosecution.
The phrasing of the Miller test makes clear that contemporary community standards take on meaning only when they are considered with reference to the underlying questions of fact that must be resolved in an obscenity case. The test itself shows that appeal to the prurient interest is one such question of fact for the jury to resolve. The Miller opinion indicates that patent offensiveness is to be treated in the same way. 413 U. S., at 26, 30. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S., at 104-105. The fact that the jury must measure patent offensiveness against contemporary community standards does not mean, however, that juror discretion in this area is to go unchecked. Both in Hamling and in Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153 (1974), the Court noted that part (b) of the Miller test contained a substantive component as well. The kinds of conduct that a jury would be permitted to label as “patently offensive” in a § 1461 prosecution are the “hard core” types of conduct suggested by the examples given in Miller, See Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S., at 114; cf. Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S., at 160-161. Literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, on the other hand, is not discussed in Miller in terms of contemporary community standards. See generally F. Schauer, The Law of Obscenity 123-124 (1976).
The issue we must resolve is whether the jury’s discretion to determine what appeals to the prurient interest and what is patently offensive is circumscribed in any way by a state statute such as c. 725 of the Iowa Code. Put another way, we must decide whether the jury is entitled to rely on its own knowledge of community standards, or whether a state legislature (or a smaller legislative body) may declare what the community standards shall be, and, if such a declaration has been made, whether it is binding in a federal prosecution under § 1461.
“(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.
“(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.” 413 U. S., at 25.
Obviously, a state legislature would not be able to define contemporary community standards in a vacuum. Rather, community standards simply provide the measure against which the jury decides the questions of appeal to prurient interest and patent offensiveness. In Hamling v. United States, the Court recognized the close analogy between the function of “contemporary community standards” in obscenity cases and “reasonableness” in other cases:
“A juror is entitled to draw on his own knowledge of the views of the average person in the community or vicinage from which he comes for making the required determination, just as he is entitled to draw on his knowledge of the propensities of a'reasonable’ person in other areas of the law.” 418 U. S., at KFH05.
It would be just as inappropriate for a legislature to attempt to freeze a jury to one definition of reasonableness as it would be for a legislature to try to define the contemporary community standard of appeal to prurient interest or patent offensiveness, if it were even possible for such a definition to be formulated.
This is not to say that state legislatures are completely foreclosed from enacting laws setting substantive limitations for obscenity cases. On the contrary, we have indicated on several occasions that legislation of this kind is permissible. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S., at 114; Miller v. California, 413 U. S., at 25. State legislation must still define the kinds of conduct that will be regulated by the State. For example, the Iowa law in effect at the time this prosecution was instituted was to the effect that no conduct aimed at adults was regulated. At the other extreme, a State might seek to regulate all the hard-core pornography that it constitutionally could. The new Iowa law, which will regulate only material “depicting a sex act involving sado-masochistic abuse, excretory functions, a child, or bestiality,” provides an example of an intermediate approach. Iowa Criminal Code § 2804.
If a State wished to adopt a slightly different approach to obscenity regulation, it might impose a geographic limit on the determination of community standards by defining the area from which the jury could be selected in an obscenity case, or by legislating with respect to the instructions that must be given to the jurors in such cases. In addition, the State might add a geographic dimension to its regulation of obscenity through the device of zoning laws. Cf. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976). It is evident that ample room is left for state legislation even though the question of the community standard to apply, when appeal to prurient interest and patent offensiveness are considered, is not one that can be defined legislatively.
An even stronger reason for holding that a state law regulating distribution of obscene material cannot define contemporary community standards in the case before us is the simple fact that this is a federal prosecution under § 1461. The Court already has held, in Hamling, that the substantive conduct encompassed by § 1461 is confined to “the sort of 'patently offensive representations or descriptions of that specific “hard core” sexual conduct given as examples in Miller v. California.’ ” 418 U. S., at 114. The community standards aspects of § 1461 likewise present issues of federal law, upon which a state statute such as Iowa’s cannot have con-elusive effect. The kinds of instructions that should be given to the jury are likewise a federal question. For example, the Court has held that § 1461 embodies a requirement that local rather than national standards should be applied. Hamling v. United States, supra. Similarly, obscenity is to be judged according to the average person in the community, rather than the most prudish or the most tolerant. Hamling v. United States, supra; Miller v. California, supra; Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957). Both of these substantive limitations are passed on to the jury in the form of instructions.
The fact that the mailings in this case were wholly intrastate is immaterial for a prosecution under § 1461. That statute was one enacted under Congress’ postal power, granted in Art. I, § 8, cl. 7, of the Constitution, and the Postal Power Clause does not distinguish between interstate and intrastate matters. This Court consistently has upheld Congress’ exercise of that power to exclude from the mails materials that are judged to be obscene. See, e. g., Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 736 (1878); Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497, 507-508 (1904) (power to exclude from the mail “information of a character calculated to debauch the public morality”); Roth v. United States, supra; United States v. Reidel, 402 U. S. 351 (1971). See also In re Rapier, 143 U. S. 110 (1892).
Our decision that contemporary community standards must be applied by juries in accordance with their own understanding of the tolerance of the average person in their community does not mean, as has been suggested, that obscenity convictions will be virtually unreviewable. We have stressed before that juries must be instructed properly, so that they consider the entire community and not simply their own subjective, reactions, or the reactions of a sensitive or of a callous minority. See Miller v. California, 413 U. S., at 30. The type -of conduct depicted must fall within the substantive limitations suggested in Miller and adopted in Hamling with respect to § 1461. Cf. Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153 (1974). The work also must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value before a conviction will be upheld; this determination is particularly amenable to appellate review. Finally, it is always appropriate for the appellate court to review the sufficiency of the evidence. Cf. Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 (1966).
Petitioner argues that a decision to ignore the Iowa law will have the practical effect of nullifying that law. We do not agree. In the first place, the significance of Iowa’s decision in 1974 not to regulate the distribution of obscene materials to adults is open to question. Iowa may have decided that the resources of its prosecutors’ offices should be devoted to matters deemed to have greater priority than the enforcement of obscenity statutes. Such a decision would not mean that Iowa affirmatively desired free distribution of those materials; on the contrary, it would be consistent with a hope or expectation on the State’s part that the Federal Government’s prosecutions under statutes such as § 1461 would be sufficient for the State’s purposes. The State might also view distribution over the counter as different from distribution through the mails. It might conclude that it is easier to keep obscene materials out of the hands of minors and unconsenting adults in retail establishments than it is when a letter or package arrives at a private residence. Furthermore, the history of the Iowa law suggests that the State may have left distribution to consenting adults unregulated simply because it was not then able to arrive at a compromise statute for the regulation of obscenity.
Arguments similar to petitioner’s “nullification” thesis were made in cases that followed Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969). In United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U. S. 123 (1973), the question was whether the United States constitutionally might prohibit the importation of obscene material that was intended solely for private, personal use and possession. See 19 U. S. C. § 1305 (a). Stanley had upheld the individual’s right to possess obscene material in the home, and the argument was made that this right would be virtually meaningless if the Government could prevent importation of, and hence access to, the obscene material. 413 U. S., at 126-127. The Court held that Stanley had been based on the privacy of the home, and that it represented a considered line of demarcation in the obscenity area. Id., at 127. Consequently, despite the incidental effect that the importation prohibition had on the privacy right to possess obscene material in the home, the Court upheld the statute. A similar result was reached, in the face of similar argument, in United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139 (1973). There, 18 U. S. C. § 1462, the statute prohibiting knowing transportation of obscene material in interstate commerce, was at issue. The Court held that Stanley did not create a right to receive, transport, or distribute obscene material, even though it had established the right to possess the material in the privacy of the home. 413 U. S., at 141. See also United States v. Reidel, supra.
In this case, petitioner argues that the Court has recognized the right of States to adopt a laissez-faire attitude toward regulation of pornography, and that a holding that § 1461 permits a federal prosecution will render the States’ right meaningless. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 64 (1973); United States v. Reidel, 402 U. S., at 357. Just as the individual’s right to possess obscene material in the privacy of his home, however, did not create a correlative right to receive, transport, or distribute the material, the State’s right to abolish all regulation of obscene material does not create a correlative right to force the Federal Government to allow the mails or the channels of interstate or foreign commerce to be used for the purpose of sending obscene material into the permissive State.
Even though the State’s law is not conclusive with regard to the attitudes of the local community on obscenity, nothing we have said is designed to imply that the Iowa statute should not have been introduced into evidence at petitioner’s trial. On the contrary, the local statute on obscenity provides relevant evidence of the mores of the community whose legislative body enacted the law. It is quite appropriate, therefore, for the jury to be told of the law and to give such weight to the expression of the State’s policy on distribution as the jury feels it deserves. We hold only that the Iowa statute is not conclusive as to the issues of contemporary community standards for appeal to the prurient interest and patent offensiveness. Those are questions for the jury to decide, in its traditional role as factfinder. United States v. Danley, 523 F. 2d 369 (CA9 1975), cert. denied, 424 U. S. 929 (1976).
y
A. We also reject petitioner’s arguments that the prospective jurors should have been asked about their understanding of Iowa’s community standards and Iowa law, and that § 1461 was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. The particular inquiries requested by petitioner would not have elicited useful information about the jurors’ qualifications to apply contemporary community standards in an objective way. A request for the jurors’ description of their understanding of community standards would have been no more appropriate than a request for a description of the meaning of “reasonableness.” Neither term lends itself to precise definition. This is not to preclude other more specific and less conclusory questions for voir dire. For example, it might be helpful to know how long a juror has been a member of the community, how heavily the juror has been involved in the community, and with what organizations having an interest in the regulation of obscenity the juror has been affiliated. The propriety of a particular question is a decision for the trial court to make in the first instance. In this case,, however, we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to ask the specific questions tendered by petitioner.
B. Neither do we find § 1461 unconstitutionally vague as applied here. Our construction of the statute flows directly from the decisions in Hamling, Miller, Reidel, and Roth. As construed in Hamling, the type of conduct covered by the statute can be ascertained with sufficient ease to avoid due process pitfalls. Similarly, the possibility that different juries might reach different conclusions as to the same material does not render the statute unconstitutional. Roth v. United States, 354 U. S., at 492 n. 30; Miller v. California, 413 U. S., at 26 n. 9. We find no vagueness defect in the statute attributable to the fact that federal policy with regard to distribution of obscene material through the mail was different from Iowa policy with regard to the intrastate sale of like material.
VI
Since the Iowa law on obscenity was introduced into evidence, and the jurors were told that they could consider it as evidence of the community standard, petitioner received everything to which he was entitled. To go further, and to make the state law conclusive on the issues of appeal to prurient interest and patent offensiveness, in a federal prosecution under § 1461, would be inconsistent with our prior cases. We hold that those issues are fact questions for the jury, to be judged in light of the jurors’ understanding of contemporary community standards. We also hold that § 1461 is not unconstitutionally vague as so applied, and that petitioner’s proposed voir dire questions were not improperly refused.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
See also State ex rel. Faches v. N. D. D., Inc., 228 N. W. 2d 191 (Iowa 1975) (State cannot enjoin the showing of certain movies under a statute relating to the use of premises “for the purpose of lewdness,” when “lewdness” is not statutorily defined).
“Sec. 9.... In order to provide for the uniform application of the provisions of this Act relating to obscene material applicable to minors within this state, it is intended that the sole and only regulation of obscene material shall be under the provisions of this Act, and no municipality, county or other governmental unit within this state shall malee any law, ordinance or regulation relating to the availability of obscene materials. All such laws, ordinances or regulations, whether enacted before or after this Act, shall be or become void, unenforceable and of no effect upon the effective date of this Act” (July 1, 1974).
Section 1461 provides, in relevant part:
“Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance;...
“Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.
“Whoever knowingly uses the mails for the mailing, carriage in the mails, or delivery of anything declared by this section... to be non-mailable, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.”
Petitioner’s proposed questions were:
“1. Are any members of the panel a member of or are in sympathy with any organization which has for its purpose the regulating or banning of alleged obscene materials?
“2. Will those jurors raise their hands who have any knowledge of the contemporary community standards existing in this federal judicial district relative to the depiction of sex and nudity in magazines and books?
“(The following individual questions are requested for each juror who answers the above question in the affirmative.)
“3. Where did you acquire such information?
“4. State what your understanding of those contemporary community standards are?
“5. In arriving at this understanding, did you take into consideration the laws of the State of Iowa which regulate obscenity?
“6. State what your understanding of those laws are?” App. 8.
Despite the District Court’s failure to discuss this point, we are satisfied that petitioner adequately preserved it for appellate review. See ¶ 7 of his motion for a new trial. App. 30.
The phrase “contemporary community standards” was first used in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957). See generally F. Schauer, The Law of Obscenity 116-135 (1976). The Roth Court explained the derivation and importance of the community standards test as follows:
“The early leading standard of obscenity allowed material to be judged merely by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons. Regina v. Hicklin, [1868] L. R. 3 Q. B. 360. Some American courts adopted this standard but later decisions have rejected it and substituted this test: whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. The Hicklin test, judging obscenity by the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons, might well encompass material legitimately treating with sex, and so it must be rejected as unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press. On the other hand, the substituted standard provides safeguards adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity.” 354 U. S., at 488-489 (footnotes omitted).
Although expressions in opinions vacillated somewhat before coming to the position that a national community standard was not constitutionally mandated, compare Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478, 488, and n. 10 (1962) (opinion of Harlan, J.), and Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 195 (1964) (opinion of Brennan, J.), with Miller v. California, 413 U. S., at 30, the Court has never varied from the Roth position that the community as a whole should be the judge of obscenity, and not a small, atypical segment of the community. The only exception to this rule that has been recognized is for material aimed at a clearly defined deviant sexual group. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, 508 (1966). See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 56 n. 6 (1973).
See also Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S., at 191-192 (opinion of Brennan, J.); Roth v. United States, 354 U. S., at 487 n. 20; United States v. Kennerley, 209 F. 119, 121 (SDNY 1913) (L. Hand, J.) (obscenity should be determined in accordance with the “present critical point in the compromise between candor and shame at which the community may have arrived here and now”). Cf. Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S., at 486 (opinion of Harlan, J.) (usually the elements of prurient interest and patent offensiveness will coalesce for this kind of material).
The Court in Miller gave two “plain examples” of what a state statute could define for regulation:
See also Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S., at 64 (the States are free to adopt a “laissez-faire” policy “and drop all controls on commercialized obscenity, if that is what they prefer”); United States v. Reidel, 402 U. S. 351, 357 (1971) (nonregulation of obscenity for adults “may prove to be the desirable and eventual legislative course”).
The language of § 1461 gives no indication that Congress intended to adopt state laws relating to distribution of obscene material for purposes of the federal statute, nor does its history. See n. 12, infra. Furthermore, none of the usual reasons advanced in favor of such adoption are present here. The regulation of the mails is a matter of particular federal concern, and the nationwide character of the postal system argues in favor of a nationally uniform construction of § 1461. The Constitution itself recognizes this fact, in the specific grant to Congress of power over the postal system. Art. I, § 8, cl. 7. Obscenity in general has been a matter of both national and local concern. To the extent that local concern is relevant, however, the jurors’ application of contemporary community standards fully satisfies that interest. Finally, to the extent that the state law and the federal law conflict, traditional principles of federal supremacy require us to follow the federal policy. See Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363 (1943); United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U. S. 301 (1947); DeSylva v. Ballentine, 351 U. S. 570 (1956); United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., 412 U. S. 580 (1973). See generally Comment, Adopting State Law as the Federal Rule of Decision: A Proposed Test, 43 U. Chi. L. Rev. 823 (1976). We therefore decline petitioner’s invitation to adopt state law relating to distribution for purposes of the federal statute regulating use of the mails.
It is to be noted that Miller held only that the States could not be compelled to adopt a national standard. 413 U. S., at 30. If a state legislature decided that it wanted a national community standard for purposes of instructing state juries, or if Congress 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: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U. S. 2 (1984), we repeated the well-settled proposition that “if the Government has granted the seller a patent or similar monopoly over a product, it is fair to presume that the inability to buy the product elsewhere gives the seller market power.” Id., at 16. This presumption of market power, applicable in the antitrust context when a seller conditions its sale of a patented product (the “tying” product) on the purchase of a second product (the “tied” product), has its foundation in the judicially created patent misuse doctrine. See United States v. Loew’s Inc., 371 U. S. 38, 46 (1962). In 1988, Congress substantially undermined that foundation, amending the Patent Act to eliminate the market power presumption in patent misuse eases. See 102 Stat. 4676, codified at 35 U. S. C. § 271(d). The question presented to us today is whether the presumption of market power in a patented product should survive as a matter of antitrust law despite its demise in patent law. We conclude that the mere fact that a tying product is patented does not support such a presumption.
I
Petitioners, Trident, Inc., and its parent, Illinois Tool Works Inc., manufacture and market printing systems that include three relevant components: (1) a patented piezoelectric impulse ink jet printhead; (2) a patented ink container, consisting of a bottle and valved cap, which attaches to the printhead; and (3) specially designed, but unpatented, ink. Petitioners sell their systems to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) who are licensed to incorporate the print-heads and containers into printers that are in turn sold to companies for use in printing barcodes on cartons and packaging materials. The OEMs agree that they will purchase their ink exclusively from petitioners, and that neither they nor their customers will refill the patented containers with ink of any kind.
Respondent, Independent Ink, Inc., has developed an ink with the same chemical composition as the ink sold by petitioners. After an infringement action brought by Trident against Independent was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, Independent filed suit against Trident seeking a judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Trident’s patents. In an amended complaint, it alleged that petitioners are engaged in illegal tying and monopolization in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2.
After discovery, the District Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment on the Sherman Act claims. Independent Ink, Inc. v. Trident, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1177 (CD Cal. 2002). It rejected respondent’s submission that petitioners “necessarily have market power in the market for the tying product as a matter of law solely by virtue of the patent on their printhead system, thereby rendering [the] tying arrangements per se violations of the antitrust laws.” Id., at 1159. Finding that respondent had submitted no affirmative evidence defining the relevant market or establishing petitioners’ power within it, the court concluded that respondent could not prevail on either antitrust claim. Id., at 1167, 1173, 1177. The parties settled their other claims, and respondent appealed.
After a careful review of the “long history of Supreme Court consideration of the legality of tying arrangements,” 396 F. 3d 1342, 1346 (2005), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision as to respondent’s § 1 claim, id., at 1354. Placing special reliance on our decisions in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392 (1947), and Loew’s, 371 U. S. 38, as well as our Jefferson Parish dictum, and after taking note of the academic criticism of those cases, it concluded that the “fundamental error” in petitioners’ submission was its disregard of “the duty of a court of appeals to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court until the Court itself chooses to expressly overrule them.” 396 F. 3d, at 1351. We granted certiorari to undertake a fresh examination of the history of both the judicial and legislative appraisals of tying arrangements. 545 U. S. 1127 (2005). Our review is informed by extensive scholarly comment and a change in position by the administrative agencies charged with enforcement of the antitrust laws.
II
American courts first encountered tying arrangements in the course of patent infringement litigation. See, e. g., Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 F. 288 (CA6 1896). Such a case came before this Court in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1 (1912), in which, as in the case we decide today, unpatented ink was the product that was “tied” to the use of a patented product through the use of a licensing agreement. Without commenting on the tying arrangement, the Court held that use of a competitor’s ink in violation of a condition of the agreement — that the rotary mimeograph “ ‘may be used only with the stencil, paper, ink and other supplies made by A. B. Dick Co.’” — constituted infringement of the patent on the machine. Id., at 25-26. Chief Justice White dissented, explaining his disagreement with the Court’s approval of a practice that he regarded as an “attempt to increase the scope of the monopoly granted by a patent... which tend[s] to increase monopoly and to burden the public in the exercise of their common rights.” Id., at 70. Two years later, Congress endorsed Chief Justice White’s disapproval of tying arrangements, enacting § 3 of the Clayton Act. See 38 Stat. 731 (applying to “patented or unpatented” products); see also Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U. S. 502, 517-518 (1917) (explaining that, in light of . §3 of the Clayton Act, A. B. Dick “must be regarded as overruled”). And in this Court’s subsequent cases reviewing the legality of tying arrangements we, too, embraced Chief Justice White’s disapproval of those arrangements. See, e. g., Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 305-306 (1949); Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661, 664-665 (1944).
In the years since A. B. Dick, four different rules of law have supported challenges to tying arrangements. They have been condemned as improper extensions of the patent monopoly under the patent misuse doctrine, as unfair methods of competition under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U. S. C. §45, as contracts tending to create a monopoly under § 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 14, and as contracts in restraint of trade under § 1 of the Sherman Act. In all of those instances, the justification for the challenge rested on either an assumption or a showing that the defendant’s position of power in the market for the tying product was being used to restrain competition in the market for the tied product. As we explained in Jefferson Parish, 466 U. S., at 12, “[ojur cases have concluded that the essential characteristic of an invalid tying arrangement lies in the seller’s exploitation of its control over the tying product to force the buyer into the purchase of a tied product that the buyer either did not want at all, or might have preferred to purchase elsewhere on different terms.”
Over the years, however, this Court’s strong disapproval of tying arrangements has substantially diminished. Rather than relying on assumptions, in its more recent opinions the Court has required a showing of market power in the tying product. Our early opinions consistently assumed that “[t]ying arrangements serve hardly any purpose beyond the suppression of competition.” Standard Oil Co., 337 U. S., at 305-306. In 1962, in Loew’s, 371 U. S., at 47-48, the Court relied on this assumption despite evidence of significant competition in the market for the tying product. And as recently as 1969, Justice Black, writing for the majority, relied on the assumption as support for the proposition “that, at least when certain prerequisites are met, arrangements of this kind are illegal in and of themselves, and no specific showing of unreasonable competitive effect is required.” Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495, 498-499 (Fortner I). Explaining the Court’s decision to allow the suit to proceed to trial, he stated that “decisions rejecting the need for proof of truly dominant power over the tying product have all been based on a recognition that because tying arrangements generally serve no legitimate business purpose that cannot be achieved in some less restrictive way, the presence of any appreciable restraint on competition provides a sufficient reason for invalidating the tie.” Id., at 503.
Reflecting a changing view of tying arrangements, four Justices dissented in Fortner I, arguing that the challenged “tie” — the extension of a $2 million line of credit on condition that the borrower purchase prefabricated houses from the defendant — might well have served a legitimate purpose. Id., at 510 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 520 (opinion of Fortas, J.). In his opinion, Justice White noted that promotional tie-ins may provide “uniquely advantageous deals” to purchasers. Id., at 519. And Justice Fortas concluded that the arrangement was best characterized as “a sale of a single product with the incidental provision of financing.” Id., at 522.
The dissenters’ view that tying arrangements may well be procompetitive ultimately prevailed; indeed, it did so in the very same lawsuit. After the Court remanded the suit in Fortner I, a bench trial resulted in judgment for the plaintiff, and the case eventually, made its way back to this Court. Upon return, we unanimously held that the plaintiff’s failure of proof on the issue of market power was fatal to its case— the plaintiff had proved “nothing more than a willingness to provide cheap financing in order to sell expensive houses.” United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc., 429 U. S. 610, 622 (1977) (Fortner II).
The assumption that “[t]ying arrangements serve hardly any purpose beyond the suppression of competition,” rejected in Fortner II, has not been endorsed in any opinion since. Instead, it was again rejected just seven years later in Jefferson Parish, where, as in Fortner II, we unanimously reversed a Court of Appeals judgment holding that an alleged tying arrangement constituted a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. 466 U. S., at 5. Like the product at issue in the Fortner cases, the tying product in Jefferson Parish — hospital services — was unpatented, and our holding again rested on the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove sufficient power in the tying product market to restrain competition in the market for the tied product — services of anesthesiologists. 466 U. S., at 28-29.
In rejecting the application of a per se rule that all tying arrangements constitute antitrust violations, we explained:
“[W]e have condemned tying arrangements when the seller has some special ability — usually called ‘market power’ — to force a purchaser to do something that he would not do in a competitive market. .. .
“Per se condemnation — condemnation without inquiry into actual market conditions — is only appropriate if the existence of forcing is probable. Thus, application of the per se rule focuses on the probability of anticompetitive consequences....
“For example, if the Government has granted the seller a patent or similar monopoly over a product, it is fair to presume that the inability to buy the product elsewhere gives the seller market power. United States v. Loew’s Inc., 371 U. S., at 45-47. Any effort to enlarge the scope of the patent monopoly by using the market power it confers to restrain competition in the market for a second product will undermine competition on the merits in that second market. Thus, the sale or lease of a patented item on condition that the buyer make all his purchases of a separate tied product from the patentee is unlawful.” Id., at 13-16 (footnote omitted).
Notably, nothing in our opinion suggested a rebuttable presumption of market power applicable to tying arrangements involving a patent on the tying good. See infra, at 44; cf. 396 F. 3d, at 1352. Instead, it described the rule that a contract to sell a patented product on condition that the purchaser buy unpatented goods exclusively from the patentee is a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
Justice O’Connor wrote separately in Jefferson Parish, concurring in the judgment on the ground that the case did not involve a true tying arrangement because, in her view, surgical services and anesthesia were not separate products. 466 U. S., at 43. In her opinion, she questioned not only the propriety of treating any tying arrangement as a per se violation of the Sherman Act, id., at 35, but also the validity of the presumption that a patent always gives the patentee significant market power, observing that the presumption was actually a product of our patent misuse cases rather than our antitrust jurisprudence, id., at 37-38, n. 7. It is that presumption, a vestige of the Court’s historical distrust of tying arrangements, that we address squarely today.
Ill
Justice O’Connor was, of course, correct in her assertion that the presumption that a patent confers market power arose outside the antitrust context as part of the patent misuse doctrine. That doctrine had its origins in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U. S. 502 (1917), which found no support in the patent laws for the proposition that a patentee may “prescribe by notice attached to a patented machine the conditions of its .use and the supplies which must be used, in the operation of it, under pain of infringement of the patent,” id., at 509. Although Motion Picture Patents Co. simply narrowed the scope of possible patent infringement claims, it formed the basis for the Court’s subsequent decisions creating a patent misuse defense to infringement claims when a patentee uses its patent “as the effective means of restraining competition with its sale of an unpatented article.” Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U. S. 488, 490 (1942); see also, e. g., Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Corp., 283 U. S. 27, 31 (1931).
Without any analysis of actual market conditions, these patent misuse decisions assumed that, by tying the purchase of unpatented goods to the sale of the patented good, the patentee was “restraining competition,” Morton Salt, 314 U. S., at 490, or “securing] a limited monopoly of an unpatented material,” Mercoid, 320 U. S., at 664; see also Carbice, 283 U. S., at 31-32. In other words, these decisions presumed “[t]he requisite economic power” over the tying product such that the patentee could “extend [its] economic control to unpatented products.” Loew’s, 371 U. S., at 45-46.
The presumption that a patent confers market power migrated from patent law to antitrust law in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392 (1947). In that case, we affirmed a District Court decision holding that leases of patented machines requiring the lessees to use the defendant’s unpatented salt products violated § 1 of the Sherman Act and § 3 of the Clayton Act as a matter of law. Id., at 396. Although the Court’s opinion does not discuss market power or the patent misuse doctrine, it assumes that “[t]he volume of business affected by these contracts cannot be said to be insignificant or insubstantial and the tendency of the arrangement to accomplishment of monopoly seems obvious.” Ibid.
The assumption that tying contracts “ten[d]... to accomplishment of monopoly” can be traced to the Government’s brief in International Salt, which relied heavily on our earlier patent misuse decision in Morton Salt. The Government described Morton Salt as “presenting] a factual situation almost identical with the instant case,” and it asserted that “although the Court in that case did not find it necessary to decide whether the antitrust laws were violated, its language, its reasoning, and its citations indicate that the policy underlying the decision was the same as that of the Sherman Act.” Brief for United States in International Salt Co. v. United States, O. T. 1947, No. 46, p. 19 (United States Brief). Building on its assertion that International Salt was logically indistinguishable from Morton Salt, the Government argued that this Court should place tying arrangements involving patented products in the category of per se violations of the Sherman Act. United States Brief 26-33.
Our opinion in International Salt clearly shows that we accepted the Government’s invitation to import the presumption of market power in a patented product into our antitrust jurisprudence. While we cited Morton Salt only for the narrower proposition that the defendant’s patents did not confer any right to restrain competition in unpatented salt or afford the defendant any immunity from the antitrust laws, International Salt, 332 U. S., at 395-396, given the fact that the defendant was selling its unpatented salt at competitive prices, id., at 396-397, the rule adopted in International Salt necessarily accepted the Government’s submission that the earlier patent misuse cases supported the broader proposition “that this type of restraint is unlawful on its face under the Sherman Act,” United States Brief 12.
Indeed, later in the same Term we cited International Salt for the proposition that the license of “a patented device on condition that unpatented materials be employed in conjunction with the patented device” is an example of a restraint that is “illegal per se.” United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495, 522-523, and n. 22 (1948). And in subsequent cases we have repeatedly grounded the presumption of market power over a patented device in International Salt. See, e. g., Loew’s, 371 U. S., at 45-46; Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 608 (1953); Standard Oil Co., 337 U. S., at 304.
IV
Although the patent misuse doctrine and our antitrust jurisprudence became intertwined in International Salt, subsequent events initiated their untwining. This process has ultimately led to today’s reexamination of the presumption of per se illegality of a tying arrangement involving a patented product, the first case since 1947 in which we have granted review to consider the presumption’s continuing validity.
Three years before we decided International Salt, this Court had expanded the scope of the patent misuse doctrine to include not only supplies or materials used by a patented device, but also tying arrangements involving a combination patent and “unpatented material or [a] device [that] is itself an integral part of the structure embodying the patent.” Mercoid, 320 U. S., at 665; see also Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U. S. 176, 188-198 (1980) (describing in detail Mercoid and the cases leading up to it). In reaching this conclusion, the Court explained that it could see “no difference in principle” between cases involving elements essential to the inventive character of the patent and elements peripheral to it; both, in the Court’s view, were attempts to “expan[d] the patent beyond the legitimate scope of its monopoly.” Mercoid, 320 U. S., at 665.
Shortly thereafter, Congress codified the patent laws for the first time. See 66 Stat. 792, codified at 35 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. III). At least partly in response to our Mercoid decision, Congress included a provision in its codification that excluded some conduct, such as a tying arrangement involving the sale of a patented product tied to an “essential” or “nonstaple” product that has no use except as part of the patented product or method, from the scope of the patent misuse doctrine. § 271(d); see also Dawson, 448 U. S., at 214. Thus, at the same time that our antitrust jurisprudence continued to rely on the assumption that “tying arrangements generally serve no legitimate business purpose,” Fortner I, 394 U. S., at 503, Congress began chipping away at the assumption in the patent misuse context from whence it came.
It is Congress’ most recent narrowing of the patent misuse defense, however, that is directly relevant to this case. Four years after our decision in Jefferson Parish repeated the patent-equals-market-power presumption, 466 U. S., at 16, Congress amended the Patent Code to eliminate that presumption in the patent misuse context, 102 Stat. 4676. The relevant provision reads:
“(d) No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement or contributory infringement of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse or illegal extension of the patent right by reason of his having done one or more of the following: ... (5) conditioned the license of any rights to the patent or the sale of the patented product on the acquisition of a license to rights in another patent or purchase of a separate product, unless, in view of the circumstances, the patent owner has market power in the relevant market for the patent or patented product on which the license or sale is conditioned.” 35 U. S. C. § 271(d)(5) (emphasis added).
The italicized clause makes it clear that Congress did not intend the mere existence of a patent to constitute the requisite “market power.” Indeed, fairly read, it provides that without proof that Trident had market power in the relevant market, its conduct at issue in this case was neither “misuse” nor an “illegal extension of the patent right.”
While the 1988 amendment does not expressly refer to the antitrust laws, it certainly invites a reappraisal of the per se rule announced in International Salt. A rule denying a patentee the right to enjoin an infringer is significantly less severe than a rule that makes the conduct at issue a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. See 15 U. S. C. § 1. It would be absurd to assume that Congress intended to provide that the use of a patent that merited punishment as a felony would not constitute “misuse.” Moreover, given the fact that the patent misuse doctrine provided the basis for the market power presumption, it would be anomalous to preserve the presumption in antitrust after Congress has eliminated its foundation. Cf. 10 P. Areeda, H. Hovenkamp, & E. Elhauge, Antitrust Law ¶ 1737c (2d ed. 2004) (hereinafter Areeda).
After considering the congressional judgment reflected in the 1988 amendment, we conclude that tying arrangements involving patented products should be evaluated under the standards applied in cases like Fortner II and Jefferson Parish rather than under the per se rule applied in Morton Salt and Loew’s. While some such arrangements are still unlawful, such as those that are the product of a true monopoly or a marketwide conspiracy, see, e. g., United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 145-146 (1948), that conclusion must be supported by proof of power in the relevant market rather than by a mere presumption thereof.
V
Rather than arguing that we should retain the rule of per se illegality, respondent contends that we should endorse a rebuttable presumption that patentees possess market power when they condition the purchase of the patented product on an agreement to buy unpatented goods exclusively from the patentee. Cf. supra, at 37-38. Respondent recognizes that a large number of valid patents have little, if any, commercial significance, but submits that those that are used to impose tying arrangements on unwilling purchasers likely do exert significant market power. Hence, in respondent’s view, the presumption would have no impact on patents of only slight value and would be justified, subject to being rebutted by evidence offered by the patentee, in cases in which the patent has sufficient value to enable the patentee to insist on acceptance of the tie.
Respondent also offers a narrower alternative, suggesting that we differentiate between tying arrangements involving the simultaneous purchase of two products that are arguably two components of a single product — such as the provision of surgical services and anesthesiology in the same operation, Jefferson Parish, 466 U. S., at 43 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment), or the licensing of one copyrighted film on condition that the licensee take a package of several films in the same transaction, Loew’s, 371 U. S. 38 — and a tying arrangement involving the purchase of unpatented goods over a period of time, a so-called “requirements tie.” See also Brief for Barry Nalebuff et al. as Amici Curiae. According to respondent, we should recognize a presumption of market power when faced with the latter type of arrangements because they provide a means for charging large volume purchasers a higher royalty for use of the patent than small purchasers must pay, a form of discrimination that “is strong evidence of market power.” Brief for Respondent 27; see generally Jefferson Parish, 466 U. S., at 15, n. 23 (discussing price discrimination of this sort and citing sources).
The opinion that imported the “patent equals market power” presumption into our antitrust jurisprudence, however, provides no support for respondent’s proposed alternative. In International Salt, it was the existence of the patent on the tying product, rather than the use of a requirements tie, that led the Court to presume market power. 332 U. S., at 395 (“The appellant’s patents confer a limited monopoly of the invention they reward”). Moreover, the requirements tie in that case did not involve any price discrimination between large volume and small volume purchasers or evidence of noncompetitive pricing. Instead, the leases at issue provided that if any competitor offered salt, the tied product, at a lower price, “the lessee should be free to buy in the open market, unless appellant would furnish the salt at an equal price.” Id., at 396.
As we have already noted, the vast majority of academic literature recognizes that a patent does not necessarily confer market power. See n. 4, supra. Similarly, while price discrimination may provide evidence of market power, particularly if buttressed by evidence that the patentee has charged an above-market price for the tied package, see, e. g., 10 Areeda ¶ 1769c, it is generally recognized that it also occurs in fully competitive markets, see, e. g., Baumol & Swanson, The New Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying Defensible Criteria of Market Power, 70 Antitrust L. J. 661, 666 (2003); 9 Areeda ¶ 1711; Landes & Posner 374-375. We are not persuaded that the combination of these two factors should give rise to a presumption of market power when neither is sufficient to do so standing alone. Rather, the lesson to be learned from International Salt and the academic commentary is the same: Many tying arrangements, even those involving patents and requirements ties, are fully consistent with a free, competitive market. For this reason, we reject both respondent’s proposed rebuttable presumption and their narrower alternative.
It is no doubt the virtual consensus among economists that has persuaded the enforcement agencies to reject the position that the Government took when it supported the per se rule that the Court adopted in the 1940’s. See supra, at 39. In antitrust guidelines issued jointly by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in 1995, the enforcement agencies stated that in the exercise of their prosecutorial discretion they “will not presume that a patent, copyright, or trade secret necessarily confers market power upon its owner.” U. S. Dept, of Justice and FTC, Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property §2.2 (Apr. 6, 1995), http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/ 0558.pdf (as visited Feb. 24, 2006, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). While that choice is not binding on the Court, it would be unusual for the Judiciary to replace the normal rule of lenity that is applied in criminal cases with a rule of severity for a special category of antitrust cases.
Congress, the antitrust enforcement agencies, and most economists have all reached the conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee. Today, we reach the same conclusion, and therefore hold that, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product.
VI
In this case, respondent reasonably relied on our prior opinions in moving for summary judgment without offering evidence defining the relevant market or proving that petitioners possess power within it. When the case returns to the District Court, respondent should therefore be given a fair opportunity to develop and introduce evidence on that issue, as well as any other issues that are relevant to its remaining §1 claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Illinois Tool did not acquire Trident until February 19, 1999, approximately six months after this action commenced.
See, e. g., Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U. S. 2, 9 (1984) (Sherman Act); Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 609 (1953) (Federal Trade Commission Act); International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392, 395-396 (1947) (Clayton Act and Sherman Act); Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U. S. 488, 494 (1942) (patent misuse); Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U. S. 502, 516 (1917) (same).
While our opinions have made clear that such an invitation is not necessary with respect to cases arising under the Sherman Act, see State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 20 (1997), it is certainly sufficient to warrant reevaluation of our precedent, id., at 21 (“[T]his Court has reconsidered its decisions construing the Sherman Act when the theoretical underpinnings of those decisions are called into serious question”).
Our imposition of this requirement accords with the vast majority of academic literature on the subject. See, e. g., 10 Areeda ¶ 1737a (“[T]here is no economic basis for inferring any amount of market power from the mere fact that the defendant holds a valid patent”); Burchfiel, Patent Misuse and Antitrust Reform: “Blessed be the Tie?” 4 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 1, 57, and n. 340 (1991) (noting that the market power presumption has been extensively criticized and citing sources); 1 H. Hovenkamp, M. Janis, & M. Lemley, IP and Antitrust § 4.2a (2005 Supp.) (“[CJoverage of one’s product with an intellectual property right does not confer a monopoly”); W. Landes & R. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law 374 (2003) (hereinafter Landes & Posner).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice THOMAS
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to void a lien on his property “[t]o the extent that [the] lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 506(d). These consolidated cases present the question whether a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding may void a junior mortgage under § 506(d) when the debt owed on a senior mortgage exceeds the present value of the property. We hold that a debtor may not, and we therefore reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals.
I
The facts in these consolidated cases áre largely the same. The debtors, respondents David Caulkett and Edelmiro Toledo-Cardona, each have two mortgage liens on their respective houses. Petitioner Bank of America (Bank) holds the junior mortgage lien — i.e., the mortgage lien subordinate to the other mortgage lien — on each home. The amount owed on each debtor’s senior mortgage lien is greater than each home’s current market value. The Bank’s junior mortgage liens are thus wholly underwater: because each home is worth less than the amount the debtor owes on the senior mortgage, the Bank would receive nothing if the properties were sold today.
In 2013, the debtors each filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In their respective bankruptcy proceedings, they moved to “strip off” — or void- — the junior mortgage liens under § 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. In each case, the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion, and both the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. In re Caulkett, 566 Fed.Appx. 879 (2014) (per curiam); In re Toledo-Cardona, 556 Fed.Appx. 911 (2014) (per curiam). The Eleventh Circuit explained that it was bound by Circuit precedent holding that § 506(d) allows debtors to void a wholly underwater mortgage lien.
We granted certiorari, 574 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 677, 190 L.Ed.2d 388 (2014), and now reverse the judgments of the Eleventh Circuit.
II
Section 506(d) provides, “To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, § 506(d) permits the debtors here to strip off the Bank’s junior mortgages only if the Bank’s “claim”— generally, its right to repayment from the debtors, § 101(5) — is “not an allowed secured claim.” Subject to some exceptions not relevant here, a claim filed by a creditor is deemed “allowed” under § 502 if no interested party objects or if, in the case of an objection, the Bankruptcy Court determines that the claim should be allowed under the Code. §§ 502(a)-(b). The parties agree that the Bank’s claims meet this requirement. They disagree, however, over whether the Bank’s claims are “secured” within the meaning of § 506(d).
The Code suggests that the Bank’s ' claims are not secured. Section 506(a)(1) provides that “[a]n allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property ... is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in ... such property,” and “an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest ... is less than the amount of such allowed claim.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, if the value of a creditor’s interest in the property is zero — as is the case here — his claim cannot be a “secured claim” within the meaning of § 506(a). And given that these identical words are later used in the same section of the same Act— § 506(d) — one would think this “presents a classic case for application of the normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.” Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 101, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under that straightforward reading of the statute, the debtors would be able to void the Bank’s claims.
Unfortunately for the debtors, this Court has already adopted a construction of the term “secured claim” in § 506(d) that forecloses this textual analysis. See Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992). In Dewsnup, the Court confronted a situation in which a Chapter 7 debtor wanted to “ ‘strip down’ ” — or reduce — a partially underwater lien under § 506(d) to the value of the collateral. ’ Id., at 412-413, 112 S.Ct. 773. Specifically, she sought, under § 506(d), to reduce her debt of approximately $120,000 to the value of the collateral securing her debt at that time ($39,000). Id., at 413, 112 S.Ct. 773. Relying on the statutory definition of “ ‘allowed secured claim’ ” in § 506(a), she contended that her creditors’ claim was “secured only to the extent of the judicially determined value of the real property on which the lien [wa]s fixed.” Id., at 414, 112 S.Ct. 773.
The Court rejected her argument. Rather than apply the statutory definition of “secured claim” in § 506(a), the Court reasoned that the term “secured” in § 506(d) contained an ambiguity because the self-interested parties before it disagreed over the term’s meaning. Id., at 416, 420, 112 S.Ct. 773. Relying on policy considerations and its understanding of pre-Code practice, the Court concluded that if a claim “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).” Id., at 415, 112 S.Ct. 773; see id., at 417-420, 112 S.Ct. 773. It therefore held that the debtor could not strip down the creditors’ lien to the value of the property under § 506(d) “because [the creditors’] claim [wa]s secured by a lien and ha[d] been fully allowed pursuant to § 502.” Id., at 417, 112 S.Ct. 773. In other words, Dewsnup defined the term “secured claim” in § 506(d) to mean a claim supported by a security interest in property, regardless of whether the value of that property would be sufficient to cover the claim. Under this definition, § 506(d)’s function is reduced to “voiding a lien whenever a claim secured by the lien itself has not been allowed.” Id., at 416, 112 S.Ct. 773.
Dewsnup’s construction of “secured claim” resolves the question presented here. Dewsnup construed the term “secured claim” in § 506(d) to include any claim “secured by a lien and ... fully allowed pursuant to § 502.” Id., at 417, 112 S.Ct. 773. Because the Bank’s claims here are both secured by liens and allowed under § 502, they cannot be voided under the definition given to the term “allowed secured claim” by Dewsnup.
III
The debtors do not ask us to overrule Dewsnup, but instead request that we limit that decision to partially — as opposed to wholly — underwater liens. We decline to adopt this distinction. The debtors offer several reasons why we should cabin Dewsnup in this manner, but none of them is compelling.
To start, the debtors rely on language in Dewsnup stating that the Court was not addressing “all possible fact situations,” but was instead “allow[ing] other facts to await their legal resolution on another day.” Id., at 416-417, 112 S.Ct. 773. But this disclaimer provides an insufficient foundation for the debtors’ proposed distinction. Dewsnup considered several' possible definitions of the term “secured claim” in § 506(d). See id., at 414-416, 112 S.Ct. 773. The definition it settled on — that a claim is “secured” if it is “secured by a lien” and “has been fully allowed pursuant to § 502,” id., at 417, 112 S.Ct. 773 — does not depend on whether a lien is partially or wholly underwater. Whatever the Court’s hedging language meant, it does not provide a reason to limit Dewsnup in the manner the debtors propose.
The debtors next contend that the term “secured claim” in § 506(d) could be redefined as any claim that is backed by collateral with some value. Embracing this reading of § 506(d), however, would give the term “allowed secured claim” in § 506(d) a different meaning than its statutory definition in § 506(a). We refuse to adopt this artificial definition.
Nor do we think Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993), supports the debtors’ proposed distinction. Nobelman said nothing about the meaning of the term “secured claim” in § 506(d). Instead, it addressed the interaction between the meaning of the term “secured claim” in § 506(a) and an entirely separate provision, § 1322(b)(2). See 508 U.S., at 327-332, 113 S.Ct. 2106. Nobelman offers no guidance on the question presented in these cases because the Court in Dewsnup already declined to apply the definition in § 506(a) to the phrase “secured claim” in § 506(d).
The debtors alternatively urge us to limit Dewsnup’s definition to the facts of that case because the historical and policy concerns that motivated the Court do not apply in the context of wholly underwater liens. Whether or not that proposition is true, it is an insufficient justification for giving the term “secured claim” in § 506(d) a different definition depending on the value of the collateral. We are generally reluctant to give the “same words a different meaning” when construing statutes, Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 358, 125 S.Ct. 1766, 161 L.Ed.2d 619 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted), and we decline to do so here based on policy arguments.
Ultimately, embracing the debtors’ distinction would not vindicate § 506(d)’s original meaning, and it would leave an odd statutory framework in its place. Under the debtors’ approach, if a court valued the collateral at one dollar more than the amount of a senior lien, the debtor could not strip down a junior lien under Dewsn-up, but if it valued the property at one dollar less, the debtor could strip off the entire junior lien. Given the constantly shifting value of real property, this reading could lead to arbitrary results. To be sure, the Code engages in line-drawing elsewhere, and sometimes a dollar’s difference will have a significant impact on bankruptcy proceedings. See, e.g., § 707(b)(2)(A)® (presumption of abuse of provisions of Chapter 7 triggered if debt- or’s projected disposable income over the next five years is $12,475). But these lines were set by Congress, not this Court. There is scant support for the view that § 506(d) applies differently depending on whether a lien was partially or wholly underwater. Even if Dewsnup were deemed not to reflect the correct meaning of § 506(d), the debtors’ solution would not either.
The reasoning of Dewsnup dictates that a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding may not void a junior mortgage lien under § 506(d) when the debt owed on a senior mortgage lien exceeds the current value of the collateral. The debtors here have not asked us to overrule Dewsnup, and we decline to adopt the artificial distinction they propose instead. We therefore reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,
so orcfered
Justice KENNEDY, Justice BREYER, and Justice SOTOMAYOR join this opinion, except as to the footnote.
From its inception, Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992), has been the target of criticism. See, e.g., id., at 420-436, 112 S.Ct. 773 (SCALIA, J., dissenting); In re Woolsey, 696 F.3d 1266, 1273-1274, 1278 (C.A.10 2012); In re Dever, 164 B.R. 132, 138, 145 (Bkrtcy.Ct.C.D.Cal.1994); Carlson, Bifurcation of Undersecured Claims in Bankruptcy, 70 Am. Bankr. L. J. 1, 12-20 (1996); Ponoroff & Knippenberg, The Immovable Object Versus the Irresistible Force: Rethinking the Relationship Between Secured Credit and Bankruptcy Policy, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 2234, 2305-2307 (1997); see also Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav. Assn. v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 526 U.S. 434, 463, and n. 3, 119 S.Ct. 1411, 143 L.Ed.2d 607 (1999) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (collecting cases and observing that "[t]he methodological confusion created by Dewsnup has enshrouded both the Courts of Appeals and ... Bankruptcy Courts”). Despite this criticism, the debtors have repeatedly insisted that they are not asking us to overrule Dewsnup.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice KENNEDY took no part in the decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided 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.
Per Curiam.
The appeal in this case concerns an order of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho staying this reapportionment suit until 30 days after the adjournment of the 1965 Session of the Idaho Legislature. The Idaho Legislature, after adopting a new reapportionment plan, adjourned on March 25, 1965. The stay order now having expired by its own terms and the District Court and the parties now being in a position to proceed promptly with this litigation, the motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
On May 29,1908, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to open 1.6 million acres of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation for homesteading. Act of May 29, 1908, ch. 218, 35 Stat. 460 et seq. (Act or Cheyenne River Act). The question presented in this case is whether that Act of Congress diminished the boundaries of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation or simply permitted non-Indians to settle within existing reservation boundaries.
I
In 1979, the State of South Dakota charged respondent John Bartlett, an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, with attempted rape. Respondent pleaded guilty to the charge, and was sentenced to a 10-year term in the state penitentiary at Sioux Falls. After exhausting state remedies, respondent filed a pro se petition for a writ of ha-beas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Respondent contended that the crime for which he had been convicted occurred within the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, established by Congress in the Act of Mar. 2, 1889, ch. 405, § 4, 25 Stat. 889; that, although on May 29, 1908, Congress opened for settlement by non-Indians the portion of the reservation on which respondent committed his crime, the opened portion nonetheless remained Indian country; and that the State therefore lacked criminal jurisdiction over respondent.
Relying on previous decisions of the Eighth Circuit dealing with the Act of May 29, 1908, the District Court accepted respondent’s claim that the Act had not diminished the original Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, and issued a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed, two judges dissenting. 691 F. 2d 420 (1982). Because the Supreme Court of South Dakota has issued a pair of opinions offering a conflicting interpretation of the Act of May 29, 1908, we granted certiorari. 461 U. S. 956 (1983). We now affirm.
I — I
In the latter half of the 19th century, large sections of the Western States and Territories were set aside for Indian reservations. Towards the end of the century, however, Congress increasingly adhered to the view that the Indian tribes should abandon their nomadic lives on the communal reservations and settle into an agrarian economy on privately owned parcels of land. This shift was fueled in part by the belief that individualized farming would speed the Indians’ assimilation into American society and in part by the continuing demand for new lands for the waves of homesteaders moving west. As a result of these combined pressures, Congress passed a series of surplus land Acts at the turn of the century to force Indians onto individual allotments carved out of reservations and to open up unallotted lands for non-Indian settlement. Initially, Congress legislated its Indian allotment program on a national scale, but by the time of the Act of May 29, 1908, Congress was dealing with the surplus land question on a reservation-by-reservation basis, with each surplus land Act employing its own statutory language, the product of a unique set of tribal negotiation and legislative compromise.
The modern legacy of the surplus land Acts has been a spate of jurisdictional disputes between state and federal officials as to which sovereign has authority over lands that were opened by the Acts and have since passed out of Indian ownership. As a doctrinal matter, the States have jurisdiction over unallotted opened lands if the applicable surplus land Act freed that land of its reservation status and thereby diminished the reservation boundaries. On the other hand, federal, state, and tribal authorities share jurisdiction over these lands if the relevant surplus land Act did not diminish the existing Indian reservation because the entire opened area is Indian country under 18 U. S. C. § 1151(a) (1982 ed.). See nn. 1 and 2, supra.
Unfortunately, the surplus land Acts themselves seldom detail whether opened lands retained reservation status or were divested of all Indian interests. When the surplus land Acts were passed, the distinction seemed unimportant. The notion that reservation status of Indian lands might not be coextensive with tribal ownership was unfamiliar at the turn of the century. Indian lands were judicially defined to include only those lands in which the Indians held some form of property interest: trust lands, individual allotments, and, to a more limited degree, opened lands that had not yet been claimed by non-Indians. See Bates v. Clark, 95 U. S. 204 (1877); Ash Sheep Co. v. United States, 252 U. S. 159 (1920). Only in 1948 did Congress uncouple reservation status from Indian ownership, and statutorily define Indian country to include lands held in fee by non-Indians within reservation boundaries. See Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 757 (codified at 18 U. S. C. § 1151 (1982 ed.)).
Another reason why Congress did not concern itself with the effect of surplus land Acts on reservation boundaries was the turn-of-the-century assumption that Indian reservations were a thing of the past. Consistent with prevailing wisdom, Members of Congress voting on the surplus land Acts believed to a man that within a short time — within a generation at most — the Indian tribes would enter traditional American society and the reservation system would cease to exist. Given this expectation, Congress naturally failed to be meticulous in clarifying whether a particular piece of legislation formally sliced a certain parcel of land off one reservation.
Although the Congresses that passed the surplus land Acts anticipated the imminent demise of the reservation and, in fact, passed the Acts partially to facilitate the process, we have never been willing to extrapolate from this expectation a specific congressional purpose of diminishing reservations with the passage of every surplus land Act. Rather, it is settled law that some surplus land Acts diminished reservations, see, e. g., Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U. S. 584 (1977); DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U. S. 425 (1975), and other surplus land Acts did not, see, e. g., Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U. S. 481 (1973); Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U. S. 351 (1962). The effect of any given surplus land Act depends on the language of the Act and the circumstances underlying its passage.
Our precedents in the area have established a fairly clean analytical structure for distinguishing those surplus land Acts that diminished reservations from those Acts that simply offered non-Indians the opportunity to purchase land within established reservation boundaries. The first and governing principle is that only Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries. Once a block of land is set aside for an Indian reservation and no matter what happens to the title of individual plots within the area, the entire block retains its reservation status until Congress explicitly indicates otherwise. See United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, 285 (1909).
Diminishment, moreover, will not be lightly inferred. Our analysis of surplus land Acts requires that Congress clearly evince an “intent... to change... boundaries” before diminishment will be found. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, supra, at 615. The most probative evidence of congressional intent is the statutory language used to open the Indian lands. Explicit reference to cession or other language evidencing the present and total surrender of all tribal interests strongly suggests that Congress meant to divest from the reservation all unallotted opened lands. DeCoteau v. District County Court, supra, at 444-445; Seymour v. Superintendent, supra, at 355. When such language of cession is buttressed by an unconditional commitment from Congress to compensate the Indian tribe for its opened land, there is an almost insurmountable presumption that Congress meant for the tribe’s reservation to be diminished. See DeCoteau v. District County Court, supra, at 447-448.
As our opinion in Rosebud Sioux Tribe demonstrates, however, see n. 10, supra, explicit language of cession and unconditional compensation are not prerequisites for a finding of diminishment. When events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act — particularly the manner in which the transaction was negotiated with the tribes involved and the tenor of legislative Reports presented to Congress — unequivocally reveal a widely held, contemporaneous understanding that the affected reservation would shrink as a result of the proposed legislation, we have been willing to infer that Congress shared the understanding that its action would diminish the reservation, notwithstanding the presence of statutory language that would otherwise suggest reservation boundaries remained unchanged. To a lesser extent, we have also looked to events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act to decipher Congress’ intentions. Congress’ own treatment of the affected areas, particularly in the years immediately following the opening, has some evidentiary value, as does the manner in which the Bureau of Indian Affairs and local judicial authorities dealt with unallotted open lands.
On a more pragmatic level, we have recognized that who actually moved onto opened reservation lands is also relevant to deciding whether a surplus land Act diminished a reservation. Where non-Indian settlers flooded into the opened portion of a reservation and the area has long since lost its Indian character, we have acknowledged that de facto, if not de jure, diminishment may have occurred. See Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, supra, at 588, n. 3, and 604-605; DeCoteau v. District County Court, supra, at 428. In addition to the obvious practical advantages of acquiescing to de facto diminishment, we look to the subsequent demographic history of opened lands as one additional clue as to what Congress expected would happen once land on a particular reservation was opened to non-Indian settlers.
There are, of course, limits to how far we will go to decipher Congress’ intention in any particular surplus land Act. When both an Act and its legislative history fail to provide substantial and compelling evidence of a congressional intention to diminish Indian lands, we are bound by our traditional solicitude for the Indian tribes to rule that diminishment did not take place and that the old reservation boundaries survived the opening. Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U. S., at 505; Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U. S. 351 (1962).
Ill
A
We now turn to apply these principles to the Act of May 29, 1908. We begin with the Act’s operative language, which reads:
“[T]he Secretary of the Interior... is hereby... authorized and directed, as hereinafter provided, to sell and dispose of all that portion of the Cheyenne River and Standing Rock[] Indian reservations in the States of South Dakota and North Dakota lying and being within the following described boundaries....
“[F]rom the proceeds arising from the sale and disposition of the lands aforesaid, exclusive of the customary fees and commissions, there shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States, to the credit of the Indians belonging and having tribal rights on the reservation aforesaid in the States of South Dakota and North Dakota the sums to which the respective tribes may be entitled....” Ch. 218, §§ 1, 6, 35 Stat. 460-461, 463.
These provisions stand in sharp contrast to the explicit language of cession employed in the Lake Traverse and 1904 Rosebud Acts discussed in our opinions in DeCoteau and Rosebud Sioux Tribe. See n. 10, supra. Rather than reciting an Indian agreement to “cede, sell, relinquish and convey” the opened lands, the Cheyenne River Act simply authorizes the Secretary to “sell and dispose” of certain lands. This reference to the sale of Indian lands, coupled with the creation of Indian accounts for proceeds, suggests that the Secretary of the Interior was simply being authorized to act as the Tribe’s sales agent. Indeed, when faced with precisely the same language in Seymour v. Superintendent, supra, at 356, we concluded that such provisions “did no more than to open the way for non-Indian settlers to own land on the reservation in a manner which the Federal Government, acting as guardian and trustee for the Indians, regarded as beneficial to the development of its wards.”
The balance of the Cheyenne River Act is largely consistent with the implication of the operative language that the Act opened but did not diminish the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. Nowhere else in the Act is there specific reference to the cession of Indian interests in the opened lands or any change in existing reservation boundaries. In fact, certain provisions of the Act strongly suggest that the unallotted opened lands would for the immediate future remain an integral part of the Cheyenne River Reservation. In § 1 of the Act, the Secretary was authorized to set aside portions of the opened lands “for agency, school, and religious purposes, to remain reserved as long as needed, and as long as agency, school, or religious institutions are maintained thereon for the benefit of said Indians.” 35 Stat. 461. It is difficult to imagine why Congress would have reserved lands for such purposes if it did not anticipate that the opened area would remain part of the reservation. This interpretation is supported by §2 of the Act, under which Cheyenne River Indians were given permission to continue to obtain individual allotments on the affected portion of the reservation before the land was officially opened to non-Indian settlers. Id., at 462-468. Also in §2, Congress instructed the Geological Survey to examine the opened area for “lands bearing coal” and exempted those sections from allotment or disposal, the apparent purpose being to reserve those mineral resources for the whole Tribe. Id., at 462; see S. Rep. No. 439, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 6 (1908).
This case is made more difficult, however, by the presence of some language in the Cheyenne River Act that indirectly supports petitioners’ view that the reservation was diminished. For instance, in a provision permitting Indians already holding an allotment on the opened lands to obtain new allotments in the unopened territories, the Act refers to the unopened territories as “within the respective reservations thus diminished.” §2, 35 Stat. 461. Elsewhere, the Act permits tribal members to harvest timber on certain parts of the opened lands, but conditions the grant for “only as long as the lands remain part of the public domain.” §9, 35 Stat. 464. On the assumption that Congress would refer to opened lands as being part of the public domain only if the lands had lost all vestiges of reservation status, petitioners and several amici point to the term “public domain” as well as the phrase “reservations thus diminished” as evidence that Congress understood the Cheyenne River Act to divest un-allotted open lands of their reservation status.
Undisputedly, the references to the opened areas as being in “the public domain” and the unopened areas as constituting “the reservation thus diminished” support petitioners’ view that the Cheyenne River Act diminished the reservation. These isolated phrases, however, are hardly dispositive. And, when balanced against the Cheyenne River Act’s stated and limited goal of opening up reservation lands for sale to non-Indian settlers, these two phrases cannot carry the burden of establishing an express congressional purpose to diminish. Cf. Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U. S., at 497-499. The Act of May 29, 1908, read as a whole, does not present an explicit expression of congressional intent to diminish the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation.
B
The circumstances surrounding the passage of the Cheyenne River Act also fail to establish a clear congressional purpose to diminish the reservation. In contrast to the Lake Traverse Act and 1904 Rosebud Act, the Cheyenne River Act did not begin with an agreement between the United States and the Indian Tribes, in which the Indians agreed to cede a portion of their territory to the Federal Government. The Cheyenne River Act had its origins in “[a] bill to authorize the sale and disposition of a portion of the surplus and unallotted lands in the Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Indian reservations,” introduced by Senator Gamble of South Dakota on December 9,1907. S. 1385, 60th Cong., 1st Sess. (1907). Once the bill was under consideration, the Secretary of the Interior dispatched an Inspector McLaughlin to the two affected reservations to consult with the Tribes about the bills.
During his meeting with members of the Cheyenne River Tribe, Inspector McLaughlin admittedly spoke in terms of cession and the relinquishment of Indian interests in the opened territories. However, it is impossible to say that the Tribe agreed to the terms that McLaughlin presented. Due to bad weather during McLaughlin’s visit, only 63 members of the Tribe attended his meeting. At the close of McLaughlin’s presentation, the president of the Cheyenne River Business Council said that he would have to discuss the matter with the entire Tribe before he could respond to the proposed bill. McLaughlin agreed to delay submission of his report to Congress until he had received word from the Tribe, but, when the Tribe’s vote had not reached Washington 14 days later, McLaughlin sent his report to Congress with the conclusion: “The general sentiment of the Indians in council with me at the agency was in favor of the relinquishment [of the opened lands].” H. R. Rep. No. 1539, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1908); see id., at 23-24, 28. McLaughlin, however, also informed Congress of the low attendance at his meeting with the Cheyenne River Tribe and acknowledged that he had never received formal approval from the Tribe. Id., at 8.
With a full report of Inspector McLaughlin’s meeting with the Cheyenne River Tribe before it, Congress considered the Cheyenne River Act in April and May 1908. In neither floor debates nor legislative Reports is there a clear statement that Congress interpreted Inspector McLaughlin’s report to establish an agreement on the part of the Cheyenne River Indians to cede the opened areas. Indeed, the most explicit statement of Congress’ view of the Indian’s position was: “The Indians upon both reservations are satisfied to have the surplus and unallotted lands disposed of under the provisions of the bill as amended.” S. Rep. No. 439, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 4 (1908), quoted and adopted in H. R. Rep. No. 1539, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1908). For the most part, the legislative debate of the Cheyenne River Act centered on how much money the Indians would be paid for certain sections of the opened area that the United States was going to buy for school lands, and no mention was made of the Act’s effect on the reservation’s boundaries or whether state or federal officials would have jurisdiction over the opened areas. See 42 Cong. Rec. 4753-4755 (1908) (Senate debate); id., at 7003-7007 (House debate).
To be sure, there are a few phrases scattered through the legislative history of the Cheyenne River Act that support petitioners’ position. Both the Senate and House Reports refer to the “reduced reservation” and state that “lands reserved for the use of the Indians upon both reservations as diminished... are ample... for the present and future needs of the Indians of the respective tribes.” S. Rep. No. 439, swpra, pt. 1, at 4, quoted and adopted in H. R. Rep. No. 1539, supra, at 3. However, it is unclear whether Congress was alluding to the reduction in Indian-owned lands that would occur once some of the opened lands were sold to settlers or to the reduction that a complete cession of tribal interests in the opened area would precipitate. See also n. 17, supra. Without evidence that Congress understood itself to be entering into an agreement under which the Tribe committed itself to cede and relinquish all interests in un-allotted opened lands, and in the absence of some clear statement of congressional intent to alter reservation boundaries, it is impossible to infer from a few isolated and ambiguous phrases a congressional purpose to diminish the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation.
C
The subsequent treatment of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation by Congress, courts, and the Executive is so rife with contradictions and inconsistencies as to be of no help to either side. For instance, two years after the Cheyenne River Act, Congress passed a bill to sell a portion of the opened lands and called the area “surplus and unallotted lands in the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation,” suggesting that the opened area was still part of the reservation. Act of June 23, 1910, ch. 369, 36 Stat. 602 (emphasis added). But, 12 years after that, Congress passed another piece of legislation referring to the opened lands as “the former” Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation and suggesting that the reservation had been diminished. See Act of Apr. 25, 1922, ch. 140, 42 Stat. 499. Ample additional examples pointing in both directions leave one with the distinct impression that subsequent Congresses had no clear view whether the opened territories were or were not still part of the Cheyenne River Reservation. A similar state of confusion characterizes the Executive’s treatment of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation’s opened lands. Moreover, both parties have been able to cite instances in which state and federal courts exerted criminal jurisdiction over the disputed area in the years following opening. Neither sovereign dominated the jurisdictional history of the opened lands in the decades immediately following 1908.
What is clear, however, is what happened to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe after the Act of May 29, 1908, was passed. Most of the members of the Tribe obtained individual allotments on the lands opened by the Act. Because most of the Tribe lived on the opened territories, tribal authorities and Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel took primary responsibility for policing and supplying social services to the opened lands during the years following 1908. The strong tribal presence in the opened area has continued until the present day. Now roughly two-thirds of the Tribe’s enrolled members live in the opened area. The seat of tribal government is now located in a town in the opened area, where most important tribal activities take place.
Also clear is the historical fact that the opening of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation was a failure. Few homesteaders perfected claims on the lands, due perhaps in part to the price of the land but probably more importantly to the fact that the opened area was much less fertile than the lands in southern South Dakota opened by other surplus land Acts. As a result of the small number of homesteaders who settled on the opened lands and the high percentage of tribal members who continue to live in the area, the population of the disputed area is now evenly divided between Indian and non-Indian residents. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to say that the opened areas of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation have lost their Indian character.
> HH
Neither the Act of May 29, 1908, the circumstances surrounding its passage, nor subsequent events clearly establish that the Act diminished the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. The presumption that Congress did not intend to diminish the reservation therefore stands, and the judgment of the Eighth Circuit is
Affirmed.
“Indian country” is defined in 18 U. S. C. § 1151 (1982 ed.) to mean “(a) all land -within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.”
Title 18 U. S. C. §1153 provides: “Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely,... assault with intent to commit rape... within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.” Within Indian country, state jurisdiction is limited to crimes by non-Indians against non-Indians, see New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U. S. 496 (1946), and victimless crimes by non-Indians. Tribes exercise concurrent jurisdiction over certain minor crimes by Indians, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1152, 1153, unless a State has assumed jurisdiction under § 1162.
United States v. Dwpris, 612 F. 2d 319 (1979), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 446 U. S. 980 (1980); United States v. Long Elk, 565 F. 2d 1032 (1977); United States ex rel. Condon v. Erickson, 478 F. 2d 684 (1973).
See State v. Janis, 317 N. W. 2d 133 (1982); Stankey v. Waddell, 256 N. W. 2d 117 (1977).
An account of the movement and its effect on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe appears in F. Hoxie, Jurisdiction on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation: An Analysis of the Causes and Consequences of the Act of May 29, 1908, pp. 1-30 (undated manuscript) (hereinafter Hoxie), which was prepared for presentation in United States v. Dupris, supra, and incorporated into the record of this case. See also Note, Jurisdictional Confusion on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation: United States v. Dupris, 25 S. D. L. Rev. 355 (1980).
See F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 127-134 (1982 ed.). The amount of surplus lands freed up by moving Indians onto individual allotments was considerable. For instance, in 1908, the 2,620 members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe had over 2.8 million acres of reservation land, or over 1,000 acres per tribal member. Under the allotment program, the average allotment per member was under 600 acres. See S. Rep. No. 439, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 4 (1908); Hoxie 38, 40.
See, e. g., General Allotment Act of 1887, ch. 119, 24 Stat. 388 et seq.
Regardless of whether the original reservation was diminished, federal and tribal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the opened lands that were and have remained Indian allotments. See 18 U. S. C. § 1151(c) (1982 ed.). In addition, opened lands that have been restored to reservation status by subsequent Acts of Congress, see, e. g., Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984 (codified at 25 U. S. C. §461 et seq. (1982 ed.) (authorizing the return of opened lands to the original reservations)), fall within the exclusive criminal jurisdiction of federal and tribal courts under 18 U. S. C. §§ 1152, 1153.
See Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 559-560, n. 9 (1981); Hoxie 1-20. Congress rejected the policy of allotment and surplus land sales in 1934. Indian Reorganization Act, 48 Stat. 984 et seq.
At one extreme, for example, the Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 543, 26 Stat. 1035 et seq., expressly stated that the Lake Traverse Indian Tribe agreed to “cede, sell, relinquish and convey” all interest in unallotted lands on the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation, and the Act further provided that the Tribe would receive full compensation in consideration for its loss. In DeCoteau v. District County Court, we found that the Lake Traverse Act, with its express language of cession, diminished the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation. At the other extreme, the Act of Mar. 22, 1906, ch. 1126, § 1, 34 Stat. 80, simply authorized the Secretary of the Interior “to sell or dispose of” unallotted lands on a portion of the Colville Indian Reservation; under the Act, the Colville Tribe received whatever proceeds these sales generated, rather than a sum certain. § 9, 34 Stat. 81. In Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U. S., at 356, we held that, because the Colville Act lacked an unconditional divestiture of Indian interest in the lands, the Act simply opened a portion of the Colville Reservation to non-Indian settlers and did not diminish the reservation. See also Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U. S., at 497.
Between these extremes was the case of the Rosebud Sioux Reservation. In 1901, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe voted in favor of an agreement to cede a portion of their land in Gregory County to the United States in exchange for a sum certain. Three years later, Congress passed the Act of Apr. 23, 1904, ch. 1484, 33 Stat. 254-258, which incorporated the agreement’s cession language, but replaced sum-certain payment with a provision guaranteeing the Tribe only the proceeds from the sale of the opened lands. Over the following years, Congress passed two more surplus land Acts involving Rosebud Reservation land in other counties; each of the subsequent Acts authorized the sale and disposal of additional lands and promised the tribes the proceeds of the sales. See Act of Mar. 2,1907, ch. 2536, 34 Stat. 1230-1232; Act of May 30, 1910, ch. 260, 36 Stat. 448-452. Although none of the Rosebud Acts clearly severed the Tribe from its interest in the unallotted opened lands and even though the last two Acts were strikingly similar to the 1906 Act found not to have diminished the Colville Reservation in Seymour v. Superintendent, supra, this Court held that the circumstances surrounding the passage of the three Rosebud Acts unequivocally demonstrated that Congress meant for each Act to diminish the Rosebud Reservation. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip.
At one time, it was thought that Indian consent was needed to diminish a reservation, but in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553 (1903), this Court decided that Congress could diminish reservations unilaterally.
When an area is predominately populated by non-Indians with only a few surviving pockets of Indian allotments, finding that the land remains Indian country seriously burdens the administration of state and local governments. See Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip; DeCoteau v. District County Court. Conversely, problems of an imbalanced checkerboard jurisdiction arise if a largely Indian opened area is found to be outside Indian country. See Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U. S., at 358.
Resort to subsequent demographic history is, of course, an unorthodox and potentially unreliable method of statutory interpretation. However, in the area of surplus land Acts, where various factors kept Congress from focusing on the diminishment issue, see supra, at 468, the technique is a necessary expedient.
As this language reveals, the Act dealt with land on two bordering Sioux reservations. Although for purposes of this case we are only concerned with the Act’s effect on the Cheyenne River Reservation, nothing in the record leads us to suspect that Congress intended the Act to have a different effect on the Standing Rock Reservation.
As petitioners stress, the operative language of the Cheyenne River Act is also similar to language in the 1907 and 1910 Rosebud Acts, which this Court held diminished the Rosebud Sioux Reservation. Our analysis of Rosebud Acts, however, was strongly colored by the existence of a 1904 Rosebud Act containing cession language “precisely suited” to disestablishment, and the admission of the Indians that the second two Rosebud Acts must have diminished their reservation if the previous Act did. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U. S., at 597, 606, and n. 29; see n. 10, supra.
See Brief for Petitioners 19-24; Brief for Counties of Dewey et al. as Amici Curiae 12-14; Brief for Counties of Duchesne et al. as Amici Curiae 39-45.
There is also considerable doubt as to what Congress meant in using these phrases. In 1908, “diminished” was not yet a term of art in Indian law. When Congress spoke of the “reservation thus diminished,” it may well have been referring to diminishment in common lands and not dimin-ishment of reservation boundaries. See United States el rel. Condon v. Erickson, 478 F. 2d, at 687. Similarly, even without diminishment, un-allotted opened lands could be conceived of as being in the “public domain” inasmuch as they were available for settlement.
Both the South Dakota Supreme Court and dissenting judges from the Eighth Circuit have found further support for diminishment in the so-called school lands provision and a subsequently enacted liquor prohibition for the opened lands. Stankey v. Waddell, 256 N. W. 2d, at 121, 126; United States v. Dupris, 612 F. 2d, at 334; see Act of May 29, 1908, ch. 218, § 7, 35 Stat. 463 (school land provision); Act of Feb. 17, 1910, ch. 40, 36 Stat. 196-197 (liquor prohibition Act). Although we credited similar provisions as supportive of our holding in Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, supra, at 605-615, inferences from these provisions were obviously of secondary importance to our decision, see nn. 10 and 15, supra. Moreover, as independent evidence of a congressional intention to diminish, such evidence is suspect. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14, n. 14, 16, n. 16; see also 430 U. S., at 623, n. 12 (Marshall, J., dissenting).
Read as authorizing the Secretary to serve as the Tribe’s sales agent, the Act fulfills Congress’ original plan that the surplus lands of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation could be sold off once members of the Tribe moved onto allotment lands. See Act of Mar. 2, 1889, ch. 405, § 12, 25 Stat. 892.
See Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U. S., at 589-598; DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U. S., at 436-444.
One reason why Congress may not have interpreted the McLaughlin report as evidence of tribal agreement to cede the land is that a delegation from the Tribe followed McLaughlin back to Washington to urge Congress not to pass the proposed legislation.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fourth Amendment permits police officers to approach bus passengers at random to ask questions and to request their consent to searches, provided a reasonable person would understand that he or she is free to refuse.
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429 (1991). This case requires us to determine whether officers must advise bus passengers during these encounters of their right not to cooperate.
I
On February 4, 1999, respondents Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown, Jr., were traveling on a Greyhound bus en route from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, to Detroit, Michigan. The bus made a scheduled stop in Tallahassee, Florida. The passengers were required to disembark so the bus could be refueled and cleaned. As the passengers reboarded, the driver checked their tickets and then left to complete paperwork inside the terminal. As he left, the driver allowed three members of the Tallahassee Police Department to board the bus as part of a routine drug and weapons interdiction effort. The officers were dressed in plain clothes and carried concealed weapons and visible badges.
Once onboard Officer Hoover knelt on the driver’s seat and faced the rear of the bus. He could observe the passengers and ensure the safety of the two other officers without blocking the aisle or otherwise obstructing the bus exit. Officers Lang and Blackburn went to the rear of the bus. Blackburn remained stationed there, facing forward. Lang worked his way toward the front of the bus, speaking with individual passengers as he went. He asked the passengers about their travel plans and sought to match passengers with luggage in the overhead racks. To avoid blocking the aisle, Lang stood next to or just behind each passenger with whom he spoke.
According to Lang’s testimony, passengers who declined to cooperate with him or who chose to exit the bus at any time would have been allowed to do so without argument. In Lang’s experience, however, most people are willing to cooperate. Some passengers go so far as to commend the police for their efforts to ensure the safety of their travel. Lang could recall five to six instances in the previous year in which passengers had declined to have their luggage searched. It also was common for passengers to leave the bus for a cigarette or a snack while the officers were on board. Lang sometimes informed passengers of their right to refuse to cooperate. On the day in question, however, he did not.
Respondents were seated next to each other on the bus. Drayton was in the aisle seat, Brown in the seat next to the window. Lang approached respondents from the rear and leaned over Drayton’s shoulder. He held up his badge long enough for respondents to identify him as a police officer. With his face 12-to-18 inches away from Drayton’s, Lang spoke in a voice just loud enough for respondents to hear:
“I’m Investigator Lang with the Tallahassee Police Department. We’re conducting bus interdiction [sic], attempting to deter drugs and illegal weapons being transported on the bus. Do you have any bags on the bus?” App. 55.
Both respondents pointed to a single green bag in the overhead luggage rack. Lang asked, “Do you mind if I check it?,” and Brown responded, “Go ahead.” Id., at 56. Lang handed the bag to Officer Blackburn to check. The bag contained no contraband.
Officer Lang noticed that both respondents were wearing heavy jackets and baggy pants despite the warm weather. In Lang’s experience drug traffickers often use baggy clothing to conceal weapons or narcotics. The officer thus asked Brown if he had any weapons or drugs in his possession. And he asked Brown: “Do you mind if I check your person?” Brown answered, “Sure,” and cooperated by leaning up in his seat, pulling a cell phone out of his pocket, and opening up his jacket. Id., at 61. Lang reached across Drayton and patted down Brown’s jacket and pockets, including his waist area, sides, and upper thighs. In both thigh areas, Lang detected hard objects similar to drug packages detected on other occasions. Lang arrested and handcuffed Brown. Officer Hoover escorted Brown from the bus.
Lang then asked Drayton, “Mind if I check you?” Id., at 65. Drayton responded by lifting his hands about eight inches from his legs. Lang conducted a patdown of Dray-ton’s thighs and detected hard objects similar to those found on Brown. He arrested Drayton and escorted him from the bus. A further search revealed that respondents had duct-taped plastic bundles of powder cocaine between several pairs of their boxer shorts. Brown possessed three bundles containing 488 grams of cocaine. Drayton possessed two bundles containing 295 grams of cocaine.
Respondents were charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and with possessing cocaine with intent to distribute it, in violation of § 841(a)(1). They moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the consent to the patdown search was invalid. Following a hearing at which only Officer Lang testified, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied their motions to suppress. The District Court determined that the police conduct was not coercive and respondents’ consent to the search was voluntary. The District Court pointed to the fact that the officers were dressed in plain clothes, did not brandish their badges in an authoritative manner, did not make a general announcement to the entire bus, and did not address anyone in a menacing tone of voice. It noted that the officers did not block the aisle or the exit, and stated that it was “obvious that [respondents] can get up and leave, as can the people ahead of them.” App. 132. The District Court concluded: “[Everything that took place between Officer Lang and Mr. Drayton and Mr. Brown suggests that it was cooperative. There was nothing coercive, there was nothing confrontational about it.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant respondents’ motions to suppress. 231 F. 3d 787 (2000). The court held that this disposition was compelled by its previous decisions in United States v. Washington, 151 F. 3d 1354 (1998), and United States v. Guapi, 144 F. 3d 1393 (1998). Those cases had held that bus passengers do not feel free to disregard police officers’ requests to search absent “some positive indication that consent could have been refused.” Washington, supra, at 1357.
We granted certiorari. 534 U. S. 1074 (2002). The respondents, we conclude, were not seized and their consent to the search was voluntary; and we reverse.
II
Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen. See, e. g., Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497 (1983) (plurality opinion); see id., at 523, n. 3 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U. S. 1, 5-6 (1984) (per curiam) (holding that such interactions in airports are “the sort of consensual encounters] that implicate] no Fourth Amendment interest”). Even when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may pose questions, ask for identification, and request consent to search luggage — provided they do not induce cooperation by coercive means. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S., at 434-435 (citations omitted). If a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been seized.
The Court has addressed on a previous occasion the specific question of drug interdiction efforts on buses. In Bos-tick, two police officers requested a bus passenger’s consent to a search of his luggage. The passenger agreed, and the resulting search revealed cocaine in his suitcase. The Florida Supreme Court suppressed the cocaine. In doing so it adopted a per se rule that due to the cramped confines on-board a bus the act of questioning would deprive a person of his or her freedom of movement and so constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
This Court reversed. Bostick first made it clear that for the most part per se rules are inappropriate in the Fourth Amendment context. The proper inquiry necessitates a consideration of “all the circumstances surrounding the encounter.” Id., at 439. The Court noted next that the traditional rule, which states that a seizure does not occur so long as a reasonable person would feel free “to disregard the police and go about his business,” California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621, 628 (1991), is not an accurate measure of the coercive effect of a bus encounter. A passenger may not want to get off a bus if there is a risk it will depart before the opportunity to reboard. Bostick, 501 U. S., at 434-436. A bus rider’s movements are confined in this sense, but this is the natural result of choosing to take the bus; it says nothing about whether the police conduct is coercive. Id., at 436. The proper inquiry “is whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” Ibid. Finally, the Court rejected Bostick’s argument that he must have been seized because no reasonable person would consent to a search of luggage containing drugs. The reasonable person test, the Court explained, is objective and “presupposes an innocent person.” Id., at 437-438.
In light of the limited record, Bostick refrained from deciding whether a seizure occurred. Id., at 437. The Court, however, identified two factors “particularly worth noting” on remand. Id., at 432. First, although it was obvious that an officer was armed, he did not remove the gun from its pouch or use it in a threatening way. Second, the officer advised the passenger that he could refuse consent to the search. Ibid.
Relying upon this latter factor, the Eleventh Circuit has adopted what is in effect a per se rule that evidence obtained during suspicionless drug interdiction efforts aboard buses must be suppressed unless the officers have advised passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to a search. In United States v. Guapi, supra, the Court of Appeals described “[t]he most glaring difference” between the encounters in Guapi and in Bostick as “the complete lack of any notification to the passengers that they were in fact free to decline the search request.... Providing [this] simple notification ... is perhaps the most efficient and effective method to ensure compliance with the Constitution.” 144 F. 3d, at 1395. The Court of Appeals then listed other factors that contributed to the coerciveness of the encounter: (1) the officer conducted the interdiction before the passengers disembarked from the bus at a scheduled stop; (2) the officer explained his presence in the form of a general announcement to the entire bus; (3) the officer wore a police uniform; and (4) the officer questioned passengers as he moved from the front to the rear of the bus, thus obstructing the path to the exit. Id., at 1396.
After its decision in Guapi the Court of Appeals decided United States v. Washington and the instant case. The court suppressed evidence obtained during similar drug interdiction efforts despite the following facts: (1) the officers in both cases conducted the interdiction after the passengers had reboarded the bus; (2) the officer in the present ease did not make a general announcement to the entire bus but instead spoke with individual passengers; (3) the officers in both cases were not in uniform; and (4) the officers in both cases questioned passengers as they moved from the rear to the front of the bus and were careffil not to obstruct passengers’ means of egress from the bus.
Although the Court of Appeals has disavowed a per se requirement, the lack of an explicit warning to passengers is the only element common to all its cases. See Washington, 151 F. 3d, at 1357 (“It seems obvious to us that if police officers genuinely want to ensure that their encounters with bus passengers remain absolutely voluntary, they can simply say so. Without such notice in this case, we do not feel a reasonable person would have felt able to decline the agents’ requests”); 231 F. 3d, at 790 (noting that “[t]his case is controlled by” Guapi and Washington, and dismissing any factual differences between the three cases as irrelevant). Under these cases, it appears that the Court of Appeals would suppress any evidence obtained during suspicion-less drug interdiction efforts aboard buses in the absence of a warning that passengers may refuse to cooperate. The Court of Appeals erred in adopting this approach.
Applying the Bostick framework to the facts of this particular case, we conclude that the police did not seize respondents when they boarded the bus and began questioning passengers. The officers gave the passengers no reason to believe that they were required to answer the officers’ questions. When Officer Lang approached respondents, he did not brandish a weapon or make any intimidating movements. He left the aisle free so that respondents could exit. He spoke to passengers one by one and in a polite, quiet voice. Nothing he said would suggest to a reasonable person that he or she was barred from leaving the bus or otherwise terminating the encounter.
There were ample grounds for the District Court to conclude that “everything that took place between Officer Lang and [respondents] suggests that it was cooperative” and that there “was nothing coercive [or] confrontational” about the encounter. App. 132. There was no application of force, no intimidating movement, no overwhelming show of force, no brandishing of weapons, no blocking of exits, no threat, no command, not even an authoritative tone of voice. It is beyond question that had this encounter occurred on the street, it would be constitutional. The fact that an encounter takes place on a bus does not on its own transform standard police questioning of citizens into an illegal seizure. See Bostick, 501 U. S., at 439-440. Indeed, because many fellow passengers are present to witness officers’ conduct, a reasonable person may feel even more secure in his or her decision not to cooperate with police on a bus than in other circumstances.
Respondents make much of the fact that Officer Lang displayed his badge. In Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U. S., at 5-6, however, the Court rejected the claim that the defendant was seized when an officer approached him in an airport, showed him his badge, and asked him to answer some questions. Likewise, in INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 212-213 (1984), the Court held that Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agents’ wearing badges and questioning workers in a factory did not constitute a seizure. And while neither Lang nor his colleagues were in uniform or visibly armed, those factors should have little weight in the analysis. Officers are often required to wear uniforms and in many circumstances this is cause for assurance, not discomfort. Much the same can be said for wearing sidearms. That most law enforcement officers are armed is a fact well known to the public. The presence of a holstered firearm thus is unlikely to contribute to the coerciveness of the encounter absent active brandishing of the weapon.
Officer Hoover’s position at the front of the bus also does not tip the scale in respondents’ favor. Hoover did nothing to intimidate passengers, and he said nothing to suggest that people could not exit and indeed he left the aisle clear. In Delgado, the Court determined there was no seizure even though several uniformed INS officers were stationed near the exits of the factory. Id., at 219. The Court noted: “The presence of agents by the exits posed no reasonable threat of detention to these workers,. . . the mere possibility that they would be questioned if they sought to leave the buildings should not have resulted in any reasonable apprehension by any of them that they would be seized or detained in any meaningful way.” Ibid.
Finally, the fact that in Officer Lang’s experience only a few passengers have refused to cooperate does not suggest that a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the bus encounter. In Lang’s experience it was common for passengers to leave the bus for a cigarette or a snack while the officers were questioning passengers. App. 70, 81. And of more importance, bus passengers answer officers’ questions and otherwise cooperate not because of coercion but because the passengers know that their participation enhances their own safety and the safety of those around them. “While most citizens will respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response.” Delgado, supra, at 216.
Drayton contends that even if Brown’s cooperation with the officers was consensual, Drayton was seized because no reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter with the officers after Brown had been arrested. The Court of Appeals did not address this claim; and in any event the argument fails. The arrest of one person does not mean that everyone around him has been seized by police. If anything, Brown’s arrest should have put Drayton on notice of the consequences of continuing the encounter by answering the officers’ questions. Even after arresting Brown, Lang addressed Drayton in a polite manner and provided him with no indication that he was required to answer Lang’s questions.
We turn now from the question whether respondents were seized to whether they were subjected to an unreasonable search, i. e., whether their consent to the suspicionless search was involuntary. In circumstances such as these, where the question of voluntariness pervades both the search and seizure inquiries, the respective analyses turn on very similar facts. And, as the facts above suggest, respondents’ consent to the search of their luggage and their persons was voluntary. Nothing Officer Lang said indicated a command to consent to the search. Rather, when respondents informed Lang that they had a bag on the bus, he asked for their permission to check it. And when Lang requested to search Brown and Drayton’s persons, he asked first if they objected, thus indicating to a reasonable person that he or she was free to refuse. Even after arresting Brown, Lang provided Drayton with no indication that he was required to consent to a search. To the contrary, Lang asked for Drayton’s permission to search him (“Mind if I check you?”), and Dray-ton agreed.
The Court has rejected in specific terms the suggestion that police officers must always inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search. See, e. g., Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U. S. 33, 39-40 (1996); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 227 (1973). “While knowledge of the right to refuse consent is one factor to be taken into account, the government need not establish such knowledge as the sine qua non of an effective consent.” Ibid. Nor do this Court’s decisions suggest that even though there are no per se rules, a presumption of invalidity attaches if a citizen consented without explicit notification that he or she was free to refuse to cooperate. Instead, the Court has repeated that the totality of the circumstances must control, without giving extra weight to the absence of this type of warning. See, e. g., Sckneckloth, supra; Robinette, supra, at 39-40. Although Officer Lang did not inform respondents of their right to refuse the search, he did request permission to search, and the totality of the circumstances indicates that their consent was voluntary, so the searches were reasonable.
In a society based on law, the concept of agreement and consent should be given a weight and dignity of its own. Police officers act in full accord with the law when they ask citizens for consent. It reinforces the rule of law for the citizen to advise the police of his or her wishes and for the police to act in reliance on that understanding. When this exchange takes place, it dispels inferences of coercion.
We need not ask the alternative question whether, after the arrest of Brown, there were grounds for a Terry stop and frisk of Drayton, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), though this may have been the case. It was evident that Drayton and Brown were traveling together — Officer Lang observed the pair reboarding the bus together; they were each dressed in heavy, baggy clothes that were ill-suited for the day’s warm temperatures; they were seated together on the bus; and they each claimed responsibility for the single piece of green carry-on luggage. Once Lang had identified Brown as carrying what he believed to be narcotics, he may have had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop and frisk on Drayton as well. That question, however, has not been presented to us. The fact the officers may have had reasonable suspicion does not prevent them from relying on a citizen’s consent to the search. It would be a paradox, and one most puzzling to law enforcement officials and courts alike, were we to say, after holding that Brown’s consent was, voluntary, that Drayton’s consent was ineffectual simply because the police at that point had more compelling grounds to detain him. After taking Brown into custody, the officers were entitled to continue to proceed on the basis of consent and to ask for Drayton’s cooperation.
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: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court.
In maritime tort cases, we act as a common-law court, subject to any controlling statutes enacted by Congress. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 507-508, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 171 L.Ed.2d 570 (2008). This maritime tort case raises a question about the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn. The manufacturers here produced equipment such as pumps, blowers, and turbines for three Navy ships. The equipment required asbestos insulation or asbestos parts in order to function as intended. When used on the ships, the equipment released asbestos fibers into the air. Two Navy veterans who were exposed to asbestos on the ships developed cancer and later died. The veterans' families sued the equipment manufacturers, claiming that the manufacturers were negligent in failing to warn of the dangers of asbestos.
The plaintiffs contend that a manufacturer has a duty to warn when the manufacturer's product requires incorporation of a part (here, asbestos) that the manufacturer knows is likely to make the integrated product dangerous for its intended uses. The manufacturers respond that they had no duty to warn because they did not themselves incorporate the asbestos into their equipment; rather, the Navy added the asbestos to the equipment after the equipment was already on board the ships.
We agree with the plaintiffs. In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product's users will realize that danger. The District Court did not apply that test when granting summary judgment to the defendant manufacturers. Although we do not agree with all of the reasoning of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, we affirm its judgment requiring the District Court to reconsider its prior grants of summary judgment to the defendant manufacturers.
I
Kenneth McAfee served in the U. S. Navy for more than 20 years. As relevant here, McAfee worked on the U. S. S. Wanamassa from 1977 to 1980 and then on the U. S. S. Commodore from 1982 to 1986. John DeVries served in the U. S. Navy from 1957 to 1960. He worked on the U. S. S. Turner.
Those ships were outfitted with equipment such as pumps, blowers, and turbines. That equipment required asbestos insulation or asbestos parts in order to function as intended. When used as intended, that equipment can cause the release of asbestos fibers into the air. If inhaled or ingested, those fibers may cause various illnesses.
Five businesses-Air and Liquid Systems, CBS, Foster Wheeler, Ingersoll Rand, and General Electric-produced some of the equipment that was used on the ships. Al-though the equipment required asbestos insulation or asbestos parts in order to function as intended, those businesses did not always incorporate the asbestos into their products. Instead, the businesses delivered much of the equipment to the Navy without asbestos. The equipment was delivered in a condition known as "bare-metal." In those situations, the Navy later added the asbestos to the equipment.
McAfee and DeVries allege that their exposure to the asbestos caused them to develop cancer. They and their wives sued the equipment manufacturers in Pennsylvania state court. (McAfee and DeVries later died during the course of the ongoing litigation.) The plaintiffs did not sue the Navy because they apparently believed the Navy was immune. See Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950). The plaintiffs also could not recover much from the manufacturers of the asbestos insulation and asbestos parts because those manufacturers had gone bankrupt. As to the manufacturers of the equipment-such as the pumps, blowers, and turbines-the plaintiffs claimed that those manufacturers negligently failed to warn them of the dangers of asbestos in the integrated products. If the manufacturers had provided warnings, the workers on the ships presumably could have worn respiratory masks and thereby avoided the danger.
Invoking federal maritime jurisdiction, the manufacturers removed the cases to federal court. The manufacturers then moved for summary judgment on the ground that manufacturers should not be liable for harms caused by later-added third-party parts. That defense is known as the "bare-metal defense."
The District Court granted the manufacturers' motions for summary judgment. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated and remanded. In re Asbestos Prods. Liability Litigation, 873 F.3d 232, 241 (2017). The Third Circuit held that "a manufacturer of a bare-metal product may be held liable for a plaintiff's injuries suffered from later-added asbestos-containing materials" if the manufacturer could foresee that the product would be used with the later-added asbestos-containing materials. Id., at 240.
We granted certiorari to resolve a disagreement among the Courts of Appeals about the validity of the bare-metal defense under maritime law. 584 U. S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1990, 201 L.Ed.2d 246 (2018). Compare 873 F.3d 232 (case below), with Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (CA6 2005).
II
Article III of the Constitution grants the federal courts jurisdiction over maritime cases. Under 28 U. S. C. § 1333, the federal courts have "original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled."
When a federal court decides a maritime case, it acts as a federal "common law court," much as state courts do in state common-law cases. Exxon Shipping Co., 554 U.S. at 507, 128 S.Ct. 2605. Subject to direction from Congress, the federal courts fashion federal maritime law. See id., at 508, n. 21, 128 S.Ct. 2605 ; Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 27, 111 S.Ct. 317, 112 L.Ed.2d 275 (1990) ; United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U.S. 397, 409, 95 S.Ct. 1708, 44 L.Ed.2d 251 (1975) ; Detroit Trust Co. v. The Thomas Barlum, 293 U.S. 21, 42-44, 55 S.Ct. 31, 79 L.Ed. 176 (1934). In formulating federal maritime law, the federal courts may examine, among other sources, judicial opinions, legislation, treatises, and scholarly writings. See Exxon Co., U. S. A. v. Sofec, Inc., 517 U.S. 830, 839, 116 S.Ct. 1813, 135 L.Ed.2d 113 (1996) ;
East River S. S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 864, 106 S.Ct. 2295, 90 L.Ed.2d 865 (1986).
This is a maritime tort case. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant equipment manufacturers were negligent in failing to warn about the dangers of asbestos. "The general maritime law has recognized the tort of negligence for more than a century...." Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris, 532 U.S. 811, 820, 121 S.Ct. 1927, 150 L.Ed.2d 34 (2001) ; see also Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 631-632, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959). Maritime law has likewise recognized common-law principles of products liability for decades. See East River S. S. Corp., 476 U.S. at 865, 106 S.Ct. 2295.
In this negligence case, we must decide whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn when the manufacturer's product requires later incorporation of a dangerous part-here, asbestos-in order for the integrated product to function as intended.
We start with basic tort-law principles. Tort law imposes "a duty to exercise reasonable care" on those whose conduct presents a risk of harm to others. 1 Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 7, p. 77 (2005). For the manufacturer of a product, the general duty of care includes a duty to warn when the manufacturer "knows or has reason to know" that its product "is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied" and the manufacturer "has no reason to believe" that the product's users will realize that danger. 2 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, p. 301 (1963-1964).
In tort cases, the federal and state courts have not reached consensus on how to apply that general tort-law "duty to warn" principle when the manufacturer's product requires later incorporation of a dangerous part in order for the integrated product to function as intended. Three approaches have emerged.
The first approach is the more plaintiff-friendly foreseeability rule that the Third Circuit adopted in this case: A manufacturer may be liable when it was foreseeable that the manufacturer's product would be used with another product or part, even if the manufacturer's product did not require use or incorporation of that other product or part. See, e.g., 873 F.3d at 240 ; Kochera v. Foster Wheeler, LLC, 2015 WL 5584749, *4 (S.D. Ill., Sept. 23, 2015) ; Chicano v. General Elec. Co., 2004 WL 2250990, *9 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 5, 2004) ; McKenzie v. A. W. Chesterson Co., 277 Ore. App. 728, 749-750, 373 P.3d 150, 162 (2016).
The second approach is the more defendant-friendly bare-metal defense that the manufacturers urge here: If a manufacturer did not itself make, sell, or distribute the part or incorporate the part into the product, the manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by the integrated product-even if the product required incorporation of the part and the manufacturer knew that the integrated product was likely to be dangerous for its intended uses. See, e.g., Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492, 495-497 ; Evans v. CBS Corp., 230 F.Supp.3d 397, 403-405 (D.Del. 2017) ; Cabasug v. Crane Co., 989 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1041 (D.Haw. 2013).
The third approach falls between those two approaches. Under the third approach, foreseeability that the product may be used with another product or part that is likely to be dangerous is not enough to trigger a duty to warn. But a manufacturer does have a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part and the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses. Under that approach, the manufacturer may be liable even when the manufacturer does not itself incorporate the required part into the product. See, e.g., Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 17 F.Supp.3d 760, 769-770 (N.D. Ill. 2014) ; In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 27 N. Y. 3d 765, 793-794, 37 N.Y.S.3d 723, 59 N.E.3d 458, 474 (2016) ; May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., 446 Md. 1, 29, 129 A.3d 984, 1000 (2015).
We conclude that the third approach is the most appropriate for this maritime tort context.
To begin, we agree with the manufacturers that a rule of mere foreseeability would sweep too broadly. See generally 1 Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 7, Comment j, at 82; 2 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 395, Comment j, at 330. Many products can foreseeably be used in numerous ways with numerous other products and parts. Requiring a product manufacturer to imagine and warn about all of those possible uses-with massive liability looming for failure to correctly predict how its product might be used with other products or parts-would impose a difficult and costly burden on manufacturers, while simultaneously overwarning users. In light of that uncertainty and unfairness, we reject the foreseeability approach for this maritime context.
That said, we agree with the plaintiffs that the bare-metal defense ultimately goes too far in the other direction. In urging the bare-metal defense, the manufacturers contend that a business generally has "no duty" to "control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another." Id., § 315, at 122. That is true, but it is also beside the point here. After all, when a manufacturer's product is dangerous in and of itself, the manufacturer "knows or has reason to know" that the product "is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied." Id., § 388, at 301. The same holds true, we conclude, when the manufacturer's product requires incorporation of a part that the manufacturer knows or has reason to know is likely to make the integrated product dangerous for its intended uses. As a matter of maritime tort law, we find no persuasive reason to distinguish those two similar situations for purposes of a manufacturer's duty to warn. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2, Comment i, p. 30 (1997) ("[W]arnings also may be needed to inform users and consumers of nonobvious and not generally known risks that unavoidably inhere in using or consuming the product").
Importantly, the product manufacturer will often be in a better position than the parts manufacturer to warn of the danger from the integrated product. See generally G. Calabresi, The Costs of Accidents 311-318 (1970). The product manufacturer knows the nature of the ultimate integrated product and is typically more aware of the risks associated with that integrated product. By contrast, a parts manufacturer may be aware only that its part could conceivably be used in any number of ways in any number of products. A parts manufacturer may not always be aware that its part will be used in a way that poses a risk of danger.
To be sure, as the manufacturers correctly point out, issuing a warning costs time and money. But the burden usually is not significant. Manufacturers already have a duty to warn of the dangers of their own products. That duty typically imposes a light burden on manufacturers. See, e.g., Davis v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 399 F.2d 121, 131 (CA9 1968) ; Butler v. L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc., 296 F.2d 623, 625-626 (CA2 1961) ; Ross Labs. v. Thies, 725 P.2d 1076, 1079 (Alaska 1986) ; Moran v. Faberge, Inc., 273 Md. 538, 543-544, 332 A.2d 11, 15 (1975). Requiring a manufacturer to also warn when the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that a required later-added part is likely to make the integrated product dangerous for its intended uses should not meaningfully add to that burden.
The manufacturers also contend that requiring a warning even when they have not themselves incorporated the part into the product will lead to uncertainty about when product manufacturers must provide warnings. But the manufacturers have not pointed to any substantial confusion in those jurisdictions that have adopted this approach. And the rule that we adopt here is tightly cabined. The rule does not require that manufacturers warn in cases of mere foreseeability. The rule requires that manufacturers warn only when their product requires a part in order for the integrated product to function as intended.
The manufacturers further assert that requiring a warning in these circumstances will lead to excessive warning of consumers. Again, however, we are not aware of substantial overwarning problems in those jurisdictions that have adopted this approach. And because the rule we adopt here applies only in certain narrow circumstances, it will not require a plethora of new warnings.
Requiring the product manufacturer to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part that makes the integrated product dangerous for its intended uses-and not just when the manufacturer itself incorporates the part into the product-is especially appropriate in the maritime context. Maritime law has always recognized a "special solicitude for the welfare" of those who undertake to "venture upon hazardous and unpredictable sea voyages." American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274, 285, 100 S.Ct. 1673, 64 L.Ed.2d 284 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiffs in this case are the families of veterans who served in the U. S. Navy. Maritime law's longstanding solicitude for sailors reinforces our decision to require a warning in these circumstances. See Yamaha Motor Corp., U. S. A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 213, 116 S.Ct. 619, 133 L.Ed.2d 578 (1996) ; Miles, 498 U.S. at 36, 111 S.Ct. 317 ; Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 387, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970).
For those reasons, we conclude as follows: In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product's users will realize that danger. We do not purport to define the proper tort rule outside of the maritime context.
One final point for clarity: Courts have determined that this rule applies in certain related situations, including when: (i) a manufacturer directs that the part be incorporated, see, e.g., Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 2016 WL 5780104, *6-*7 (E.D. La., Oct. 4, 2016) ; (ii) a manufacturer itself makes the product with a part that the manufacturer knows will require replacement with a similar part, see, e.g., Chesher v. 3M Co., 234 F.Supp.3d 693, 713-714 (D.S. C. 2017) ;
Quirin, 17 F.Supp.3d at 769-770 ; May, 446 Md., at 29, 129 A.3d at 1000 ; or (iii) a product would be useless without the part, see, e.g., In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 27 N. Y. 3d, at 793-794, 37 N.Y.S.3d 723, 59 N.E.3d at 474. In all of those situations, courts have said that the product in effect requires the part in order for the integrated product to function as intended. We agree. The maritime tort rule we adopt today therefore encompasses those situations, so long as the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product's users will realize that danger.
* * *
In the maritime tort context, we hold that a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product's users will realize that danger. The District Court should evaluate the evidence under that rule. Although we do not agree with all of the reasoning of the Third Circuit, we affirm its judgment requiring the District Court to reconsider its prior grants of summary judgment to the defendant manufacturers.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH, with whom Justice THOMAS and Justice ALITO join, dissenting.
Decades ago, many of the defendants before us sold "bare metal" products to the Navy. Things like the turbines used to propel its ships. Did these manufacturers have to warn users about the dangers of asbestos that someone else later chose to add to or wrap around their products as insulation?
Start with a couple of things we can all agree on. First, everyone accepts that, under traditional tort principles, the manufacturers who actually supplied the later-added asbestos had to warn about its known dangers. Second, everyone agrees that the court of appeals erred when it came to analyzing the duties of the bare metal defendants. The court of appeals held that the bare metal manufacturers had a duty to warn because they could have "foreseen" the possibility that others would later use asbestos in conjunction with their products. Today, the Court rightly rejects this "foreseeability" standard, succinctly explaining that "[r]equiring a product manufacturer to imagine and warn about all of those possible uses-with massive liability looming for failure to correctly predict how its product might be used with other products or parts-would impose a difficult and costly burden on manufacturers, while simultaneously overwarning users." Ante, at ----.
Our disagreement arises only in what comes next. Immediately after rejecting the court of appeals' approach, the Court proceeds to devise its own way of holding the bare metal manufacturers responsible for later-added asbestos. In the Court's judgment, the bare metal defendants had a duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos introduced by others so long as they (i) produced a product that "require[d] incorporation of" asbestos, (ii) "kn[ew] or ha[d] reason to know" that the "integrated product" would be dangerous, and (iii) had "no reason to believe" that users would realize that danger. Ante, at ---- - ----. The Court's new three-part standard surely represents an improvement over the court of appeals' unadorned "foreseeability" offering. But, respectfully, it seems to me to suffer from many of the same defects the Court itself has identified.
In the first place, neither of these standards enjoys meaningful roots in the common law. The common law has long taught that a manufacturer has no "duty to warn or instruct about another manufacturer's products, though those products might be used in connection with the manufacturer's own products." Firestone Steel Prods. Co. v. Barajas, 927 S.W.2d 608, 616 (Tex. 1996). Instead, "the manufacturer's duty is restricted to warnings based on the characteristics of the manufacturer's own product." Powell v. Standard Brands Paint Co., 166 Cal. App. 3d 357, 364, 212 Cal.Rptr. 395, 398 (1985). It doesn't matter, either, whether a manufacturer's product happens to be (or is designed to be) "integrated" with another's. Instead, it is black-letter law that the supplier of a product generally must warn about only those risks associated with the product itself, not those associated with the "products and systems into which [it later may be] integrated." Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 5, Comment b, p. 132 (1997).
More than that, the traditional common law rule still makes the most sense today. The manufacturer of a product is in the best position to understand and warn users about its risks; in the language of law and economics, those who make products are generally the least-cost avoiders of their risks. By placing the duty to warn on a product's manufacturer, we force it to internalize the full cost of any injuries caused by inadequate warnings-and in that way ensure it is fully incentivized to provide adequate warnings. By contrast, we dilute the incentive of a manufacturer to warn about the dangers of its products when we require other people to share the duty to warn and its corresponding costs. See S. Shavell, Economic Analysis of Accident Law 17 (1987); G. Calabresi, The Costs of Accidents 135, and n. 1 (1970); Italia Societa per Azioni di Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 376 U.S. 315, 324, 84 S.Ct. 748, 11 L.Ed.2d 732 (1964).
The traditional common law rule better accords, too, with consumer expectations. A home chef who buys a butcher's knife may expect to read warnings about the dangers of knives but not about the dangers of undercooked meat. Likewise, a purchaser of gasoline may expect to see warnings at the pump about its flammability but not about the dangers of recklessly driving a car. As the Court today recognizes, encouraging manufacturers to offer warnings about other people's products risks long, duplicative, fine print, and conflicting warnings that will leave consumers less sure about which to take seriously and more likely to disregard them all. In the words of the California Supreme Court, consumer welfare is not well "served by requiring manufacturers to warn about the dangerous propensities of products they do not design, make, or sell." O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal. 4th 335, 343, 266 P.3d 987, 991, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288 (2012) ; see also Cotton v. Buckeye Gas Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 935, 938 (CADC 1988) ("The inclusion of each extra item dilutes the punch of every other item. Given short attention spans, items crowd each other out; they get lost in fine print").
The traditional tort rule bears yet another virtue: It is simple to apply. The traditional rule affords manufacturers fair notice of their legal duties, lets injured consumers know whom to sue, and ensures courts will treat like cases alike. By contrast, when liability depends on the application of opaque or multifactor standards like the one proposed below or the one announced today, "equality of treatment" becomes harder to ensure across cases; "predictability is destroyed" for innovators, investors, and consumers alike; and "judicial courage is impaired" as the ability (and temptation) to fit the law to the case, rather than the case to the law, grows. Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1182 (1989).
Just consider some of the uncertainties each part of the Court's new three-part test is sure to invite:
(i) When does a customer's side-by-side use of two products qualify as "incorporation" of the products? Does hanging asbestos on the outside of a boiler count, or must asbestos be placed inside a product? And when is incorporation of a dangerous third-party product "required" as opposed to just optimal or preferred? What if a potential substitute existed, but it was less effective or more costly (surely alternatives to asbestos insulation have existed for a long time)? And what if the third-party product becomes less advantageous over time due to advancing technology (as asbestos did)? When does the defendant's duty to warn end?
(ii) What will qualify as an "integrated product"? In the past, we've suggested that a "product" is whatever assemblage of parts is "placed in the stream of commerce by the manufacturer," and we've stressed the importance of maintaining the "distinction between the components added to a product by a manufacturer before the product's sale... and those items added" later by someone else. Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J. M. Martinac & Co., 520 U.S. 875, 883-884 [117 S.Ct. 1783, 138 L.Ed.2d 76] (1997). The Court's new standard blurs that distinction, but it is unclear how far it goes. The Court suggests a turbine and separately installed insulation may now qualify as a single "integrated product." But what about other parts connected to the turbine? Does even the propeller qualify as part of the final "integrated product" too, so that its manufacturer also bears a duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos hung around the turbine? For that matter, why isn't the entire ship an "integrated product," with a corresponding duty for all the manufacturers who contributed parts to warn about the dangers of all the other parts? And when exactly is a manufacturer supposed to "know or have reason to know" that some supplement to its product has now made a resulting "integrated product" dangerous? How much cost and effort must manufacturers expend to discover and understand the risks associated with third-party products others may be "incorporating" with their products?
(iii) If a defendant reasonably expects that the manufacturer of a third-party product will comply with its own duty to warn, is that sufficient "reason to believe" that users will "realize" the danger to absolve the defendant of responsibility? Or does a defendant have to assume that the third-party manufacturer will behave negligently in rendering its own warnings? Or that users won't bother to read the warnings others offer? And what if the defendants here understood that the Navy itself would warn sailors about the need for proper handling of asbestos-did they still have to provide their own warnings?
Headscratchers like these are sure to enrich lawyers and entertain law students, but they also promise to leave everyone else wondering about their legal duties, rights, and liabilities.
Nor is this kind of uncertainty costless. Consider what might follow if the Court's standard were widely adopted in tort law. Would a company that sells smartphone cases have to warn about the risk of exposure to cell phone radiation? Would a car maker have to warn about the risks of improperly stored antifreeze? Would a manufacturer of flashlights have to warn about the risks associated with leaking batteries? Would a seller of hot dog buns have to warn about the health risks of consuming processed meat? Just the threat of litigation and liability would force many manufacturers of safe products to spend time and money educating themselves and writing warnings about the dangers of other people's more dangerous products. All this would, as well, threaten to leave consumers worse off. After all, when we effectively require manufacturers of safe products to subsidize those who make more dangerous items, we promise to raise the price and restrict the output of socially productive products. Tort law is supposed to be about aligning liability with responsibility, not mandating a social insurance policy in which everyone must pay for everyone else's mistakes.
Finally and relatedly, the Court's new standard implicates the same sort of fair notice problem that the court of appeals' standard did. Decades ago, the bare metal defendants produced their lawful products and provided all the warnings the law required. Now, they are at risk of being held responsible retrospectively for failing to warn about other people's products. It is a duty they could not have anticipated then and one they cannot discharge now. They can only pay. Of course, that may be the point. In deviating from the traditional common law rule, the Court may be motivated by the unfortunate facts of this particular case, where the sailors' widows appear to have a limited prospect of recovery from the companies that supplied the asbestos (they've gone bankrupt) and from the Navy that allegedly directed the use of asbestos (it's likely immune under our precedents). Ante, at ----. The bare metal defendants may be among the only solvent potential defendants left. But how were they supposed to anticipate many decades ago the novel duty to warn placed on them today? People should be able to find the law in the books; they should not find the law coming upon them out of nowhere.
Still, there's a silver lining here. In announcing its new standard, the Court expressly states that it does "not purport to define the proper tort rule outside of the maritime context." Ante, at ----. Indeed, the Court acknowledges that it has created its new standard in part because of the "solicitude for sailors" that is a unique feature of our maritime jurisdiction. Ante, at ----. All of this means, of course, that nothing in today's opinion compels courts operating outside the maritime context to apply the test announced today. In other tort cases, courts remain free to use the more sensible and historically proven common law rule. And given that, "unlike state courts, we have little... experience in the development of new common-law rules of tort," Saratoga, 520 U.S. at 886, 117 S.Ct. 1783 (Scalia, J., dissenting), that is a liberty they may be wise to exercise.
Sometimes, the equipment manufacturers themselves added the asbestos to the equipment. Even in those situations, however, the Navy later replaced the asbestos parts with third-party asbestos parts.
We do not rule out the possibility that, in certain circumstances, the parts manufacturer may also have a duty to warn.
See also, e.g., Dreyer v. Exel Industries, S. A., 326 Fed. Appx. 353, 357-358 (CA6 2009) ; Barnes v. Kerr Corp., 418 F.3d 583, 590 (CA6 2005) ; Reynolds v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 989 F.2d 465, 472 (CA11 1993) ; Baughman v. General Motors Corp., 780 F.2d 1131, 1133 (CA4 1986) ; In re Deep Vein Thrombosis, 356 F.Supp.2d 1055, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ; Acoba v. General Tire, Inc., 92 Haw. 1, 18, 986 P.2d 288, 305 (1999) ; Brown v. Drake-Willock Int'l, Ltd., 209 Mich. App. 136, 144-146, 530 N.W.2d 510, 514-515 (1995) ; Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 N. Y. 2d 289, 297-298, 582 N.Y.S.2d 373, 591 N.E.2d 222, 225-226 (1992) ; Walton v. Harnischfeger, 796 S.W.2d 225, 226 (Tex. App. 1990) ; Toth v. Economy Forms Corp., 391 Pa. Super. 383, 388-389, 571 A.2d 420, 423 (1990) ; Mitchell v. Sky Climber, Inc., 396 Mass. 629, 631-632, 487 N.E.2d 1374, 1376 (1986) ; Johnson v. Jones-Blair Paint Co., 607 S.W.2d 305, 306 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980) ; 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Products Liability § 1027, p. 247 (2010) ; Behrens & Horn, Liability for Asbestos-Containing Connected or Replacement Parts Made by Third-Parties: Courts Are Properly Rejecting This Form of Guilt by Association
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | N | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 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 action, involving the adjudication of various claims to a historic shipwreck, requires us to address the interaction between the Eleventh Amendment and the in rem admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. Respondent Deep Sea Research, Inc. (DSR), located the ship, known as the S. S. Brother Jonathan, in California’s territorial waters. When DSR turned to the federal courts for resolution of its claims to the vessel, California contended that the Eleventh Amendment precluded a federal court from considering DSR’s claims in light of the State’s asserted rights to the Brother Jonathan under federal and state law. We conclude that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the jurisdiction of a federal court over an in rem, admiralty action where the res is not within the State’s possession.
I
The dispute before us arises out of respondent DSR’s assertion of rights to both the vessel and cargo of the Brother Jonathan, a 220-foot, wooden-hulled, double side-wheeled steamship that struck a submerged rock in July 1865 during a voyage between San Francisco and Vancouver. It took less than an hour for the Brother Jonathan to sink, and most of the ship’s passengers and crew perished. The ship’s cargo, also lost in the accident, included a shipment of up to $2 million in gold and a United States Army payroll that some estimates place at $250,000. See Nolte, Shipwreck: Brother Jonathan Discovered, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 25, 1994, p. 1, reprinted in App. 127-131. One of few parts of the ship recovered was the wheel, which was later displayed in a saloon in Crescent City, California. R. Phelan, The Gold Chain 242 (1987).
Shortly after the disaster, five insurance companies paid claims totaling $48,490 for the loss of certain cargo. It is unclear whether the remaining cargo and the ship itself were insured. See Wreck of the Steamship Brother Jonathan, New York Times, Aug. 26, 1865, reprinted in App. 140-147. Prior to DSR’s location of the vessel, the only recovery of cargo from the shipwreck may have occurred in the 1930’s, when a fisherman found 22 pounds of gold bars minted in 1865 and believed to have come from the Brother Jonathan. The fisherman died, however, without revealing the source of his treasure. Nolte, swpra, App. 130. There appears to be no evidence that either the State of California or the insurance companies that paid claims have attempted to locate or recover the wreckage.
In 1991, DSR filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking rights to the wreck of the Brother Jonathan and its cargo under that court’s in rem admiralty jurisdiction. California intervened, asserting an interest in the Brother Jonathan based on the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), 102 Stat. 432, 43 U. S. C. §§2101-2106, which provides that the Federal Government asserts and transfers title to a State of any “abandoned shipwreck” that either is embedded in submerged lands of a State or is on a State’s submerged lands “and is included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register,”. §2105(a)(3). According to California, the ASA applies because the Brother Jonathan is abandoned and is both embedded on state land and eligible for inelusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). California also laid claim to the Brother Jonathan under Cal. Pub. Res. Code Ann. § 6313 (West Supp. 1998) (hereinafter §6313), which vests title in the State “to all abandoned shipwrecks ... on or in the tide and submerged lands of California.”
The District Court initially dismissed DSR’s action without prejudice at DSR’s initiative. The case was reinstated in 1994 after DSR actually located the Brother Jonathan Sé miles off the coast of Crescent City, where it apparently rests upright on the sea floor under more than 200 feet of water. Based on its possession of several artifacts from the Brother Jonathan, including china, a full bottle of champagne, and a brass spike from the ship’s hull, DSR sought either an award of title to the ship and its cargo or a salvage award for its efforts in recovering the ship. DSR also claimed a right of ownership based on its purchase of subrogation interests from some of the insurance companies that had paid claims on the ship’s cargo.
In response, the State of California entered an appearance for the limited purpose of filing a motion to dismiss DSR’s in rem complaint for lack of jurisdiction. According to the State, it possesses title to the Brother Jonathan under either the ASA or §6313, and therefore, DSR’s in rem action against the vessel is an action against the State in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. DSR disputed both of the State’s statutory ownership claims, and argued that the ASA could not divest the federal courts of the exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction conferred by Article III, §2, of the United States Constitution. DSR also filed a motion requesting that the District Court issue a warrant for the arrest of the Brother Jonathan and-its cargo, as well as an order appointing DSR the exclusive salvor of the shipwreck.
The District Court held two hearings on the motions. The first focused on whether the wreck is located within California’s territorial waters, and the second concerned the possible abandonment, embeddedness, and historical significance of the shipwreck, issues relevant to California’s claims to the res. For purposes of the pending motions, DSR stipulated that the Brother Jonathan is located upon submerged lands belonging to California.
After the hearings, the District Court concluded that the State failed to demonstrate a “colorable claim” to the Brother Jonathan under federal law, reasoning that the State had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the ship is abandoned, embedded in the sea floor, or eligible for listing in the National Register as is required to establish title under the ASA. 883 F. Supp. 1343, 1357 (ND Cal. 1995). As for California’s state law claim, the court determined that the ASA pre-empts § 6313. Accordingly, the court issued a warrant for the arrest of the Brother Jonathan, appointed DSR custodian of the shipwreck subject to further order of the court, and ordered DSR to take possession of the shipwreck as its exclusive salvor pending the court’s determination of “the manner in which the wreck and its cargo, or the proceeds therefrom, should be distributed.” Id., at 1364.
The District Court stated that it was not deciding whether “any individual items of cargo or personal property have been abandoned,” explaining that “[a]t this stage in the litigation, DSR is not asking the court to award it salvage fees from the res of the wreck, or to otherwise make any order regarding title to or distribution of the wreck or its contents.” Id., at 1354. The District Court thought that the most prudent course would be to adjudicate title after DSR completes the salvage operation. Following the District Court’s ruling, the United States asserted a claim to any property on the Brother Jonathan belonging to the Federal Government.
The State appealed, arguing that its immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment does not hinge upon the demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the ASA applies to the Brother Jonathan. 102 F. 3d 379, 383 (CA9 1996). According to the State, it had established sufficient claim to the shipwreck under state law by “asserting] that the Brother Jonathan is on its submerged lands and that . . . § 6313 vests title in the State to abandoned shipwrecks on its submerged lands.” Id., at 385. Underlying the State’s argument was a challenge to the District Court’s ruling that the ASA pre-empts the California statute. The State also maintained that it had a colorable claim to the Brother Jonathan under the ASA, arguing that it presented ample evidence of both abandonment and embeddedness, and that the District Court applied the wrong test by “re-quirting] that abandonment be shown by an affirmative act on the part of the original owner demonstrating intent to renounce ownership.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders. The court first concluded that § 6313 is pre-empted by the ASA because the state statute “takes title to shipwrecks that do not meet the requirements of the ASA and which are therefore within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts.” Id., at 384. With respect to the State’s claim under the ASA, the court presumed that “a federal court has both the power and duty to determine whether a ease falls within its subject matter jurisdiction,” and concluded that “it was appropriate for the district court to require the State to present evidence that the ASA applied to the Brother Jonathan, i. e., that it was abandoned and either embedded or eligible for listing in the National Register, before dismissing the ease.” Id., at 386. According to the court’s reasoning, “in addressing the questions of abandonment, embeddedness, and historical significance of the wreck under the ASA, a federal court does not adjudicate the state’s rights,” because the ASA establishes the Federal Government’s title to a qualifying shipwreck, which is then transferred to a State. Id., at 387. Consequently, in the court’s view, “a federal court may adjudicate the question of whether a wreck meets the requirements of the ASA without implicating the Eleventh Amendment.” Ibid.
As to the specifics of the State’s claim under the ASA, the court held that the District Court did not err in concluding that the State failed to prove that the Brother Jonathan is abandoned within the meaning of the statute. The court reasoned that, in the absence of a definition of abandonment in the ASA, “Congress presumably intended that courts apply the definition of abandonment that has evolved under maritime law.” Ibid. In maritime law, the court explained, abandonment occurs either when title to a vessel has been affirmatively renounced or when circumstances give rise to an inference of abandonment. Here, the Court of Appeals concluded, the District Court’s “failure to infer abandonment from the evidence presented by the State was not clearly erroneous,” given the insurance companies’ claims to the ship’s insured cargo and undisputed evidence presented by DSR that the technology required to salvage the Brother Jonathan has been developed only recently. Id., at 388. The court also rejected the State’s bid to treat the uninsured portion of the wreck as abandoned, explaining that the District Court did not address the status of individual items of cargo or personal property, and that “dividing] the wreck of the Brother Jonathan into abandoned and unabandoned portions for the purposes of the ASA” would lead to both federal and state courts adjudicating the wreck’s fate, which, in the court’s view, would be “confusing and inefficient,” and also “inconsistent with the general rule in maritime law of treating wrecks as a legally unified res.” Id., at 389.
Summarizing its reasoning, the court stated that, “[b]e-cause the law is reluctant to find abandonment, and because a finding of partial abandonment would deprive those holding title to the unabandoned portion of the wreck access to the federal forum, we hold that the Brother Jonathan is not abandoned.” Ibid, (citation omitted). The court reserved the question whether there might be some point at which the insured portion of a shipwreck “becomes so negligible” that the entire wreck would be abandoned under the ASA. Ibid. The court also declined to take judicial notice of evidence that, during pendency of the appeal, the Brother Jonathan was determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.
By concluding that the State must prove its claim to the Brother Jonathan by a preponderance of the evidence in order to invoke the immunity afforded by the Eleventh Amendment, the Ninth Circuit diverged from other Courts of Appeals that have held that a State need only make a bare assertion to ownership of a res. See Zych v. Wrecked Vessel Believed to be the Lady Elgin, 960 F. 2d 665, 670 (CA7), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 985 (1992); Maritime Underwater Surveys, Inc. v. The Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 717 F. 2d 6, 8 (CA1 1983). We granted certiorari to address whether a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in an in rem admiralty action depends upon evidence of the State’s ownership of the res, and to consider the related questions whether the Brother Jonathan is subject to the ASA and whether the ASA pre-empts § 6313. 520 U. S. 1263 (1997).
II
The judicial power of federal courts extends “to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.” Art. III, §2, cl. 1. The federal courts have had a unique role in admiralty cases since the birth of this Nation, because “[mjaritime commerce was ... the jugular vein of the Thirteen States.” F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 7 (1927). Accordingly, “[t]he need for a body of law applicable throughout the nation was recognized by every shade of opinion in the Constitutional Convention.” Ibid. The constitutional provision was incorporated into the first Judiciary Act in 1789, and federal courts have retained “admiralty or maritime jurisdiction” since then. See 28 U. S. C. § 1333(1). That jurisdiction encompasses “maritime causes of action begun and carried on as proceedings in rem, that is, where a vessel or thing is itself treated as the offender and made the defendant by name or description in order to enforce a lien.” Madruga v. Superior Court of Cal., County of San Diego, 346 U. S. 556, 560 (1954).
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is constrained, however, by the Eleventh Amendment, under whieh “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” Although the Amendment, by its terms, “would appear to restrict only the Article III diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts,” Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54 (1996), the Court has interpreted the Amendment more broadly. See, e. g., Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991). According to this Court’s precedents, a State may not be sued in federal court by one of its own citizens, see Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), and a state official is immune from suit in federal court for actions taken in an official capacity, see Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436 (1900).
The Court has not always charted a clear path in explaining the interaction between the Eleventh Amendment and the federal courts’ in rem admiralty jurisdiction. Early eases involving the disposition of “prize” vessels captured during wartime appear to have assumed that federal courts could adjudicate the in rem disposition of the bounty even when state officials raised an objection. See United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 139-141 (1809). As Justice Story explained, in admiralty actions in rem,
“the jurisdiction of the [federal] court is founded upon the possession of the thing; and if the State should interpose a claim for the property, it does not act merely in the character of a defendant, but as an actor. Besides, the language of the [Eleventh] [A]mendment is, that ‘the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity.’ But a suit in the admiralty is not, correctly speaking, a suit in law or in equity; but is often spoken of in contradistinction to both.” 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1689, pp. 491-492 (5th ed. 1891).
Justice Washington, riding Circuit, expressed the same view in United States v. Bright, 24 F. Cas. 1232, 1236 (No. 14,647) (CC Pa. 1809), where he reasoned:
“[I]n cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction the property in dispute is generally in the possession of the court, or of persons bound to produce it, or its equivalent, and the proceedings are in rem. The court decides in whom the right is, and distributes the proceeds accordingly. In such a case the court need not depend upon the good will of a state claiming an interest in the thing to enable it to execute its decree. All the world are parties to such a suit, and of course are bound by the sentence. The state may interpose her claim and have it decided. But she cannot lie by, and, after the decree is passed say that she was a party, and therefore not bound, for want of jurisdiction in the court.”
Although those statements might suggest that the Eleventh Amendment has little application in in rem admiralty proceedings, subsequent decisions have altered that understanding of the federal courts’ role. In Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490 (1921) (New York I), the Court explained that admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is not wholly exempt from the operation of the Eleventh Amendment, thereby rejecting the views of Justices Story and Washington. Id., at 497-498. On the same day, in its opinion in Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 503 (1921) (New York II), the Court likewise concluded that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction over a wrongful death action brought in rem against a tugboat operated by the State of New York on the Erie Canal, although the Court did not specifically rely on the Eleventh Amendment in its holding.
The Court’s most recent ease involving an in rem admiralty action, Florida Dept. of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U. S. 670 (1982), addressed whether the Eleventh Amendment “bars an in rem admiralty action seeking to recover property owned by a state.” Id., at 682 (internal quotation marks omitted). A plurality of the Court suggested that New York II could be distinguished on the ground that, in Treasure Salvors, the State’s possession of maritime artifacts was unauthorized, and the State therefore could not invoke the Eleventh Amendment to block their arrest. 458 U. S., at 695-699 (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), and Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204 (1897)). As the plurality explained, “since the state officials do not have a colorable claim to possession of the artifacts, they may not invoke the Eleventh Amendment to block execution of the warrant of arrest.” 458 U. S., at 697.
That reference to a “colorable claim” is at the crux of this case. Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit interpreted the “colorable claim” requirement as imposing a burden on the State to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Brother Jonathan meets the criteria set forth in the ASA. See 102 F. 3d, at 386; 883 F. Supp., at 1349. Other Courts of Appeals have concluded that a State need only make a bare assertion to ownership of a res in order to establish its sovereign immunity in an in rem admiralty action. See, e. g., Zych, 960 F. 2d, at 670.
By our reasoning, however, either- approach glosses over an important distinction present here. In this case, unlike in Treasure Salvors, DSR asserts rights to a res that is not in the possession of the State. The Eleventh Amendment’s role in that type of dispute was not decided by the plurality opinion in Treasure Salvors, which decided “whether a federal court exercising admiralty in rem jurisdiction may seize property held by state officials under a claim that the property belongs to the State.” 458 U. S., at 683; see also id., at 697 (“In ruling that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar execution of the warrant, we need not decide the extent to which a federal district court exercising admiralty in rem jurisdiction over property before the court may adjudicate the rights of claimants to that property as against sovereigns that did not appear and voluntarily assert any claim that they had to the res”).
Nor did the opinions in New York I or New York II address a situation comparable to this case. The holding in New York I explained that, although the suit at issue was styled as an in rem libel action seeking recovery of damages against tugboats chartered by the State, the proceedings were actually “in the nature of an action in personam against [the Superintendent of Public Works of the State of New York], not individually, but in his [official] capacity.” 256 U. S., at 501. The action in New York II was an in rem suit against a vessel described as being “at all times mentioned in the libel and at present... the absolute property of the State of New York, in its possession and control, and employed in the public service of the State for governmental uses and purposes ....” 256 U. S., at 508. As Justice White explained in his opinion in Treasure Salvors:
“The In re New York cases ... reflect the special concern in admiralty that maritime property of the sovereign is not to be seized. . . . [They] are but the most apposite examples of the line of cases concerning in rem, actions brought against vessels in which an official of the State, the Federal Government, or a foreign government has asserted ownership of the res. The Court’s consistent interpretation of the respective but related immunity doctrines pertaining to such vessels has been, upon proper presentation that the sovereign entity claims ownership of a res in its possession, to dismiss the suit or modify its judgment accordingly.” 458 U. S., at 709-710 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added).
It is true that statements in the fractured opinions in Treasure Salvors might be read to suggest that a federal court may not undertake in rem adjudication of the State’s interest in property without the State’s consent, regardless of the status of the res. See, e. g., id., at 682 (plurality opinion) (“The court did not have power ... to adjudicate the State’s interest in the property without the State’s consent”); id., at 711 (White, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (“It is ... beyond reasonable dispute that the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from deciding the rights and obligations of a State in a contract unless the State consents”). Those assertions, however, should not be divorced from the context of Treasure Salvors and reflexively applied to the very different circumstances presented by this ease. In Treasure Salvors, the State had possession — albeit unlawfully — of the artifacts at issue. Also, the opinion addressed the District Court’s authority to issue a warrant to arrest the artifacts, not the disposition of title to them. As the plurality explained, “[t]he proper resolution of [the Eleventh Amendment] issue . . . does not require— or permit — a determination of the State’s ownership of the artifacts.” Id., at 699 (emphasis added); see also id., at 700 (noting that while adjudication of the State’s right to the artifacts “would be justified if the State voluntarily advanced a claim to [them], it may not be justified as part of the Eleventh Amendment analysis, the only issue before us”). Thus, any references in Treasure Salvors to what the lower courts could have done if they had solely adjudicated title to the artifacts, rather than issued a warrant to arrest the res, do not control the outcome of this case, particularly given that it comes before us in a very different posture, i. e., in an admiralty action in rem where the State makes no claim of actual possession of the res.
Nor does the fact that Treasure Salvors has been cited for the general proposition that federal courts cannot adjudicate a State’s claim of title to property, see, e. g., Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. 261, 289-290 (1997) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 305-306 (Souter, J., dissenting), prevent a more nuanced application of Treasure Salvors in the context of the federal courts’ in rem admiralty jurisdiction. Although the Eleventh Amendment bars federal jurisdiction over general title disputes relating to state property interests, it does not necessarily follow that it applies to in rem admiralty actions, or that in such actions, federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction over property that the State does not actually possess.
In considering whether the Eleventh Amendment applies where the State asserts a claim in admiralty to a res not in its possession, this Court’s decisions in cases involving the sovereign immunity of the Federal Government in in rem admiralty actions provide^ guidance, for this Court has recognized a correlation between sovereign immunity principles applicable to States and the Federal Government. See Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S., at 213; see also Treasure Salvors, supra, at 710 (White, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (discussing analogy between immunity in “in rem actions brought against vessels in which an official of the State, the Federal Government, or a foreign government has asserted ownership of the res”). In one such case, The Davis, 10 Wall. 15 (1870), the Court explained that “proceedings in rem to enforce a lien against property of the United States are only forbidden in eases where, in order to sustain the proceeding, the possession of the United States must be invaded under process of the court.” Id., at 20. The possession referred to was “an actual possession, and not that mere constructive possession which is very often implied by reason of ownership under circumstances favorable to such implication.” Id., at 21; see also The Siren, 7 Wall. 152, 159 (1869) (describing “exemption of the government from a direct proceeding in rem against the vessel whilst in its custody”). The Court’s jurisprudence respecting the sovereign immunity of foreign governments has likewise turned on the sovereign’s possession of the res at issue. See, e. g., The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216, 219 (1921) (federal court’s in rem jurisdiction not barred by mere suggestion of foreign government’s ownership of vessel).
While this Court’s decision in The Davis was issued over a century ago, its fundamental premise remains valid in in rem admiralty actions, in light of the federal courts’ constitutionally established jurisdiction in that area and the fact that a requirement that a State possess the disputed res in such cases is “consistent with the principle which exempts the [State] from suit and its possession from disturbance by virtue of judicial process.” The Davis, supra, at 21. Based on longstanding precedent respecting the federal courts’ assumption of in rem admiralty jurisdiction over vessels that are not in the possession of a sovereign, we conclude that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal jurisdiction over the Brother Jonathan and, therefore, that the District Court may adjudicate DSR’s and the State’s claims to the shipwreck. We have no occasion in this case to consider any other circumstances under which an in rem admiralty action might proceed in federal court despite the Eleventh Amendment.
Ill
There remains the issue whether the courts below properly concluded that the Brother Jonathan was not abandoned for purposes of the ASA. That conclusion was necessarily influenced by the assumption that the Eleventh Amendment was relevant to the courts’ inquiry. The Court of Appeals’ determination that the wreek and its contents are not abandoned for purposes of the ASA was affected by concerns that if “the vessel had been partially abandoned, both the federal court and the state court would be adjudicating the fate of the Brother Jonathan.” 102 F. 3d, at 389. Moreover, the District Court’s inquiry was a preliminary one, based on the concern that it was premature “for the court to find that any individual items of cargo or personal property have been abandoned.” 883 F. Supp., at 1354. In light of our ruling that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar complete adjudication of the competing claims to the Brother Jonathan in federal court, the application of the ASA must be reevaluated. Because the record before this Court is limited to the preliminary issues before the District Court, we decline to resolve whether the Brother Jonathan is abandoned -within the meaning of the ASA. We leave that issue for reconsideration on remand, with the clarification that the meaning of “abandoned” under the ASA conforms with its meaning under admiralty law.
Our grant of certiorari also encompassed the question whether the courts below properly concluded that the ASA pre-empts § 6313, which apparently operates to transfer title to abandoned ship-wrecks not covered by the ASA to the State. Because the District Court’s full consideration of the application of the ASA on remand might negate the need to address the pre-emption issue, we decline to undertake that analysis.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals assuming jurisdiction over this case is affirmed, its judgment in all other respects is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
While the petition for certiorari in this case was pending, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit. See Fairport Int’l Exploration, Inc. v. Shipwrecked Vessel Known as The Captain Lawrence, 105 F. 3d 1078 (CA6 1997), cert. pending, No. 96-1936.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On March 1, 1980, respondent Charles Woodward and his wife arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from Brazil. In passing through Customs, respondent was handed the usual form that included the following question:
“Are you or any family member carrying over $5,000 (or the equivalent value in any currency) in monetary instruments such as coin, currency, traveler’s checks, money orders, or negotiable instruments in bearer form?”
Respondent checked the “no” box.
After questioning respondent for a brief period, customs officials decided to search respondent and his wife. As he was being escorted to a search room, respondent told an official that he and his wife were carrying over $20,000 in cash. Woodward removed approximately $12,000 from his boot; another $10,000 was found in a makeshift money belt concealed under his wife’s clothing.
Woodward was indicted on charges of making a false statement to an agency of the United States, 18 U. S. C. § 1001, and willfully failing to report that he was carrying in excess of $5,000 into the United States, 84 Stat. 1121, 1122, 31 U. S. C. §§1058, 1101 (1976 ed.). The same conduct— answering “no” to the question whether he was carrying more than $5,000 into the country — formed the basis of each count. A jury convicted Woodward on both charges; he received a sentence of six months in prison on the false statement count, and a consecutive 3-year term of probation on the currency reporting count. During the proceedings in the District Court, the respondent never asserted that Congress did not intend to permit cumulative punishment for conduct violating the false statement and the currency reporting statutes.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after inviting briefs on the subject, held that respondent’s conduct could not be punished under both 18 U. S. C. § 1001 and 31 U. S. C. §§ 1058, 1101 (1976 ed.). See 726 F. 2d 1320 (1983). The court applied the rule of statutory construction contained in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299, 304 (1932) — “‘whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not’ ” — and held that the false statement felony was a lesser included offense of the currency reporting misdemeanor. 726 F. 2d, at 1323. In other words, every violation of the currency reporting statute necessarily entails a violation of the false statement law. The court reasoned that a willful failure to file a required report is a form of concealment prohibited by 18 U. S. C. § 1001. Concluding that Congress presumably intended someone in respondent’s position to be punished only under the currency reporting misdemeanor, the Court of Appeals reversed respondent’s felony conviction for making a false statement. See 726 F. 2d, at 1327.
The Court of Appeals plainly misapplied the Blockburger rule for determining whether Congress intended to permit cumulative punishment; proof of a currency reporting violation does not necessarily include proof of a false statement offense. Section 1001 proscribes the nondisclosure of a material fact only if the fact is “concealed]... by any trick, scheme, or device.” (Emphasis added.) A person could, without employing a “trick, scheme, or device,” simply and willfully fail to file a currency disclosure report. A traveler who enters the country and passes through Customs prepared to answer questions truthfully, but is never asked whether he is carrying over $5,000 in currency, might nonetheless be subject to conviction under 31 U. S. C. § 1058 (1976 ed.) for willfully transporting money without filing the required currency report. However, because he did not conceal a material fact by means of a “trick, scheme, or device,” (and did not make any false statement) his conduct would not fall within 18 U. S. C. § 1001.
There is no evidence in 18 U. S. C. § 1001 and 31 U. S. C. §§ 1058, 1101 (1976 ed.) that Congress did not intend to allow separate punishment for the two different offenses. See generally Albernaz v. United States, 450 U. S. 333, 340 (1981); Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U. S. 359, 367 (1983). Sections 1058 and 1101 were enacted by Congress in 1970 as part of the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, Pub. L. 91-508, Tit. II, 84 Stat. 1118 et seq. Section 203(k) of that Act expressly provided:
“For the purposes of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, the contents of reports required under any provision of this title are statements and representations in matters within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States.” 31 U. S. C. §1052(k) (1976 ed.).
It is clear that in passing the currency reporting law, Congress’ attention was drawn to 18 U. S. C. § 1001, but at no time did it suggest that the two statutes could not be applied together. We cannot assume, therefore, that Congress was unaware that it had created two different offenses permitting multiple punishment for the same conduct. See Albernaz, supra, at 341-342.
Finally, Congress’ intent to allow punishment under both 18 U. S. C. §1001 and 31 U. S. C. §§1058, 1101 (1976 ed.) is shown by the fact that the statutes “are directed to separate evils.” See Albernaz, supra, at 343. The currency reporting statute was enacted to develop records that would “have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations.” 31 U. S. C. § 1051 (1976 ed.). The false statement statute, on the other hand, was designed “to protect the authorized functions of governmental departments and agencies from the perversion which might result from the deceptive practices described.” United States v. Gilliland, 312 U. S. 86, 93 (1941).
All guides to legislative intent reveal that Congress intended respondent’s conduct to be punishable under both 18 U. S. C. § 1001, and 31 U. S. C. §§ 1058, 1101 (1976 ed.). Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that part of the Court of Appeals’ judgment reversing respondent’s 18 U. S. C. § 1001 conviction is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1001 provides:
“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
Title 31 U. S. C. § 1101(a) (1976 ed.) provides in pertinent part:
“Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, whoever, whether as principal, agent, or bailee, or by an agent or bailee, knowingly—
“(1) transports or causes to be transported monetary instruments—
“(A) from any place within the United States to or through any place outside the United States, or
“(B) to any place within the United States from or through any place outside the United States, or
“(2) receives monetary instruments at the termination of their transportation to the United States from or through any place outside the United States
in an amount exceeding $5,000 on any one occasion shall file a report or reports in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.”
Title 31 U. S. C. § 1058 (1976 ed.) provides:
“Whoever willfully violates any provision of this chapter or any regulation under this chapter shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Sections 1058 and 1101 were recently recodified without substantive change at 31 U. S. C. §§ 5322(a) and 5316. See Pub. L. 97-258, 96 Stat. 877 et seq.
The converse is clearly not true; 31 U. S. C. §§ 1058, 1101 (1976 ed.), but not 18 U. S. C. § 1001, involve the failure to file a currency disclosure report.
In Woodward’s ease, the Government did not have to prove the existence of a trick, scheme, or device. Woodward was charged with violating § 1001 because he made a false statement on the customs form. This type of affirmative misrepresentation is proscribed under the statute even if not accompanied by a trick, scheme, or device.
See United States v. London, 550 P. 2d 206, 213 (CA5 1977) (§ 1001 requires “affirmative act by which means a material fact is concealed”).
When Title 31 was recodified in 1982, this provision was eliminated as “Unnecessary” because “Section 1001 applies unless otherwise provided.” H. R. Rep. No. 97-651, p. 301 (1982).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), held, inter alia, that a State may, over the suspect’s protest, have a physician extract blood from a person suspected of drunken driving without violation of the suspect’s right secured by the Fourth Amendment not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. However, Schmerber cautioned: “That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States[’] minor intrusions into an individual’s body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions.” Id., at 772. In this case, the Commonwealth of Virginia seeks to compel the respondent Rudolph Lee, who is suspected of attempting to commit armed robbery, to undergo a surgical procedure under a general anesthetic for removal of a bullet lodged in his chest. Petitioners allege that the bullet will provide evidence of respondent’s guilt or innocence. We conclude that the procedure sought here is an example of the “more substantial intrusion” cautioned against in Schmerber, and hold that to permit the procedure would violate respondent’s right to be secure in his person guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
A
At approximately 1 a. m. on July 18, 1982, Ralph E. Watkinson was closing his shop for the night. As he was locking the door, he observed someone armed with a gun coming toward him from across the street. Watkinson was also armed and when he drew his gun, the other person told him to freeze. Watkinson then fired at the other person, who returned his fire. Watkinson was hit in the legs, while the other individual, who appeared to be wounded in his left side, ran from the scene. The police arrived on the scene shortly thereafter, and Watkinson was taken by ambulance to the emergency room of the Medical College of Virginia (MCV) Hospital.
Approximately 20 minutes later, police officers responding to another call found respondent eight blocks from where the earlier shooting occurred. Respondent was suffering from a gunshot wound to his left chest area and told the police that he had been shot when two individuals attempted to rob him. An ambulance took respondent to the MCV Hospital. Watkinson was still in the MCV emergency room and, when respondent entered that room, said “[tjhat’s the man that shot me.” App. 14. After an investigation, the police decided that respondent’s story of having been himself the victim of a robbery was untrue and charged respondent with attempted robbery, malicious wounding, and two counts of using a firearm in the commission of a felony.
B
The Commonwealth shortly thereafter moved in state court for an order directing respondent to undergo surgery to remove an object thought to be a bullet lodged under his left collarbone. The court conducted several evidentiary hearings on the motion. At the first hearing, the Commonwealth’s expert testified that the surgical procedure would take 45 minutes and would involve a three to four percent chance of temporary nerve damage, a one percent chance of permanent nerve damage, and a one-tenth of one percent chance of death. At the second hearing, the expert testified that on reexamination of respondent, he discovered that the bullet was not “back inside close to the nerves and arteries,” id., at 52, as he originally had thought. Instead, he now believed the bullet to be located “just beneath the skin.” Id., at 57. He testified that the surgery would require an incision of only one and one-half centimeters (slightly more than one-half inch), could be performed under local anesthesia, and would result in “no danger on the basis that there’s no general anesthesia employed.” Id., at 51.
The state trial judge granted the motion to compel surgery. Respondent petitioned the Virginia Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition and/or a writ of habeas corpus, both of which were denied. Respondent then brought an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin the pending operation on Fourth Amendment grounds. The court refused to issue a preliminary injunction, holding that respondent’s cause had little likelihood of success on the merits. 551 F. Supp. 247, 247-253 (1982).
On October 18, 1982, just before the surgery was scheduled, the surgeon ordered that X rays be taken of respondent’s chest. The X rays revealed that the bullet was in fact lodged two and one-half to three centimeters (approximately one inch) deep in muscular tissue in respondent’s chest, substantially deeper than had been thought when the state court granted the motion to compel surgery. The surgeon now believed that a general anesthetic would be desirable for medical reasons.
Respondent moved the state trial court for a rehearing based on the new evidence. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the state trial court denied the rehearing, and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed. Respondent then returned to federal court, where he moved to alter or amend the judgment previously entered against him. After an evi-dentiary hearing, the District Court enjoined the threatened surgery. 551 F. Supp., at 253-261 (supplemental opinion).
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 717 F. 2d 888 (1983). We granted certiorari, 466 U. S. 942 (1984), to consider whether a State may consistently with the Fourth Amendment compel a suspect to undergo surgery of this kind in a search for evidence of a crime.
II
The Fourth Amendment protects “expectations of privacy,” see Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967) — the individual’s legitimate expectations that in certain places and at certain times he has “the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandéis, J., dissenting). Putting to one side the procedural protections of the warrant requirement, the Fourth Amendment generally protects the “security” of “persons, houses, papers, and effects” against official intrusions up to the point where the community’s need for evidence surmounts a specified standard, ordinarily “probable cause.” Beyond this point, it is ordinarily justifiable for the community to demand that the individual give up some part of his interest in privacy and security to advance the community’s vital interests in law enforcement; such a search is generally “reasonable” in the Amendment’s terms.
A compelled surgical intrusion into an individual’s body for evidence, however, implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion may be “unreasonable” even if likely to produce evidence of a crime. In Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), we addressed a claim that the State had breached the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the “right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures” (emphasis added) when it compelled an individual suspected of drunken driving to undergo a blood test. Schmerber had been arrested at a hospital while receiving treatment for injuries suffered when the automobile he was driving struck a tree. Id., at 758. Despite Schmerber’s objection, a police officer at the hospital had directed a physician to take a blood sample from him. Schmerber subsequently objected to the introduction at trial of evidence obtained as a result of the blood test.
The authorities in Schmerber clearly had probable cause to believe that he had been driving while intoxicated, id., at 768, and to believe that a blood test would provide evidence that was exceptionally probative in confirming this belief. Id., at 770. Because the case fell within the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, no warrant was necessary. Ibid. The search was not more intrusive than reasonably necessary to accomplish its goals. Nonetheless, Schmerber argued that the Fourth Amendment prohibited the authorities from intruding into his body to extract the blood that was needed as evidence.
Schmerber noted that “[t]he overriding function of the Fourth Amendment is to protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the State.” Id., at 767. Citing Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27 (1949), and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), we observed that these values were “basic to a free society.” We also noted that “[b]ecause we are dealing with intrusions into the human body rather than with state interferences with property relationships or private papers — ‘houses, papers, and effects’— we write on a clean slate.” 384 U. S., at 767-768. The intrusion perhaps implicated Schmerber’s most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy, and the Court recognized that Fourth Amendment analysis thus required a discerning inquiry into the facts and circumstances to determine whether the intrusion was justifiable. The Fourth Amendment neither forbids nor permits all such intrusions; rather, the Amendment’s “proper function is to constrain, not against all intrusions as such, but against intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances, or which are made in an improper manner.” Id., at 768.
The reasonableness of surgical intrusions beneath the skin depends on a case-by-case approach, in which the individual’s interests in privacy and security are weighed against society’s interests in conducting the procedure. In a given case, the question whether the community’s need for evidence outweighs the substantial privacy interests at stake is a delicate one admitting of few categorical answers. We believe that Schmerber, however, provides the appropriate framework of analysis for such cases.
Schmerber recognized that the ordinary requirements of the Fourth Amendment would be the threshold requirements for conducting this kind of surgical search and seizure. We noted the importance of probable cause. Id., at 768-769. And we pointed out: “Search warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings, and, absent an emergency, no less could be required where intrusions into the human body are concerned. . . . The importance of informed, detached and deliberate determinations of the issue whether or not to invade another’s body in search of evidence of guilt is indisputable and great.” Id., at 770.
Beyond these standards, Schmerber’s inquiry considered a number of other factors in determining the “reasonableness” of the blood test. A crucial factor in analyzing the magnitude of the intrusion in Schmerber is the extent to which the procedure may threaten the safety or health of the individual. “[F]or most people [a blood test] involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain.” Id., at 771. Moreover, all reasonable medical precautions were taken and no unusual or untested procedures were employed in Schmerber; the procedure was performed “by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices.” Ibid. Notwithstanding the existence of probable cause, a search for evidence of a crime may be unjustifiable if it endangers the life or health of the suspect.
Another factor is the extent of intrusion upon the individual’s dignitary interests in personal privacy and bodily integrity. Intruding into an individual’s living room, see Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573 (1980), eavesdropping upon an individual’s telephone conversations, see Katz v. United States, 389 U. S., at 361, or forcing an individual to accompany police officers to the police station, see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200 (1979), typically do not injure the physical person of the individual. Such intrusions do, however, damage the individual’s sense of personal privacy and security and are thus subject to the Fourth Amendment’s dictates. In noting that a blood test was “a commonplace in these days of periodic physical examinations,” 384 U. S., at 771, Schmerber recognized society’s judgment that blood tests do not constitute an unduly extensive imposition on an individual’s personal privacy and bodily integrity.
Weighed against these individual interests is the community’s interest in fairly and accurately determining guilt or innocence. This interest is of course of great importance. We noted in Schmerber that a blood test is “a highly effective means of determining the degree to which a person is under the influence of alcohol.” Id., at 771. Moreover, there was “a clear indication that in fact [desired] evidence [would] be found” if the blood test were undertaken. Id., at 770. Especially given the difficulty of proving drunkenness by other means, these considerations showed that results of the blood test were of vital importance if the State were to enforce its drunken driving laws. In Schmerber, we concluded that this state interest was sufficient to justify the intrusion, and the compelled blood test was thus “reasonable” for Fourth Amendment purposes.
HH H-1
Applying the Schmerber balancing test in this case, we believe that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. The Commonwealth plainly had probable cause to conduct the search. In addition, all parties apparently agree that respondent has had a full measure of procedural protections and has been able fully to litigate the difficult medical and legal questions necessarily involved in analyzing the reasonableness of a surgical incision of this magnitude. Our inquiry therefore must focus on the extent of the intrusion on respondent’s privacy interests and on the State’s need for the evidence.
The threats to the health or safety of respondent posed by the surgery are the subject of sharp dispute between the parties. Before the new revelations of October 18, the District Court found that the procedure could be carried out “with virtually no risk to [respondent].” 551 F. Supp., at 252. On rehearing, however, with new evidence before it, the District Court held that “the risks previously involved have increased in magnitude even as new risks are being added.” Id., at 260.
The Court of Appeals examined the medical evidence in the record and found that respondent would suffer some risks associated with the surgical procedure. One surgeon had testified that the difficulty of discovering the exact location of the bullet “could require extensive probing and retracting of the muscle tissue,” carrying with it “the concomitant risks of injury to the muscle as well as injury to the nerves, blood vessels and other tissue in the chest and pleural cavity.” 717 F. 2d, at 900. The court further noted that “the greater intrusion and the larger incisions increase the risks of infection.” Ibid. Moreover, there was conflict in the testimony concerning the nature and the scope of the operation. One surgeon stated that it would take 15-20 minutes, while another predicted the procedure could take up to two and one-half hours. Ibid. The court properly took the resulting uncertainty about the medical risks into account.
Both lower courts in this case believed that the proposed surgery, which for purely medical reasons required the use of a general anesthetic, would be an “extensive” intrusion on respondent’s personal privacy and bodily integrity. Ibid. When conducted with the consent of the patient, surgery-requiring general anesthesia is not necessarily demeaning or intrusive. In such a case, the surgeon is carrying out the patient’s own will concerning the patient’s body and the patient’s right to privacy is therefore preserved. In this case, however, the Court of Appeals noted that the Commonwealth proposes to take control of respondent’s body, to “drug this citizen — not yet convicted of a criminal offense— with narcotics and barbiturates into a state of unconsciousness,” id., at 901, and then to search beneath his skin for evidence of a crime. This kind of surgery involves a virtually total divestment of respondent’s ordinary control over surgical probing beneath his skin.
The other part of the balance concerns the Commonwealth’s need to intrude into respondent’s body to retrieve the bullet. The Commonwealth claims to need the bullet to demonstrate that it was fired from Watkinson’s gun, which in turn would show that respondent was the robber who confronted Wat-kinson. However, although we recognize the difficulty of making determinations in advance as to the strength of the case against respondent, petitioners’ assertions of a compelling need for the bullet are hardly persuasive. The very circumstances relied on in this case to demonstrate probable cause to believe that evidence will be found tend to vitiate the Commonwealth’s need to compel respondent to undergo surgery. The Commonwealth has available substantial additional evidence that respondent was the individual who accosted Watkinson on the night of the robbery. No party in this case suggests that Watkinson’s entirely spontaneous identification of respondent at the hospital would be inadmissible. In addition, petitioners can no doubt prove that Wat-kinson was found a few blocks from Watkinson’s store shortly after the incident took place. And petitioners can certainly show that the location of the bullet (under respondent’s left collarbone) seems to correlate with Watkinson’s report that the robber “jerked” to the left. App. 13. The fact that the Commonwealth has available such substantial evidence of the origin of the bullet restricts the need for the Commonwealth to compel respondent to undergo the contemplated surgery.
In weighing the various factors in this case, we therefore reach the same conclusion as the courts below. The operation sought will intrude substantially on respondent’s protected interests. The medical risks of the operation, although apparently not extremely severe, are a subject of considerable dispute; the very uncertainty militates against finding the operation to be “reasonable.” In addition, the intrusion on respondent’s privacy interests entailed by the operation can only be characterized as severe. On the other hand, although the bullet may turn out to be useful to the Commonwealth in prosecuting respondent, the Commonwealth has failed to demonstrate a compelling need for it. We believe that in these circumstances the Commonwealth has failed to demonstrate that it would be “reasonable” under the terms of the Fourth Amendment to search for evidence of this crime by means of the contemplated surgery.
P> I — I
The Fourth Amendment is a vital safeguard of the right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusions into any area in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Where the Court has found a lesser expectation of privacy, see, e. g., Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128 (1978); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976), or where the search involves a minimal intrusion on privacy interests, see, e. g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221 (1985); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S., at 210-211; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 880 (1975); Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), the Court has held that the Fourth Amendment’s protections are correspondingly less stringent. Conversely, however, the Fourth Amendment’s command that searches be “reasonable” requires that when the State seeks to intrude upon an area in which our society recognizes a significantly heightened privacy interest, a more substantial justification is required to make the search “reasonable.” Applying these principles, we hold that the proposed search in this case would be “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.
Affirmed.
Justice Blackmun and Justice Rehnquist concur in the judgment.
Respondent’s action in the District Court was styled as a petition for habeas corpus and an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for a preliminary injunction. Because the District Court denied the relief sought, it found it unnecessary to consider whether res judicata, see Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90 (1980), would bar consideration of the § 1983 claim. 551F. Supp., at 252, n. 4.
Respondent had moved to reopen the petition for habeas corpus, as well as to alter or amend the judgment. Petitioners moved to dismiss the petition for habeas on the ground that respondent was not at that time “in custody” for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 2241. The District Court rejected this contention, holding that habeas was available because respondent was objecting to a future custody that would take place when the operation was to be performed. 551 F. Supp., at 257-259. The Court of Appeals held that respondent’s claim was cognizable only under § 1983. 717 F. 2d 888, 893 (1983). Respondent has not cross-petitioned for review of this holding, and it is therefore not before us.
The Fourth Circuit held that Allen v. McCurry, supra, did not bar respondent’s attempt to relitigate in federal court the same Fourth Amendment issues previously litigated in state court. The court agreed with the District Court’s conclusion, see 551 F. Supp., at 258-259, that respondent had not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the state trial court. 717 F. 2d, at 895-899. Respondent filed his motion for rehearing in state court on October 18, the day he was informed of the changed circumstances regarding the removal of the bullet. On October 19, the state court ordered an evidentiary hearing to be held on October 21. The Court of Appeals was “satisfied from the record that counsel was not able, despite obviously diligent effort, to obtain an independent review of the medical record by outside physicians nor was he able to consult with the independent expert in anesthesiology in order to prepare a presentation on the risks of general anesthesia.” Id., at 897. Yet, despite the crucial nature of the medical evidence, the state court refused to grant respondent’s repeated request for a continuance. Because “[t]he arbitrary truncation of preparation time deprived [respondent] of a fair opportunity to determine the crucial factors relevant to his claim and to obtain independent expert witnesses to testify about those factors,” id., at 898-899, the Court of Appeals refused to grant preclusive effect to the state court’s findings. Petitioners do not challenge this ruling.
Numerous courts have recognized the crucial importance of this factor. See, e. g., Bowden v. State, 256 Ark. 820, 823, 510 S. W. 2d 879, 882 (1974) (refusing to order surgery because of medical risk); People v. Smith, 80 Misc. 2d 210, 362 N. Y. S. 2d 909 (1974) (same); State v. Allen, 277 S. C. 595, 291 S. E. 2d 459 (1982) (same); see also 717 F. 2d 888, 900 (CA4 1983) (case below); id., at 905-908 (Widener, J., dissenting); United States v. Crowder, 177 U. S. App. D. C. 165, 169, 543 F. 2d 312, 316 (1976) (en banc), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1062 (1977); State v. Overstreet, 551 S. W. 2d 621, 628 (Mo. 1977) (en banc). See generally Note, 68 Marq. L. Rev. 130, 135 (1984) (discussing cases involving bodily intrusions); Note, 60 Notre Dame L. Rev. 149, 152-156 (1984) (same); Note, 55 Texas L. Rev. 147 (1976) (same); Mandell & Richardson, Surgical Search: Removing a Scar on the Fourth Amendment, 75 J. Crim. L. & C., No. 3, p. 525 (1984).
See also Schmerber, 384 U.S, at 771, n. 13 (‘“The blood test procedure has become routine in our everyday life. It is a ritual for those going into the military service as well as those applying for marriage licenses. Many colleges require such tests before permitting entrance and literally millions of us have voluntarily gone through the same, though a longer, routine in becoming blood donors’ ”) (quoting Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U. S. 432, 436 (1957)). The degree of intrusion in Schmerber was minimized as well by the fact that a blood test “involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain,” 384 U. S., at 771, and by the fact that the blood test was conducted “in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices.” Ibid. As such, the procedure in Schmerber contrasted sharply with the practice in Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952), in which police officers broke into a suspect’s room, attempted to extract narcotics capsules he had put into his mouth, took him to a hospital, and directed that an emetic be administered to induce vomiting. Id., at 166. Rochin, recognizing the individual’s interest in “human dignity,” id., at 174, held the search and seizure unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause.
Because the State has afforded respondent the benefit of a full adversary presentation and appellate review, we do not reach the question whether the State may compel a suspect to undergo a surgical search of this magnitude for evidence absent such special procedural protections. Cf. United States v. Crowder, supra, at 169, 643 F. 2d, at 316; State v. Lawson, 187 N. J. Super. 25, 28-29, 453 A. 2d 556, 558 (App. Div. 1982).
The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that “the specific physical risks from putting [respondent] under general anesthesia may therefore be considered minimal.” 717 F. 2d, at 900. Testimony had shown that “the general risks of harm or death from general anesthesia are quite low, and that [respondent] was in the statistical group of persons with the lowest risk of injury from general anesthesia.” Ibid.
One expert testified that this would be “minor” surgery. See App. 99. The question whether the surgery is to be characterized in medical terms as “major” or “minor” is not controlling. We agree with the Court of Appeals and the District Court in this case that “there is no reason to suppose that the definition of a medical term of art should coincide with the parameters of a constitutional standard.” 551 F. Supp., at 260 (quoted at 717 F. 2d, at 901); accord, State v. Overstreet, 551 S. W. 2d, at 628. This does not mean that the application of medical concepts in such cases is to be ignored. However, no specific medical categorization can control the multifaceted legal inquiry that the court must undertake.
Somewhat different issues would be raised if the use of a general anesthetic became necessary because of the patient’s refusal to cooperate. Cf. State v. Lawson, supra.
There are also some questions concerning the probative value of the bullet, even if it could be retrieved. The evidentiary value of the bullet depends on a comparison between markings, if any, on the bullet in respondent’s shoulder and markings, if any, found on a test bullet that the police could fire from Watkinson’s gun. However, the record supports some doubt whether this kind of comparison is possible. This is because the bullet’s markings may have been corroded in the time that the bullet has been in respondent’s shoulder, thus making it useless for comparison purposes. See 717 F. 2d, at 901, n. 15. In addition, respondent argues that any given gun may be incapable of firing bullets that have a consistent set of markings. See Joling, An Overview of Firearms Identification Evidence for Attorneys I: Salient Features of Firearms Evidence, 26 J. Forensic Sci. 153, 154 (1981). The record is devoid of any evidence that the police have attempted to test-fire Watkinson’s gun, and there thus remains the additional possibility that a comparison of bullets is impossible because Watkinson’s gun does not consistently fire bullets with the same markings. However, because the courts below made no findings on this point, we hesitate to give it significant weight in our analysis.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Pursuant to the federal use immunity provisions, 18 U. S. C. §§6001-6005, a United States Attorney may request an order from a federal court compelling a witness to testify even though he has asserted his privilege against self-incrimination. Section 6002 provides, however, that “no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case . . . .” The issue presented in this case is whether a deponent’s civil deposition testimony, repeating verbatim or closely tracking his prior immunized testimony, is immunized “testimony” that can be compelled over the valid assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege.
t — I
Respondent John Conboy is a former executive of a defendant in In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, M. D. L. 310 (SD Tex.). In January 1978, United States Department of Justice attorneys interviewed Conboy following a promise of use immunity. Conboy subsequently appeared before a grand jury investigating price-fixing activities and, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 6002, was granted formal use immunity for his testimony.
Following the criminal indictment of several companies, numerous civil antitrust actions were filed in various United States District Courts. Those actions were consolidated for discovery in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Petitioners here are purchasers of corrugated containers who elected to opt out of the class-action proceedings and pursue their own causes of action against manufacturers. The District Court ordered that portions of the immunized Government interview and grand jury testimony of certain witnesses, including that of Conboy, be made available to lawyers for the class and opt-outs.
Pursuant to a subpoena issued by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Conboy appeared in Chicago for a deposition at which he, his counsel, and petitioners’ counsel had copies of his immunized testimony. The transcripts were marked as deposition exhibits so that all could follow the intended examination. The questioning fell into the following pattern: a question was read from the transcript; it then was rephrased to include the transcript answer (i. e., “Is it not the fact that . . finally, Conboy was asked if he had “so testified]” in his immunized interview and grand jury examination. Conboy refused to answer each question, asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
The District Court granted petitioners’ motion to compel Conboy to answer the questions. When Conboy continued to claim his privilege, the District Court held him in contempt, but stayed its order pending appeal. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the contempt order, holding that, “[bjecause the questions asked in this deposition were taken verbatim from or closely tracked the transcript of Conboy’s grand jury testimony, we believe that his answers at the deposition would be ‘derived from’ the prior immunized [testimony] and therefore unavailable for use in any subsequent criminal prosecution.” In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, Appeal of Conboy, 655 F. 2d 748, 751 (1981).
On rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court. 661 F. 2d 1145 (1981). It first determined that Conboy’s alleged fear of prosecution was more than “fanciful,” id., at 1152, and that Conboy therefore was entitled to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege unless his deposition testimony could not be used against him in a subsequent criminal action, see id., at 1153. The court then held that under § 6002, absent a separate and independent grant of immunity, a deponent’s civil deposition testimony that repeats verbatim or closely tracks his prior immunized testimony is not protected. While acknowledging that verbatim questions “of course [would be] derived” from the immunized testimony, the court reasoned that the answers to such questions “are derived from the deponent’s current, independent memory of events” and thus “necessarily create a new source of evidence” that could be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution against Conboy. Id., at 1155 (emphasis in original).
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict in the Courts of Appeals, 454 U. S. 1141 (1982), and now affirm.
H h — I
It is settled that government must have the power to compel testimony “to secure information necessary for effective law enforcement.” Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 79 (1964). For many years, however, a person who was compelled to testify under a grant of governmental immunity could not be prosecuted for any conduct about which he had testified. See New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U. S. 450, 457 (1979). Prosecutors therefore were reluctant to grant such “transactional” immunity to potential targets of criminal investigations. See S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 53 (1969).
The “major purpose” of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, of which § 6002 was a key provision, was “to provide the criminal justice system with the necessary legal tools to . . . strengthe[n] the evidence gathering process and insur[e] that the evidence will then be available and admissible at trial.” 116 Cong. Rec. 35200 (1970) (statement of Rep. St Germain). Congress sought to make the grant of immunity more useful for law enforcement officers through two specific changes. First, Congress made the grant of immunity less expansive by repealing the authority for transactional immunity and providing for the less comprehensive use immunity authorized in §6002. Second, Congress gave certain officials in the Department of Justice exclusive authority to grant immunities.
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the use immunity statute in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972). The power to compel testimony is limited by the Fifth Amendment, and we held that any grant of immunity must be coextensive with the privilege. We were satisfied, however, that §6002 provided this measure of protection and thus “removed the dangers against which the privilege protects.” Id., at 449. In rejecting the argument that use and derivative-use immunity would not adequately protect a witness from various incriminating uses of the compelled testimony, we emphasized that “[t]he statute provides a sweeping proscription of any use, direct or indirect, of the compelled testimony and any information derived therefrom . . . Id., at 460. We added that once a defendant establishes that he has testified under a grant of immunity, “the prosecution [has] the affirmative duty to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.” Ibid. Thus, “immunity from use and derivative use ‘leaves the witness and the Federal Government in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed his privilege’ in the absence of a grant of immunity.” Id., at 458-459 (quoting Murphy, 378 U. S., at 79).
Ill
With the foregoing statutory history and relevant principles in mind, we turn now to this case. It is not disputed that the questions asked of Conboy were directly or indirectly derived from his immunized testimony. The issue as presented to us is whether the causal connection between the questions and the answers is so direct that the answers also are derived from that testimony and therefore should be excluded under the grant of immunity.
Petitioners’ argument is based on the language of §6002 and on a common understanding of the words “derived from.” The questions formulated on the basis of immunized testimony are clearly “derived from” the prior testimony. Thus, the answers that repeat verbatim or closely track a deponent’s testimony are necessarily also “derived from” and “tainted by” such testimony. Petitioners therefore find no basis for the distinction made by the Court of Appeals between questions and answers responsive to those same questions. An answer by its very nature is evoked by and responds to information contained in a question.
Conboy’s position is also straightforward: Questions do not incriminate; answers do. Unlike the questions, answers are not directly or indirectly derived from the immunized grand jury or interview transcripts, but from the deponent’s current, independent memory of events. Even when a deponent’s deposition answers are identical to those he gave to the grand jury, he is under oath to tell the truth, not necessarily as he told it before the grand jury, but as he knows it now. Each new statement of the deponent creates a new “source.” In sum, the initial grant of immunity does not prevent the prosecutor from prosecuting; it merely limits his sources of evidence.
Although the parties make their arguments in terms tracking those of the statute — whether the deposition testimony is “derived from” the prior testimony — it is clear that the crux of their dispute is whether the earlier grant of immunity itself compelled Conboy to talk. Petitioners contend that the prior grant of immunity already had supplanted Conboy’s Fifth Amendment privilege at the time of the civil deposition. Petitioners would limit this immunity, of course, to testimony that “closely tracks” his prior immunized testimony. It is argued that this would not threaten the Government’s need for admissible evidence or the individual’s interest in avoiding self-incrimination. In the absence of such a threat, admissible evidence should be available to civil antitrust plaintiffs. But we cannot accept the assumptions upon which petitioners’ conclusion rests. In our view, a District Court cannot compel Conboy to answer deposition questions over a valid assertion of his Fifth Amendment right, absent a duly-authorized assurance of immunity at the time.
We note at the outset that although there may be practical reasons for not testifying, as far as the deponent’s Fifth Amendment right is concerned he should be indifferent between the protection afforded by silence and that afforded by immunity. A deponent’s primary interest is that the protection be certain. The Government’s interest, however, may be affected seriously by whether the deponent relies at the civil deposition on his Fifth Amendment privilege or on his prior grant of immunity. With due recognition of petitioners’ need for admissible evidence, our inquiry then is whether this need can be met without jeopardizing the Government’s interest in limiting the scope of an immunity grant or encroaching upon the deponent’s certainty of protection.
A
Questions taken verbatim from a transcript of immunized testimony could evoke one of several responses from a deponent: (i) he could repeat or adopt his immunized answer; (ii) he could affirm that the transcript of his immunized answers accurately reflects his prior testimony; (iii) he could recall additional information responsive to the question but not disclosed in his immune testimony; or (iv) he could disclose information that is not responsive to the question. Petitioners do not contend, nor could they, that the prior grant of use immunity affords protection for all self-incriminating information disclosed by the immunized witness on any occasion after the giving of the immunized testimony. Rather, petitioners argue that only the first three responses would be “derived from” his immune testimony and therefore would be unavailable for use against the deponent in any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Petitioners’ premise is that the deposition of Conboy is designed not to discover new information, but to obtain evidence that simply repeats the statements in the immunized transcript. Because there will be little opportunity for the grant of immunity to sweep in statements on direct examination that the Government did not intend to immunize, or for the deponent to give responses that may fall outside of the grant of immunity and later be used against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution, petitioners argue that Conboy’s deposition will yield only a carbon copy of the grand jury transcript. In such a situation, it would be desirable for civil plaintiffs, particularly those bringing private suits that supplement the criminal enforcement of the federal antitrust laws, to have access to the available, probative information.
But even if the direct examination is limited to the questions and answers in the immunized transcript, there remains the right of cross-examination, a right traditionally relied upon expansively to test credibility as well as to seek the truth. Petitioners recognize this problem, but maintain that the antitrust defendants “would be entitled to test the accuracy and truthfulness of Conboy’s repeated immunized testimony without going beyond the confines of that testimony.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 14-15. Regardless of any limitations that may be imposed on its scope, however, cross-examination is intended to and often will produce information not elicited on direct. We must assume that, to produce admissible evidence, the scope of cross-examination at the deposition cannot easily be limited to the immunized testimony. This assumption implicates both the Government’s and the individual’s interests embodied in § 6002.
B
Use immunity was intended to immunize and exclude from a subsequent criminal trial only that information to which the Government expressly has surrendered future use. If the Government is engaged in an ongoing investigation of the particular activity at issue, immunizing new information (e. g., the answers to questions in a case like this one) may make it more difficult to show in a subsequent prosecution that similar information was obtained from wholly independent sources. If a district court were to conclude in a subsequent civil proceeding that the prior immunity order extended to civil deposition testimony closely tracking the immunized testimony, it in effect could invest the deponent with transactional immunity on matters about which he testified at the immunized proceedings. This is precisely the kind of immunity Congress intended to prohibit. The purpose of § 6002 was to limit the scope of immunity to the level that is constitutionally required, as well as to limit the use of immunity to those cases in which the Attorney General, or officials designated by him, determine that gaining the witness’ testimony outweighs the loss of the opportunity for criminal prosecution of that witness.
C
Petitioners’ interpretation of § 6002 also places substantial risks on the deponent. Unless the grant of immunity assures a witness that his incriminating testimony will not be used against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution, the witness has not received the certain protection of his Fifth Amendment privilege that he has been forced to exchange. No court has authority to immunize a witness. That responsibility, as we have noted, is peculiarly an executive one, and only the Attorney General or a designated officer of the Department of Justice has authority to grant use immunity. See 18 U. S. C. §§6002, 6003. Nor should a court, at the time of the civil testimony, predetermine the decision of the court in a subsequent criminal prosecution on the question whether the Government has met its burden of proving that “the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.” Kastigar, 406 U. S., at 460. Yet in holding Conboy in contempt for his Fifth Amendment silence, the District Court below essentially predicted that a court in any future criminal prosecution of Conboy will be obligated to protect against evidentiary use of the deposition testimony petitioners seek. We do not think such a predictive judgment is enough.
Petitioners’ interpretation of §6002 imposes risks on the deponent whether or not the deposition testimony properly can be used against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the District Court’s compulsion order in this case, in the absence of statutory authority or a new grant of immunity by the United States Attorney, cannot be justified by the subsequent exclusion of the compelled testimony. As Justice Marshall notes in his concurring opinion: “Whatever justification there may be for requiring a witness to give incriminating testimony in aid of a criminal investigation after the Government has granted use immunity, there is no similar justification for compelling a witness to give incriminating testimony for the benefit of a private litigant when the Government has not chosen to grant immunity.” Post, at 267.
The result of compelling testimony — whether it is immunized or excluded — is that the Government’s interests, as well as the witness’, suffer. Reliance on judicial exclusion of nonimmunized testimony would be inconsistent with the congressional policy of leaving the granting of immunity to the Executive Branch.
As the Court stated in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449 (1975), compelling a witness to testify in “reliance upon a later objection or motion to suppress would ‘let the cat out’ with no assurance whatever of putting it back.” Id., at 463. We believe Conboy acted properly in maintaining his silence in the face of the District Court’s compulsion order and by testing the validity of his privilege on appeal.
>
This Court has emphasized the importance of the private action as a means of furthering the policy goals of certain federal regulatory statutes, including the federal antitrust laws. See, e. g., Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U. S. 134, 139 (1968); United States v. Borden Co., 347 U. S. 514, 518-519 (1954). But private civil actions can only supplement, not supplant, the primary responsibility of government. Petitioners’ proposed construction of § 6002 sweeps further than Congress intended and could hinder governmental enforcement of its criminal laws by turning use immunity into a form of transactional immunity for subjects examined in the immunized proceeding. It also puts the deponent in some danger of criminal prosecution unless he receives an assurance of immunity or exclusion that the courts cannot properly give. Silence, on the other hand, preserves the deponent’s rights and the Government’s interests, as well as the judicial resources that otherwise would be required to make the many difficult judgments that petitioners’ interpretation of § 6002 would require.
V
We hold that a deponent’s civil deposition testimony, closely tracking his prior immunized testimony, is not, without duly authorized assurance of immunity at the time, immunized testimony within the meaning of § 6002, and therefore may not be compelled over a valid assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege. The judgment of the Court of Appeals accordingly is
Affirmed.
The propriety of the District Court's release of grand jury materials to the civil parties is not before the Court.
An example of this three-question pattern is as follows:
“Q. Who did you have price communications with at Alton Box Board?
“Q. Is it not the fact that you had price communications with Fred Renshaw and Dick Herman . . . ?
“Q. Did you not so testify in your government interview statement of January 10, 1978?” App. 29-31.
Chief Judge John V. Singleton, Jr., of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas expressly exercised the powers of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1407(b). The contempt hearing was conducted by telephone with his chambers in Houston.
The correctness of the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Conboy could assert a Fifth Amendment privilege, absent some immunity, is not before us.
A United States Attorney declined to authorize immunity grants in connection with the civil depositions here.
Compare In re Corrugated, Container Antitrust Litigation, Appeal of Fleischacker, 644 F. 2d 70, 75 (CA2 1981) (deposition answers immunized), and Little Rock School District v. Borden, Inc., 632 F. 2d 700, 705 (CA8 1980) (same), with In re Corrugated Container Anti-Trust Litigation, Appeal of Franey, 620 F. 2d 1086,1095 (CA5 1980) (answers not immunized), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1102 (1981).
See United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 345 (1974); United States v. Mara, 410 U. S. 19, 41 (1973) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 443-444 (1972); Murphy, 378 U. S., at 93-94 (White, J., concurring); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 438 (1932); Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 281 (1919); Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 600 (1896).
In Murphy, Justice White stated that “[(Immunity must be as broad as, but not harmfully and wastefully broader than, the privilege against self-incrimination.” 378 U. S., at 107 (concurring opinion) (quoted with approval in 116 Cong. Rec. 35291 (1970) (statement of Rep. Poff)). In its Committee Report, the House explained that § 6002 was not to provide an “immunity bath,” but was to be “no broader than” the Fifth Amendment privilege. H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, p. 42 (1970).
Section 6002 provides:
“Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to—
“(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
“(2) an agency of the United States, or
“(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House
and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this part, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.”
Section 6001(2) defines "other information” to include “any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material.”
Section 6003 states:
“(a) In the case of any individual who has been or may be called to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before or ancillary to a court of the United States or a grand jury of the United States, the United States district court for the judicial district in which the proceeding is or may be held shall issue, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, upon the request of the United States attorney for such district, an order requiring such individual to give testimony or provide other information which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, such order to become effective as provided in section 6002 of this part.
“(b) A United States attorney may, with the approval of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or any designated Assistant Attorney General, request an order under subsection (a) of this section when in his judgment—
“(1) the testimony or other information from such individual may be necessary to the public interest; and
“(2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination.”
Congress foresaw the courts as playing only a minor role in the immunizing process: “The court’s role in granting the order is merely to find the facts on which the order is predicated.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1549, supra, at 43; H. R. Rep. No. 91-1188, p. 13 (1970). See 116 Cong. Rec. 35291 (1970) (statement of Rep. Poff). Cf. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 141 (1967) (recommending that “[(Immunity should be granted only with the prior approval of the jurisdiction’s chief prosecuting officer”).
See Brief for Petitioners 9 (“Conboy had no Fifth Amendment privilege to assert because of the coextensive protection provided by the immunity statute”); Reply Brief for Petitioners 12 (“[R]equiring a witness to answer questions a second time that were previously answered under a grant of immunity does not result in an expansion of the original immunity grant”).
Justice Blackmun, concurring in the Court’s judgment, assumes that Conboy had a right to remain silent at the deposition, which by definition assumes the immunity order itself does not compel a witness to testify at a civil deposition. He discusses the “fruits” doctrine where a witness’ testimony at a deposition is “an independent act of free will” and concludes that “had Conboy answered the deposition questions, his testimony would not have been protected by the original immunity grant. .. . .” Post, at 280. We have no occasion to address this hypothetical. The issue is whether Conboy can be compelled to testify — i. e., whether the immunity order compels him to track his prior testimony at the civil deposition — over the assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights. If, as we conclude, the original grant of immunity does not extend to the subsequent civil proceeding, then the trial judge lacks authority to compel Conboy to testify over the assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege. This is so irrespective of whether, had he testified at the deposition rather than asserting the privilege, his answers could have been admitted against him at a criminal trial. We therefore need not now decide the extent to which civil deposition testimony, freely given by a witness in Conboy’s position, is “directly or indirectly derived” from prior grand jury testimony.
As Justice Blackmun’s opinion makes a factual analysis under the “fruits” doctrine, it appears to leave open the possibility that the outcome in a subsequent criminal prosecution of the deponent may be different in a future case because of differences in the factual record. He nevertheless concludes, as do we, that district courts are without power to compel a civil deponent to testify over a valid assertion of his Fifth Amendment right, absent a separate grant of immunity pursuant to § 6002.
Besides the costs of testifying against close associates, any witness increases the risk of committing perjury the more he talks. Cf. 18 U. S. C. § 6002 (perjured testimony not immunized).
The extreme case would be where petitioners read the entire immunized grand jury transcript; then ask the witness if that is his testimony; and he answers simply “Yes.”
Direct examination may not be as limited as petitioners assume. The District Court’s civil contempt order stated that the questions asked in the deposition “were taken directly” from the immunized transcripts, but did not define exactly what deposition questions petitioners could ask. Other Courts of Appeals have permitted direct questioning to go beyond mere restatements of the prior testimony. See In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, Appeal of Fleischacker, 644 F. 2d, at 79 (compelling answers to questions “concerning specific subjects that actually were touched upon by questions appearing in the transcript of the immunized testimony”); Little Rock School District v. Borden, Inc., 632 F. 2d, at 705 (compelling answers as long as deposition questions confined to “ ‘the same time, geographical and substantive frame work as the [witness’ immunized] grand jury testimony’”) (quoting Appeal of Starkey, 600 F. 2d 1043, 1048 (CA8 1979)). The dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens apparently does not attempt to indicate when questioning will exceed proper limits.
For purposes of this case, we assume that the grand jury transcripts are inadmissible as evidence in a civil trial because the testimony is not subject to cross-examination. Cf. Fed. Rule Evid. 803(8) (hearsay exception for certain public records); Fed. Rule Evid. 804(a)(1) (witness unavailable when exempted from testifying on ground of privilege); Fed. Rule Evid. 804(b)(1) (former testimony admissible when witness unavailable and the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity for cross-examination).
Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1) (stating that depositions may be taken “if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 30(c) (allowing cross-examination at depositions); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 32(a) (deposition “admissible under the rules of evidence applied as though the witness were then present and testifying”); Fed. Rule Evid. 804(b)(1) (deposition admissible if the party against whom the testimony is now offered in a civil action had an opportunity to develop testimony by cross-examination).
See United States v. Cardillo, 316 F. 2d 606, 611 (CA2 1963) (in determining whether testimony of a witness who invokes the privilege during cross-examination may be used against defendant, court draws a distinction between cases in which the assertion of the privilege merely precludes inquiry into collateral matters that bear on credibility of witnesses and those in which assertion prevents inquiry into matters about which witness testified on direct).
We need not decide whether United States Attorneys, when designated by the Attorney General, presently have authority to immunize the testimony of a witness in a civil proceeding when the Government determines that the public interest would be served.
None of the tests set forth by Courts of Appeals that have adopted petitioners’ interpretation of § 6002 provides deponents with certain guidance as to when they must talk and when they must not. See n. 16, supra.
Cf. post, at 268 (MARSHALL, J., concurring) (“Further incriminating evidence that is derived from compelled testimony cannot always be traced back to its source”); n. 14, supra (increasing risk of harm and perjury); n. 23, infra (increasing exposure to civil liability).
The dissent minimizes the enforcement interest that our construction of § 6002 protects, post, at 288-290, contending that we “misunderstood] the prosecutorial interest,” post, at 288. We note, however, that by conceding that there is some “risk” that the deponent’s testimony may hamper a prosecution, post, at 293, the dissent concedes that its interpretation of § 6002 provides at least somewhat broader immunity than Congress intended. Moreover, the dissent overlooks the possible difficulty of securing the cooperation of individuals such as Conboy who may be more reluctant to testify in the immunized proceedings if they know that later deposition testimony may increase their exposure to civil liability. Finally, in the dissent’s judgment, “the theoretical risk that compelled testimony could hamper a potential prosecution [is] plainly outweighed by the enforcement interest in allowing the deposition to go forward.” Ibid. See also post, at 289. This, however, is a judgment reserved for officials of the Department of Justice, not the federal courts, to make on a case-by-case basis.
Our holding is limited to precluding district courts from compelling testimony in a civil deposition over a valid assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege, absent a specific assurance of immunity for such testimony.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The question presented in this case is whether a partner in a small law firm may invoke his personal privilege against self-incrimination to justify his refusal to comply with a subpoena requiring production of the partnership’s financial records.
Until 1969, petitioner Isadore Beilis was the senior partner in Beilis, Kolsby & Wolf, a law firm in Philadelphia. The firm was formed in 1955 or 1956. There were three partners in the firm, the three individuals listed in the firm name. In addition, the firm had six employees: two other attorneys who were associated with the firm, one part-time; three secretaries; and a receptionist. Petitioner’s secretary doubled as the partnership’s bookkeeper, under the direction of petitioner and the firm’s independent accountant. The firm’s financial records were therefore maintained in petitioner’s office during his tenure at the firm.
Beilis left the firm in late 1969 to join another law firm. The partnership was dissolved, although it is apparently still in the process of winding up its affairs. Kolsby and Wolf continued in practice together as a new partnership, at the same premises. Beilis moved to new offices, leaving the former partnership’s financial records with Kolsby and Wolf, where they remained for more than three years. In February or March 1973, however, shortly before issuance of the subpoena in this case, petitioner’s secretary, acting at the direction of petitioner or his attorney, removed the records from the old premises and brought them to Beilis’ new office.
On May 1, 1973, Beilis was served with a subpoena directing him to appear and testify before a federal grand jury and to bring with him “all partnership records currently in your possession for the partnership of Beilis, Kolsby & Wolf for the years 1968 and 1969.” App. 6. Petitioner appeared on May 9, but refused to produce the records, claiming, inter alia, his Fifth Amendment privilege, against compulsory self-incrimination. After a hearing before the District Court on May 9 and 10, the court held that petitioner’s personal privilege did not extend to the partnership’s financial books and records, and ordered their production by May 16. When petitioner reappeared before the grand jury on that date and again refused to produce the subpoenaed records, the District Court held him in civil contempt, and released him on his own recognizance pending an expedited appeal.
On July 9, 1973, the Court of Appeals affirmed in a per curiam opinion. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 483 F. 2d 961 (CA3 1973). Relying on this Court's decision in United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694 (1944), the Court of Appeals stated that “the privilege has always been regarded as personal in the sense that it applies only to an individual's words or personal papers” and thus held that the privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to “records of an entity such as a partnership which has a recognizable juridical existence apart from its members.” 483 F. 2d, at 962. After Me. Justice White had stayed the mandate of the Court of Appeals on August 1, we granted certiorari, 414 U. S. 907 (1973), to consider this interpretation of the Fifth Amendment privilege and the applicability of our White decision in the circumstances of this case. We affirm.
It has long been established, of course, that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination protects an individual from compelled production of his personal papers and effects as well as compelled oral testimony. In Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886), we held that “any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man’s own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime” would violate the Fifth Amendment privilege. Id., at 630; see also id., at 633-635; Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361, 377 (1911). The privilege applies to the business records of the sole proprietor or sole practitioner as well as to personal documents containing more intimate information about the individual’s private life. Boyd v. United States, supra; Couch v. United States, 409 U. S. 322 (1973); Hill v. Philpott, 445 F. 2d 144 (CA7), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 991 (1971); Stuart v. United States, 416 F. 2d 459, 462 (CA5 1969). As the Court explained in United States v. White, supra, at 698, “[t]he constitutional privilege against self-incrimination ... is designed to prevent the use of legal process to force from the lips of the accused individual the evidence necessary to convict him or to force him to produce and authenticate any personal documents or effects that might incriminate him.” See also Curcio v. United States, 354 U. S. 118, 125 (1957); Couch v. United States, supra, at 330-331.
On the other hand, an equally long line of cases has established that an individual cannot rely upon the privilege to avoid producing the records of a collective entity which are in his possession in a representative capacity, even if these records might incriminate him personally. This doctrine was first announced in a series of cases dealing with corporate records. In Wilson v. United States, supra, the Court held that an officer of a corporation could not claim his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to justify a refusal to produce the corporate books and records in response to a grand jury subpoena duces tecum directed to the corporation. A companion case, Dreier v. United States, 221 U. S. 394 (1911), held that the same result followed when the subpoena requiring production of the corporate books was directed to the individual corporate officer. In Wheeler v. United States, 226 U. S. 478 (1913), the Court held that no Fifth Amendment privilege could be claimed with respect to corporate records even though the corporation had previously been dissolved. And Grant v. United States, 227 U. S. 74 (1913), applied this principle to the records of a dissolved corporation where the records were in the possession of the individual who had been the corporation’s sole shareholder.
To some extent, these decisions were based upon the particular incidents of the corporate form, the Court observing that a corporation has limited powers granted to it by the State in its charter, and is subject to the retained “visitorial power” of the State to investigate its activities. See, e. g., Wilson v. United States, supra, at 382-385. But any thought that the principle formulated in these decisions was limited to corporate records was put to rest in United States v. White, supra. In White, we held that an officer of an unincorporated association, a labor union, could not claim his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to justify his refusal to produce the union’s records pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. White announced the general rule that the privilege could not be employed by an individual to avoid production of the records of an organization, which he holds in a representative capacity as custodian on behalf of the group. 322 U. S., at 699-700. Relying on White, we have since upheld compelled production of the records of a variety of organizations over individuals’ claims of Fifth Amendment privilege. See, e. g., United States v. Fleischman, 339 U. S. 349, 357-358 (1950) (Joint AntiFascist Refugee Committee); Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 371-372 (1951) (Communist Party of Denver); McPhaul v. United States, 364 U. S. 372, 380 (1960) (Civil Rights Congress). See also Curcio v. United States, supra (local labor union).
These decisions reflect the Court’s consistent view that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination should be “limited to its historic function of protecting only the natural individual from compulsory incrimination through his own testimony or personal records.” United States v. White, supra, at 701. White is only one of the many cases to emphasize that the Fifth Amendment privilege is a purely personal one, most recent among them being the Court’s decision last Term in Couch v. United States, 400 U. S., at 327-328. Relying on this fundamental policy limiting the scope of the privilege, the Court in White held that “the papers and effects which the privilege protects must be the private property of the person claiming the privilege, or at least in his possession in a purely personal capacity.” 322 U. S., at 699. Mr. Justice Murphy reasoned that “individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties nor to be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations.” Ibid.
Since no artificial organization may utilize the personal privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the Court found that it follows that an individual acting in his official capacity on behalf of the organization may likewise not take advantage of his personal privilege. In view of the inescapable fact that an artificial entity can only act to produce its records through its individual officers or agents, recognition of the individual’s claim of privilege with respect to the financial records of the organization would substantially undermine the unchallenged rule that the organization itself is not entitled to claim any Fifth Amendment privilege, and largely frustrate legitimate governmental regulation of such organizations. Mr. Justice Murphy put it well:
“The scope and nature of the economic activities of incorporated and unincorporated organizations and their representatives demand that the constitutional power of the federal and state governments to regulate those activities be correspondingly effective. The greater portion of evidence of wrongdoing by an organization or its representatives is usually to be found in the official records and documents of that organization. Were the cloak of the privilege to be thrown around these impersonal records and documents, effective enforcement of many federal and state laws would be impossible. The framers of the constitutional guarantee against compulsory self-disclosure, who were interested primarily in protecting individual civil liberties, cannot be said to have intended the privilege to be available to protect economic or other interests of such organizations so as to nullify appropriate governmental regulations.” Id., at 700 (citations omitted).
See also Wilson v. United States, supra, at 384-385.
The Court’s decisions holding the privilege inapplicable to the records of a collective entity also reflect a second, though obviously interrelated, policy underlying the privilege, the protection of an individual’s right to a “ 'private enclave where he may lead a private life.’ ” Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 55 (1964). We have recognized that the Fifth Amendment “respects a private inner sanctum of individual feeling and thought” — an inner sanctum which necessarily includes an individual’s papers and effects to the extent that the privilege bars their compulsory production and authentication — and “proscribes state intrusion to extract self-condemnation.” Couch v. United States, supra, at 327. See also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484 (1965). Protection of individual privacy was the major theme running through the Court’s decision in Boyd, see, e. g., 116 U. S., at 630, and it was on this basis that the Court in Wilson distinguished the corporate records involved in that case from the private papers at issue in Boyd. See 221 U. S., at 377, 380.
But 'a substantial claim of privacy or confidentiality cannot often be maintained with respect to the financial records of an organized collective entity. Control of such records is generally strictly regulated by statute or by the rules and regulations of the organization, and access to the records is generally guaranteed to others in the organization. In such circumstances, the custodian of the organization's records lacks the control over their content and location and the right to keep them from the view of others which would be characteristic of a claim of privacy and confidentiality. Mr. Justice Murphy recognized the significance of this in White; he pointed out that organizational records “[u]sually, -if not always, . . . are open to inspection by the members,” that “this right may be enforced on appropriate occasions by available legal procedures,” and that “[t]hey therefore embody no element of personal privacy.” 322 U. S., at 699-700. And here lies the modern-day relevance of the visitorial powers doctrine relied upon by the Court in Wilson and the other cases dealing with corporate records; the Court's holding that no privilege exists “where, by virtue of their character and the rules of law applicable to them, the books and papers are held subject to examination by the [state],” 221 U. S., at 382, can easily be understood as a recognition that corporate records do not contain the requisite element of privacy or confidentiality essential for the privilege to attach.
The analysis of the Court in White, of course, only makes sense in the context of what the Court described as “organized, institutional activity.” 322 U. S., at 701. This analysis presupposes the existence of an organization which is recognized as an independent entity apart from its individual members. The group must be relatively well organized and structured, and not merely a loose, informal association of individuals. It must maintain a distinct set of organizational records, and recognize rights in its members of control and access to them. And the records subpoenaed must in fact be organizational records held in a representative capacity. In other words, it must be fair to say that the records demanded are the records of the organization rather than those of the individual under White.
The Court in White had little difficulty in concluding that the demand for production of the official records of a labor union, whether national or local, in the custody of an officer of the union, met these tests. See id., at 701-703. The Court observed that a union’s existence in fact, if not in law, was “as perpetual as that of any corporation,” id., at 701, that the union operated under formal constitutions, rules, and bylaws, and that it engaged in a broad scope of activities in which it was recognized as an independent entity. The Court also pointed out that the official union books and records were distinct from the personal books and records of its members, that the union restricted the permissible uses of these records, and that it recognized its members’ rights to inspect them. Although the Court was aware that the individual members might legally hold title to the union records, the Court characterized this interest as a “nominal” rather than a significant personal interest in them.
We think it is similarly clear that partnerships may and frequently do represent organized institutional activity so as to preclude any claim of Fifth Amendment privilege with respect to the partnership’s financial records. Some of the most powerful private institutions in the Nation are conducted in the partnership form. Wall Street law firms and stock brokerage firms provide significant examples. These are often large, impersonal, highly structured enterprises of essentially perpetual duration. The personal interest of any individual partner in the financial records of a firm of this scope is obviously highly attenuated. It is inconceivable that a brokerage house with offices from coast to coast handling millions of dollars of investment transactions annually should be entitled to immunize its records from SEC scrutiny solely because it operates as a partnership rather than in the corporate form. Although none of the reported cases has involved a partnership of quite this magnitude, it is hardly surprising that all of the courts of appeals which have addressed the question have concluded that White’s analysis requires rejection of any claim of privilege in the financial records of a large business enterprise conducted in the partnership form. In re Mal Brothers Contracting Co., 444 F. 2d 615 (CA3), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 857 (1971); United States v. Silverstein, 314 F. 2d 789 (CA2), cert. denied, 374 U. S. 807 (1963); United States v. Wernes, 157 F. 2d 797, 800 (CA7 1946). See also United States v. Onassis, 125 F. Supp. 190, 205-210 (DC 1954). Even those lower courts which have held the privilege applicable in the context of a smaller partnership have frequently acknowledged that no absolute exclusion of the partnership form from the White rule generally applicable to unincorporated associations is warranted. See, e. g., United States v. Cogan, 257 F. Supp. 170, 173-174 (SDNY 1966); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum,, 81 F. Supp. 418, 421 (ND Cal. 1948).
In this case, however, we are required to explore the outer limits of the analysis of the Court in White. Petitioner argues that in view of the modest size of the partnership involved here, it is unrealistic to consider the firm as an entity independent of its three partners; rather, he claims, the law firm embodies little more than the personal legal practice of the individual partners. Moreover, petitioner argues that he has a substantial and direct ownership interest in the partnership records, and does not hold them in a representative capacity.
Despite the force of these arguments, we conclude that the lower courts properly applied the White rule in the circumstances of this case. While small, the partnership here did have an established institutional identity independent of its individual partners. This was not an informal association or a temporary arrangement for the undertaking of a few projects of short-lived duration. Rather, the partnership represented a formal institutional arrangement organized for the continuing conduct of the firm’s legal practice. The partnership was in existence for nearly 15 years prior to its voluntary dissolution. Although it may not have had a formal constitution or bylaws to govern its internal affairs, state partnership law imposed on the firm a certain organizational structure in the absence of any contrary agreement by the partners; for example, it guaranteed to each of the partners the equal right to participate in the management and control of the firm, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 59, § 51 (e) (1964), and prescribed that majority rule governed the conduct of the firm’s business, § 51(h). The firm maintained a bank account in the partnership name, had stationery using the firm name on its letterhead, and, in general, held itself out to third parties as an entity with an independent institutional identity. It employed six persons in addition to its partners, including two other attorneys who practiced law on behalf of the firm, rather than as individuals on their own behalf. It filed separate partnership returns for federal tax purposes, as required- by § 6031 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 6031. State law permitted the firm to be sued, Pa. Rule Civ. Proc. 2128, and to hold title to property, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 59, § 13 (3), in the partnership name, and generally regarded the partnership as a distinct entity for numerous other purposes.
Equally important, we believe it is fair to say that petitioner is holding the subpoenaed partnership records in a representative capacity. The documents which petitioner has been ordered to produce are merely the financial books and records of the partnership. These reflect the receipts and disbursements of the entire firm, including income generated by and salaries paid to the employees of the firm, and the financial transactions of the other partners. Petitioner holds these records subject to the rights granted to the other partners by state partnership law. Petitioner has no direct ownership interest in the records ; rather, under state law, they are partnership property, and petitioner’s interest in partnership property is a derivative interest subject to significant limitations. See Ellis v. Ellis, 415 Pa. 412, 415-416, 203 A. 2d 547, 549-550 (1964). Petitioner has no right to use this property for other than partnership purposes without the consent of the other partners. Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 59, § 72 (2) (a). Petitioner is of course accountable to the partnership as a fiduciary, § 54 (1), and his possession of the firm’s financial records is especially subject to his fiduciary obligations to the other partners. Indeed, Pennsylvania law specifically provides that “every partner shall at all times have access to and may inspect and copy any of [the partnership books]§ 52. To facilitate this right of access, petitioner was required to keep these financial books and records at the firm’s principal place of business, at least during the active life of the partnership. Ibid. The other partners in the firm were — and still are — entitled to enforce these rights through lega] action by demanding production of the records in a suit for a formal accounting. § 55.
It should be noted also that petitioner was content to leave these records with the other members of the partnership at their principal place of business for more than three years after he left the firm. Moreover, the Government contends that the other partners in the firm had agreed to turn the records over to the grand jury before discovering that petitioner had removed them from their offices, and that they made an unavailing demand upon petitioner to return the records. Whether or not petitioner’s present possession of these records is an unlawful infringement of the rights of the other partners, this provides additional support for our conclusion that it is the organizational character of the records and the representative aspect of petitioner’s present possession of them which predominates over his belatedly discovered personal interest in them.
Petitioner relies heavily on language in the Court’s opinion in White which suggests that the “test” for determining the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege in this area is whether the organization “has a character so impersonal in the scope of its membership and activities that it cannot be said to embody or represent the purely private or personal interests of its constituents, but rather to embody their common or group interests only.” 322 U. S., at 701. We must admit our agreement with the Solicitor General’s observation that “it is difficult to know precisely what situations the formulation in White was intended to include within the protection of the privilege.” Brief for United States 21. The Court in White, after stating its test, did not really apply it, nor has any of the subsequent decisions of this Court. On its face, the test is not particularly helpful in the broad range of cases, including this one, where the organization embodies neither “purely . . . personal interests” nor “group interests only,” but rather some combination of the two.
In any event, we do not believe that the Court’s formulation in White can be reduced to a simple proposition based solely upon the size of the organization. It is well settled that no privilege can be claimed by the custodian of corporate records, regardless of how small the corporation may be. Grant v. United States, 227 U. S. 74 (1913); Fineberg v. United States, 393 F. 2d 417, 420 (CA9 1968); Hair Industry, Ltd. v. United States, 340 F. 2d 510 (CA2 1965); cf. George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid, 392 U. S. 286 (1968). Every State has now adopted laws permitting incorporation of professional associations, and increasing numbers of lawyers, doctors, and other professionals are choosing to conduct their business affairs in the corporate form rather than the more traditional partnership. Whether corporation or partnership, many of these firms will be independent entities whose financial records are held by a member of the firm in a representative capacity. In these circumstances, the applicability of the privilege should not turn on an insubstantial difference in the form of the business enterprise. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 358 F. Supp. 661, 668 (Md. 1973).
This might be a different case if it involved a small family partnership, see United States v. Slutsky, 352 F. Supp. 1105 (SDNY 1972); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 81 F. Supp., at 421, or, as the Solicitor General suggests, Brief for United States 22-23, if there were some other pre-existing relationship of confidentiality among the partners. But in the circumstances of this case, petitioner’s possession of the partnership’s financial records in what can be fairly said to be a representative capacity compels our holding that his personal privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is inapplicable.
Affirmed.
Although the wording of the subpoena was arguably broad enough to encompass them, the District Court expressly excluded any client files from the scope of its order.
Petitioner also argues that we have already decided the issue presented in this case, and held that the Fifth Amendment privilege could be claimed with respect to partnership records, in the Boyd case. It is true that the notice to produce involved in Boyd was in fact issued to E. A. Boyd & Sons, a partnership. See 116 U. S. 616, 619. However, at this early stage in the development of our Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, the potential significance of this fact was not observed by either the parties or the Court. The parties treated the invoice at issue as a private business record, and the contention that it might be a partnership record held in a representative capacity, and thus not within the scope of the privilege, was not raised. The Court therefore decided the case on the premise that it involved-the “compulsory production of a man’s private papers.” Id., at 622. It was only after Boyd had held that the Fifth Amendment privilege applied to the compelled production of documents that the question of the extension of this principle to the records of artificial entities arose. We do not believe that the Court in Boyd can be said to have decided the issue presented today. See United States v. Onassis, 125 F. Supp. 190, 208 (DC 1954).
In any event, the Court in Boyd did not inquire into the nature of the Boyd & Sons partnership or the capacity in which the invoice was acquired or held. Absent such an inquiry, we are unable to determine how our decision today would affect the result of Boyd on the facts of that case. See infra, at 101.
Petitioner properly concedes that the dissolution of the partnership does not afford him any greater claim to the privilege than he would have if the firm were still active. Brief for Petitioner 31 n. 12. Under Pennsylvania law, dissolution of the partnership does not terminate the entity; rather it continues until the winding up of the partnership affairs is completed, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 59, § 92 (1964), which has not yet occurred in this case. Moreover, this Court’s decisions have made clear that the dissolution of a corporation does not give the custodian of the corporate records any greater claim to the Fifth Amendment privilege. Wheeler v. United States, 226 U. S. 478, 489-490 (1913); Grant v. United States, 227 U. S. 74, 80 (1913). We see no reason why the same should not be true of the records of a partnership after its dissolution.
The record in this case is quite sketchy, and it is unclear whether the partnership here had adopted a formal partnership agreement. Petitioner apparently had a 45% interest in the profits of the firm, which suggests that there may have been such an agreement. However, there is no indication that any such agreement made any material change in the provisions of state law regarding the management and control of the firm or the rights of the other partners with respect to the firm’s financial records. In any event, the existence of a formal partnership agreement would merely reinforce our conclusion that the partnership is properly regarded as an independent entity with a relatively formal organization.
Pennsylvania has adopted the provisions of the Uniform Partnership Act, which is also in force in 40 other States and the District of Columbia.
As we observed only last Term, a “partnership is regarded as an independently recognizable entity apart from the aggregate of its partners" for a number of purposes under the Internal Revenue Code. United States v. Basye, 410 U. S. 441, 448 (1973).
Of course, state and federal law do not treat partnerships as distinct entities for all purposes. But we think that partnerships bear enough of the indicia of legal entities to be treated as such for the purpose of our analysis of the Fifth Amendment issue presented in this case. The fact that partnerships are not viewed solely as entities is immaterial for this purpose. See United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, 697 (1944).
Petitioner argues that as a partner in the firm, he has an interest in the firm's records as co-owner which entitles him to claim the privilege against self-incrimination. But such an ownership interest exists in a paitnership of any size. Moreover, the same ownership interest is presented in the case of a labor union or other unincorporated association. The Court’s decision in White clearly established that the mere existence of such an ownership interest is not in itself sufficient to establish a claim of privilege. See also Wheeler v. United States, 226 U. S., at 489-490; Grant v. United States, 227 U. S., at 79-80.
Mr. Justice Douglas argues in dissent that the partnership as an entity is not under investigation by the grand jury, rather that petitioner is the target of the inquiry. Assuming that this is true, it does not give petitioner any greater claim to the privilege. We have rejected this same argument in holding that the privilege cannot be maintained with respect to corporate records, in words fully applicable here:
“Nor is it an answer to say that in the present case the inquiry before the grand jury was not directed against the corporation itself. The appellant had no greater right to withhold the books by reason of the fact that the corporation was not charged with criminal abuses. That, if the corporation had been so charged, he would have been, compelled to submit the books to inspection, despite the consequences to himself, sufficiently shows the absence of any basis for a claim on his part of personal privilege as to them; it could not depend upon the question whether or not another was accused.” Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361, 385 (1911).
Significantly, the District Court here excluded any client files from the scope of its order. See n. 1, supra. A different case might be presented if petitioner had been ordered to produce files containing work which he had personally performed on behalf of his clients, even if these files might for some purposes be viewed as those of the partnership.
The Court in White, in pointing out that union records were generally open to inspection by the members, 322 U. S., at 699-700, relied upon Guthrie v. Harkness, 199 U. S. 148, 153 (1905), where the Court observed that “the members of an ordinary partnership [have the same right] to examine their company’s books.”
To implement these rights, Pennsylvania law permits any partner to bring suit against the partnership, and the partnership to sue any partner. Pa. Rule Civ. Proc. 2129.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Reed
delivéred the opinion of the Court.
This case raises the question whether, under the circumstances of petitioner’s trial for larceny in a state court without counsel, Pennsylvania deprived him of a federal constitutional right protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Petitioner, a man in his 'thirties, was arrested in Pennsylvania in 1947 for the larceñy-óf certain clothing and other personal effects allegedly belonging to one James Blades. Upon the return of an indictment he pleaded not guilty, was tried before a jury which found him guilty, and was sentenced to a term of two and one-half to five years in the penitentiary. The record shows neither a request for counsel by the petitioner nor an offer of counsel by the court. Petitioner conducted his own defense.
Ón May 24, 1948, Gibbs filed in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania a petition for habeas corpus in which he’ alleged his arrest, trial, conviction and sentence, and in which he also stated that he “was denied counsel and through ignorance of law and fact was forced to act as his own counsel” and that he “was denied his constitutional Rights as set forth in the Ten Original Amendments, Article VI.” Upon the issuance of a rule to show causé, respondent answered, admitting the formal allegations and the fact of trial and sentence, but alleging the following concerning the denial of right to counsel: “The transcript of the notes of testimony taken in the matter does not disclose that the relator demanded counsel nor requested that counsel be appointed to represent him. . . . It is also averred by way of answer that the relator’s examination of witnesses and questions asked during the course of the trial fully disclosed his familiarity with legal process in the criminal courts.” The answer also attached a transcript of the proceedings at the trial and a transcript of petitioner’s criminal record. It showed eight convictions and nine acquittals, discharges, and no true bills. On July 6, 1948, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied the writ; As the allegations of the petition raised grave doubts as to whether petitioner had been accorded, due process in his trial, we granted the motion for leave to 'proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari. 335 U. S. 867.
James Blades, the prosecuting witness, Mrs. Lafield, his mother, Constable Fleming, the arresting officer, and James Silverstéin, a secondhand dealer, testified for the state. Briefly summarized, their testimony tended to prove that petitioner came to Blades’ home on the morning of the alleged theft, looked in Blades’ room, where the stolen, articles were in plain view, and, finding ^Blades absent, departed. When Blades returned home that day he noticed that the articles were missing from his room and, upon learning from his mother that Gibbs had been there, he notified the police. He and Constable Fleming found some of the missifig articles in a pawnshop and found the petitioner in a taproom wearing Blades’ hat and. watch. Later Blades’ wallet was found in the jail cell in which petitioner was incarcerated. Silverstein, the secondhand dealer in the pawnshop, testified that Gibbs had brought the missing clothing in and had sold them to him.
Petitioner, by means of cross-examination, sought to establish that the articles had been taken,- and some of them sold, pursuant to an understanding between him and Blades.
Several events occurring at the trial are pertinent to petitioner’s claim that failure to appoint counsel violated the Federal Constitution. (1) Considerable inadmissible hearsay and otherwise incompetent evidence was allowed to go in without objection by Gibbs. (2) When petitioner recalled the prosecuting witness Blades for further cross-examination, the trial judge accepted the prosecutor’s suggestion and made Blades the petitioner’s witness for the purpose of the unfavorable testimony then elicited. Thus he made this testimony binding on the petitioner although the Pennsylvania rule would seem to be that an adverse witness can be so examined and yet remain the witness of the opposing party. (3) Although, as we have already noted, petitioner attempted to defend himself on the ground that he took and sold vthe articles pursuant to an agreement with the prosecuting witness, he was prevented from proving a fact clearly relevant to that defense, i. e., that Blades had previously made a baseless criminal charge against him under similar circumstances. (4) The trial judge also advised petitioner in the presence of the jury, so far as the record shows, as to his opportunity to avail himself of the privilege against self-incrimination which was his under Pennsylvania law. In doing so he made reference to possible past convictions. So to require him to claim his eon stitutional safeguard. in the presence of the jury was, petitioner claims, a violation of Pennsylvania law. Cf. Philadelphia v. Cline, 158 Pa. Super. 179, 185, 44 A. 2d 610, 613; Commonwealth v. Valeroso, 273 Pa. 213,116 A. 828. . Respondent does not claim otherwise. The information given by the judge as to past convictions could have been given by a lawyer to the petitioner beyond the jpry’s hearing. (5) Finally, when sentencing petitioner, the judge used language which, it is claimed, evinced a hostile and thoroughly unjudicial attitude.
Two procedural points, require but brief attention. The federal question was adequately if inartisticálly raised in the petition fox a writ of habeas- corpus. We consider insignificant under these circumstances the fact that petitioner cited the Sixth rather than the fourteenth Amendment to. the Constitution. Meticulous insistence upon regularity in procedural allegations is foreign to the purpose of habeas corpus. The state does not contest the propriety of a consideration of the pase on its merits. Thus it apparently concedes that habeas corpus was a proper method of testing he constitutionality of the conviction .and that it was wi bin the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Since it is clear that a failure to request counsel does not constitute a waiver when the defendant does not know of his. right to'counsel, Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437, we proceed to the merits. We consider this case on the theory upheld in Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, that the Constitution does not guarantee to every person charged with a serious crime in a state court the right to the assistance of counsel regardless of the circumstances. Betts v. Brady rejected the contention that the Fourteenth Amendment automatically afforded such protection. In so doing, however, it did not, of . course, hold or intimate that counsel was never required in noncapital cases in state courts in order to satisfy the necessity for basic fairness which is formulated in that Amendment.
There have been made to this Court without avail arguments based on the long practice as to counsel in state courts to convince us that under the Fourteenth Amendment a state may refuse to furnish counsel even when needed by the accused in serious felonies other than capital. Our decisions have been that where the ignorance, youth, or other incapacity of the defendant made a trial without counsel unfair, the defendant is deprived of his libérty contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Counsel necessary-for his adequate defense would be lacking.
Respondent' argues that to hold to such precedents leaves the state prosecuting authorities uncertain as to whether to offer counsel to all accused who are without adequate funds and under serious charges in state courts. We cannot offer a panacea for the difficulty. Such an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment would be an unwarranted federal intrusion into state control of its criminal procedure. The due process clause is not susceptible of reduction to a mathematical formula.
Furthermore, the fair conduct of a trial depends largely on the wisdom and understanding of the trial judge. He knows the essentials of a fair trial. The primary duty falls on him to determine the accused’s need of counsel at arraignment and during trial. Hh may guide a defendant without a lawyer past the errors that make trials unfair. Cf. Uveges v. Pennsylvania, supra. Failure to protect properly the rights of one accused of serious offenses is unusual. Obviously a fair trial test necessitates an appraisal before and during the trial of the facts of each case to determine whether the need for counsel is so great that the deprivation of the right to counsel works, a fundamental unfairness. The recent discussion of the problem in Uveges v. Pennsylvania, supra, makes further elaboration unnecessary. We think that the facts of this case, particularly the events occurring at the trial, reveal, in the light of that opinion and the precedents there cited, that petitioner was handicapped by lack of counsel to such an extent that his constitutional right to a fair trial was denied. This case is of the type referred to in Betts v. Brady, supra, at 473, as lacking fundamental fairness because neither counsel nor adequate judicial guidance or protection was furnished at Hie trial.
A defendant who pleads not guilty and elects to go to trial is usually more in heed of the assistance of a lawyer than is one who pleads guilty. The record in this case evidences petitioner’s helplessness, without counsel and without more assistance from the judge, in defending himself against this charge of larceny. We take no note of the tone of the comments at the time of the sentence. The trial was over. The questionable issues allowed to pass unnoticed as to procedure, evidence, privilege, and instructions detailed in the first-part of this opinion demonstrate to us that petitioner did not have a trial that measures up to the test of fairness prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas concur in the judgment of the Court. They think that Betts v. Brady should be overruled. If that case is to be followed, however, they agree with the Court’s opinion insofar as it holds that petitioner is entitled to relief under the Betts v. Brady doctrine.
Me.. Justice Murphy and Mr. Justice Rutledge concur in the result.
Blades: “Then she [witness’s mother] tells me about him [petitioner] being there.”
Constable Fleming: “I got a telephone call from the Chief of Police, Mr. Miller, to go up to Mrs. Lafield’sto investigate a robbery that occurred there. .... I asked Jim, where was the suitcase. He said, the suitcase was by the bed. ...”
“I went to three pawnshops and they gave me a description of Edward Gibbs . . . .”
The District Attorney’s unsworn offer of proof concerning the missing articles was as follows:
“Mr. Johnson: I want to offer into evidence the wallet, the watch, which were identified and found — The watch was found in the possession of the defendant. This wallet, containing the papers of Mr. Blades, which was found in the jail cell that had been occupied by the defendant.
"The Court: What about the radio ?
“Mr. Johnson: It has been recovered and returned to the owner.”
“The Defendant: May I call the prosecutor [Blades] back on the stand?
“Mr. Johnson: He desires to call the prosecutor as his witness.”
In his charge to the jury the judge said with reference to this episode:
“As he has presented no evidence of his own, except having called Mr. Blades and certain questions were asked Mr. Blades and certain answers made; that is the only evidence he presented.”
Commonwealth v. Reeves, 267 Pa. 361, 362-363, 110 A. 158, 159; Commonwealth v. Eisenhower, 181 Pa. 470, 476, 37 A. 521, 522.
Commonwealth v. Farrell, 187 Pa. 408, 423-24, 41 A. 382, 384; see 3 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) § 950.
“Q. Last fall, last year, didn’t you wreck your own automobile r id enter a complaint that I stole your car and wrecked it?
“Mr. Johnson: Objected to.
“The Court: Objection sustained. It has nothing to do with this case.
“The Defendant: All right.”
“The Court: Now then, Gibbs, you may, if you want to, take the stand and say anything you want to say, but I warn you if you do, if you have any record of any prior conviction, any felonies or any misdemeanors in the nature of what we call crimen falsi, the commonwealth may offer the record of any convictions you may have had. I am warning you in advance. You may, however, take the stand and testify or you may refuse to take the stand and if you do refuse to take the stand, the commonwealth and the court may not comment unfavorably about your failure to take the stand and testify.' I want to warn you fully before you do take the stand.
“Do you want to take the stand?
“The Defendant: No, I don’t have anything to say in court.”
“By the Court:
“Q. Gibbs, do yo.u have anything to say before we impose sentence?
“A. No, I guess not. , ■ '
“Q. How long have you been in jail ?
“A. Two months and a half.
“Q. — What is the matter with you; why can’t you keep out of trouble?
“A. I don’t know, sir.'
“Q. Yov. don’t know why you can’t do it? What do you do, get drunk or something, or are you just ornery?
“Mr. Johnson: Don’t you think this man would be better if he were sent to the Eastern Penitentiary?
"By the Court:
“Q. Do you realize you can be put away for the rest of your life?
“A. .(No answer.)
' “The Court: It is a wonder the district attorney doesn’t indict you for it. Y ou can be indicted.
“Mr. Johnson: If he comes back again, I will take it as my personal job to indict him.
/‘.The Court: 'In 1928 you were found guilty of burglary, larceny, receiving stolen goods, before Judge. Fronefield — one to two years, county jail. In 1931, plead guilty to larceny — $100 fine and costs, one to two years, Judge MacDade. 1932 found guilty of larceny and receiving stolen goods, $50 fine and costs, six months to three years in county jail, Judge Morrow. That is three. 1934 larceny, found guilty, $100 fine and costs, six months to three years in county jail; sentencéd to one year in county jail for violation óf parole;. Judge Fronéfield. That is four. . 1937, receiving stolen goods, $10 fine and costs, one to three years county jail, ^sentence suspended by Judge MacDade. That is five. 1938, larceny; found guilty, one and half to three years county jail, Judge Crichton. I don’t believe there is anyone you missed up to now. You were before me a year ago. No, just last March. You beat that, not guilty. Now, here you are the seventh time.
“All I can do is give him two and a half to ve years, if you don’t ¡ want to indict these fourth offénders.
“Sentence'
“On No. 417 September Sessions 1947, the sentence of the court is that you undergo imprisonment in the Eastern State Penitentiary at solitary confinement and hard labor for two and a half to five years and' stand committed until this sentence be /complied with] If I could give you life, I would do it..
“Take him away.”
Cf. Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 292, and cases there cited.
Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U. S. 485, 487.
Respondent’s brief states: “The issue now to be determined is whether he was properly charged with the offense, tried, convicted" and sentenced, under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Constitution of the United States, more particularly the portion of the Fourteenth Amendment
See Commonwealth ex rel. McGlinn v. Smith, 344 Pa: 41, 24 A. 2d 1; Commonwealth ex rel. Penland v. Ashe, 341 Pa. 337, 19 A. 2d 464.
Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437, 441, and cases there cited.
Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455; Bute v. Illinois, 333 U. S. 640, 676; Townsend v. Burke, 334 U. S. 736, 739.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On October 28, 1944, respondent brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the then Secretary of War and Adjutant General of the Army. He prayed for a judgment declaring that he had served in the United States Army from November 11, 1918 (Armistice Day) until November 14, 1918, and that for this service he was entitled to a certificate of honorable discharge from the Army, instead of the certificate of “Discharge from Draft” which had been issued to him. He also prayed for a mandatory injunction to compel issuance to him of a certificate of honorable discharge from the Army.
The complainant alleged that on November 9, 1918, he received a communication from his local draft board directing him to report to the board at Davenport, Iowa, for “immediate military service” at 9 a. m., November 11, 1918, and stating that from that day and hour he would be “a soldier in the military service of the United States”; that he reported as ordered, and was made the leader of the drafted group there assembled which was to board a train that day for a mobilization camp at Camp Dodge, Iowa; that during the day he was told that because of the Armistice the draft call had been canceled; that he and the other draftees would not go to Camp Dodge, but could return home, still soldiers, and await further orders; that four days later he received a notice from his board that by telegraphic order of the Provost Marshal, acting under instructions of the President, all induction orders throughout the Nation had been canceled, and all registrants, who, like himself, had been inducted but not entrained, were discharged from the Army; and that cancellation of their induction orders would have the effect of an honorable discharge from the Army. He further alleged that in January, 1919, he received a certificate dated November 14, 1918, entitled “Discharge from Draft,” accompanying which was a check for four dollars ($4.00) bearing the notation “Final Pay”; that because of the foregoing circumstances he had always assumed that his discharge had the effect of an honorable discharge from the Army; that he had obtained certain tax exemptions from the State of Iowa on the ground that he had such a discharge, but was later authoritatively denied the exemptions by reason of a decision of the state supreme court, Lamb v. Kroeger, 233 Iowa 730, 8 N. W. 2d 405; that it was after this decision that he applied for and was denied an honorable discharge by the Secretary and Adjutant General.
The District Court sustained petitioners’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted. Other grounds of the motion, not passed on by the District Court, were that the alleged cause of action was not justiciable, was barred by laches, and that the type of certificate to be issued draftees under the circumstances alleged was a matter solely within the discretion of the Secretary of War and not a subject for judicial review. The Court of Appeals reversed, rejecting all the grounds set up in the motion to dismiss. 81 U. S. App. D. C. —, 154 F. 2d 319. This holding not only decided important questions concerning the power of the War Department, but also upset twenty-five years of important War Department rulings and practices which have affected, and will hereafter affect, the status and claims of thousands of draftees of the First World War. This called for our review, and we granted certiorari.
Whether and to what extent the courts have power to review or control the War Department’s action in fixing the type of discharge certificates issued to soldiers, is a question that we need not here determine; nor need we decide whether the action should have been dismissed because of laches. For we are satisfied that the War Department was within its power in granting a discharge from draft rather than the type of discharge it granted soldiers who performed military service after having become fully and finally absorbed into that service.
The only statute which directly bears upon “certificates of discharge” for enlisted men, Article of War 108, set out below, does not particularly prescribe the types or contents of certificates authorized to be granted. But pursuant to authority granted by Congress, the War Department many years ago promulgated Army Regulation No. 150 which provided for three types of certificates of discharge: honorable, dishonorable, and unclassified. An honorable discharge was one granted to a soldier whose conduct in service had been such as to warrant his reenlistment. This regulation was well suited to fit cases of soldiers who had enlisted under ordinary conditions, had seen service and had been discharged in the course of regular Army routine. On its face, however, it shows how poorly it was adapted to fit the extraordinary circumstances bound to develop in connection with a nation-wide program for passing upon acceptances, rejections, and discharges of draftees in the course of their progress from their homes to their complete and final integration into the Army. So, after' the passage of the 1917 Draft Act, 40 Stat. 76, the War Department, on January 12, 1918, issued its Circular No. 651 in which it made provision for men discharged from draft as distinguished from men discharged from the Army. This provision, in effect when respondent reported for induction, had particular, though not necessarily exclusive, reference to draftees rejected for one reason or another at mobilization camps after their induction at their local draft boards. But despite the fact that draftees became subject to military law and duty from the moment of their arrival for entrainment at the local board, Selective Service Regulation 174-176 provided that they nevertheless were not finally accepted for military service, and could be rejected after arrival at camp. And it was not until they had been finally accepted that they could or would be assigned to full-fledged duty as soldiers.
The Discharge from Draft Form No. 638, referred to in Circular No. 651, was originally prepared for draftees rejected at camp after induction “on account of physical unfitness, dependency, etc.” Form No. 638 had been in use long prior to the respondent’s rejection on the ground that the Government did not need his services after the Armistice. Had the Armistice not been declared, had respondent gone on to Camp Dodge, and had he then been rejected for any reason there, he would have received, not an honorable discharge from the Army, but a “Discharge from Draft.” Yet we are asked to give the regulations and certificates a judicial construction, contrary to the Army’s construction, whereby respondent, who got no farther than his local board, would stand in a better status than the tens of thousands of other draftees who came much closer to complete integration into the Army than he ever did.
An argument to support this contention is that the telegraphic order issued from Army headquarters on Armistice Day, which canceled entrainment orders for respondent and about 155,000 other draftees then ready for entrainment, provided that all of them were “discharged from the Army.” But that same order stated that “The issue of formal papers of discharge will be considered and determined later” and that the purpose of the telegraphic order was “merely to cancel outstanding calls and stop the entrainment thereunder of men for the Army.” And when “the issue of formal papers of discharge” was “later” considered, it resulted in War Department Circular No. Ill of 1918. That circular was the follow-up of the President’s Armistice Day draft cancellation order, and as foreshadowed by the Armistice Day order, this circular prescribed with definiteness the type of “formal papers of discharge” which this respondent and others like him would later receive. It was a “Discharge from Draft.”
No statute or previous Army Regulation had provided for the extraordinary situation which developed on Armistice Day and which made it necessary for the President to halt the processing of these thousands of men and direct that they return to their homes. When this new situation arose, it was certainly within the province of the War Department to provide for its solution by, among other things, issuing to those returned home an appropriate form of certificate, whether of the honorable discharge variety, a “discharge from draft,” or some special form designed specifically for the occasion. Respondent was inducted into the Army and was discharged before he reached a mobilization camp for final processing. His discharge adequately indicates these facts. The law demands no more.
Reversed.
The Secretary of War and The Adjutant General against whom the action was originally instituted are no longer in office; their successors have been properly substituted as parties.
See Denby v. Berry, 51 App. D. C. 335, 279 F. 317, 263 U. S. 29; Davis v. Woodring, 111 F. 2d 523; Palmer v. United States, 72 Ct. Cl. 401; Wilbur v. United States, 281 U. S. 206; cf. 58 Stat. 286, 38 U. S. C. Supp. IV, § 693h.
“No enlisted man, lawfully inducted into the military service of the United States, shall be discharged from said service without a certificate of discharge, signed by a field officer of the regiment or other organization to which the enlisted man belongs . . .” 39 Stat. 619, 668.
18 Stat. 337, 10 U. S. C. § 16; see also United States v. Eliason, 16 Pet. 291, 301-302.
Paragraph 150 of the Army Regulations of 1913, corrected to April 15,1917, was as follows:
“150. Blank forms for discharge and final statements will be furnished by the Adjutant General’s Department and will be retained in the personal custody of company commanders. Discharge certificates will be used in the discharge of enlisted men and for no other purpose, and will be of three classes: For honorable discharge, for discharge, and for dishonorable discharge.
They will be used as follows:
1. The blank for honorable discharge, when the soldier’s conduct has been such as to warrant his reenlistment and his service has been honest and faithful.
2. The blank for dishonorable discharge, for dishonorable discharge by sentence of a court martial or a military commission.
3. The blank for discharge when the soldier is discharged except as specified under sections 1 and 2 of this paragraph (C. A. R.
Nos. 14 and 34).”
Cf. Gibson v. United States, 329 U. S. 338; Dodez v. United States, 329 U. S. 338.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The principal question in this case concerns the admissibility of evidence seized from an automobile, in which petitioner was riding at the time of his arrest, after the automobile was taken to a police station and was there thoroughly searched without a warrant. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found no violation of petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights. We affirm.
I
During the night of May 20, 1963, a Gulf service station in North Braddock, Pennsylvania, was robbed by two men, each of whom carried and displayed a gun. The robbers took the currency from the cash register; the service station attendant, one Stephen Kovacich, was directed to place the coins in his right-hand glove, which was then taken by the robbers. Two teen-agers, who had earlier noticed a blue compact station wagon circling the block in the vicinity of the Gulf station, then saw the station wagon speed away from a parking lot close to the Gulf station. About the same time, they learned that the Gulf station had been robbed. They reported to police, who arrived immediately, that four men were in the station wagon and one was wearing a green sweater. Kova-cich told the police that one of the men who robbed him was wearing a green sweater and the other was wearing a trench coat. A description of the car and the two robbers was broadcast over the police radio. Within an hour, a light blue compact station wagon answering the description and carrying four men was stopped by the police about two miles from the Gulf station. Petitioner was one of the men in the station wagon. He was wearing a green sweater and there was a trench coat in the car. The occupants were arrested and the car was driven to the police station. In the course of a thorough search of the car at the station, the police found concealed in a compartment under the dashboard two .38-caliber revolvers (one loaded with dumdum bullets), a right-hand glove containing small change, and certain cards bearing the name of Raymond Havicon, the attendant at a Boron service station in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, who had been robbed at gunpoint on May 13, 1963. In the course of a warrant-authorized search of petitioner’s home the day after petitioner’s arrest, police found and seized certain .38-caliber ammunition, including some dumdum bullets similar' to those found in one of the guns taken from the station wagon.
Petitioner was indicted for both robberies. His first trial ended in a mistrial but he was convicted of both robberies at the second trial. Both Kovacieh and Hav-icon identified petitioner as one of the robbers. The materials taken from the station wagon were introduced into evidence, Kovacieh identifying his glove and Hav-icon the cards taken in the May 13 robbery. The bullets seized at petitioner’s house were also introduced over objections of petitioner’s counsel. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of four to eight years’ imprisonment for the May 13 robbery and to a term of two to seven years’ imprisonment for the May 20 robbery, the sentences to run consecutively. Petitioner did not take a direct appeal from these convictions. In 1965, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, which denied the writ after a brief evidentiary hearing; the denial of the writ was affirmed on appeal in the Pennsylvania appellate courts. Habeas corpus proceedings were then commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. An order to show cause was issued. Based on the State’s response and the state court record, the petition for habeas corpus was denied without a hearing. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, 408 F. 2d 1186, and we granted certiorari, 396 U. S. 900 (1969).
II
We pass quickly the claim that the search of the automobile was the fruit of an unlawful arrest. Both the courts below thought the arresting officers had probable cause to make the arrest. We agree. Having talked to the teen-age observers and to the victim Kova-cich, the police had ample cause to stop a light blue compact station wagon carrying four men and to arrest the occupants, one of whom was wearing a green sweater and one of whom had a trench coat with him in the car.
Even so, the search that produced the incriminating evidence was made at the police station some time after the arrest and cannot be justified as a search incident to an arrest: “Once an accused is under arrest and in custody, then a search made at another place, without a warrant, is simply not incident to the arrest.” Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964). Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U. S. 216 (1968), is to the same effect; the reasons that have been thought sufficient to justify warrantless searches carried out in connection with an. arrest no longer obtain when the accused is safely in custody at the station house.
There are, however, alternative grounds arguably justifying the search of the car in this case. In Preston, supra, the arrest was for vagrancy; it was apparent that the officers had no cause to believe that evidence of crime was concealed in the auto. In Dyke, supra, the Court expressly rejected the suggestion that there was probable cause to search the car, 391 U. S., at 221-222. Here the situation is different, for the police had probable cause to believe that the robbers, carrying guns and the fruits of the crime, had fled the scene in a light blue compact station wagon which would be carrying four men, one wearing a green sweater and another wearing a trench coat. As the state courts correctly held, there was probable cause to arrest the occupants of the station wagon that the officers stopped; just as obviously was there probable cause to search the car for guns and stolen money.
In terms of the circumstances justifying a warrantless search, the Court has long distinguished between an automobile and a home or office. In Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925), the issue was the admissibility in evidence of contraband liquor seized in a war-rantless search of a car on the highway. After surveying the law from the time of the adoption of the Fourth Amendment onward, the Court held that automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office, provided that there is probable cause to believe that the car contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize. The Court expressed its holding as follows:
“We have made a somewhat extended reference to these statutes to show that the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
“Having thus established that contraband goods concealed and illegally transported in an automobile or other vehicle may be searched for without a warrant, we come now to consider under what circumstances such search may be made. . . . [T]hose lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a competent official authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise. . . .
“The measure of legality of such a seizure is, therefore, that the seizing officer shall have reasonable or probable cause for believing that the automobile which he stops and seizes has contraband liquor therein which is being illegally transported.” 267 U. S., at 153-154, 155-156.
The Court also noted that the search of an auto on probable cause proceeds on a theory wholly different from that justifying the search incident to an arrest:
“The right to search and the validity of the seizure are not dependent on the right to arrest. They are dependent on the reasonable cause the seizing officer has for belief that the contents of the automobile offend against the law.” 267 U. S., at 158-159.
Finding that there was probable cause for the search and seizure at issue before it, the Court affirmed the convictions.
Carroll was followed and applied in Husty v. United States, 282 U. S. 694 (1931), and Scher v. United States, 305 U. S. 251 (1938). It was reaffirmed and followed in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160 (1949). In 1964, the opinion in Preston, supra, cited both Brinegar and Carroll with approval, 376 U. S., at 366-367. In Cooper v. California, 386 U. S. 58 (1967), the Court read Preston as dealing primarily with a search incident to arrest and cited that case for the proposition that the mobility of a car may make the search of a car without a warrant reasonable “although the result might be the opposite in a search of a home, a store, or other fixed piece of property.” 386 U. S., at 59. The Court’s opinion in Dyke, 391 U. S., at 221, recognized that “[a]utomobiles, because of their mobility, may be searched without a warrant upon facts not justifying a warrantless search of a residence or office,” citing Brinegar and Carroll, supra. However, because there was insufficient reason to search the car involved in the Dyke case, the Court did not reach the question of whether those cases “extend to a warrant-less search, based upon probable cause, of an automobile which, having been stopped originally on a highway, is parked outside a courthouse.” 391 U. S., at 222.
Neither Carroll, supra, nor other cases in this Court require or suggest that in every conceivable circumstance the search of an auto even with probable cause may be made without the extra protection for privacy that a warrant affords. But the circumstances that furnish probable cause to search a particular auto for particular articles are most often unforeseeable; moreover, the opportunity to search is fleeting since a car is readily movable. Where this is true, as in Carroll and the case before us now, if an effective search is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search.
In enforcing the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Court has insisted upon probable cause as a minimum requirement for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution. As a general rule, it has also required the judgment of a magistrate on the probable-cause issue and the issuance of a warrant before a search is made. Only in exigent circumstances will the judgment of the police as to probable cause serve as a sufficient authorization for a search. Carroll, supra, holds a search warrant unnecessary where there is probable cause to search an automobile stopped on the highway; the car is movable, the occupants are alerted, and the car’s contents may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained. Hence an immediate search is constitutionally permissible.
Arguably, because of the preference for a magistrate’s judgment, only the immobilization of the car should be permitted until a search warrant is obtained; arguably, only the “lesser” intrusion is permissible until the magistrate authorizes the “greater.” But which is the “greater” and which the “lesser” intrusion is itself a debatable question and the answer may depend on a variety of circumstances. For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a 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.
On the facts before us, the blue station wagon could have been searched on the spot when it was stopped since there was probable cause to search and it was a fleeting target for a search. The probable-cause factor still obtained at the station house and so did the mobility of the car unless the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless seizure of the car and the denial of its use to anyone until a warrant is secured. In that event there is little to choose in terms of practical consequences between an immediate search without a warrant and the car’s immobilization until a warrant i's obtained. The same consequences may not follow where there is unforeseeable cause to search a house. Compare Vale v. Louisiana, ante, p. 30. But as Carroll, supra, held, for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars.
Ill
Neither of petitioner’s remaining contentions warrants reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. One of them challenges the admissibility at trial of the .38-caliber ammunition seized in the course of a search of petitioner’s house. The circumstances relevant to this issue are somewhat confused, involving as they do questions of probable cause, a lost search warrant, and the Pennsylvania procedure for challenging the admissibility of evidence seized. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, however, after careful examination of the record, found that if there was error in admitting the ammunition, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Having ourselves studied this record, we are not prepared to differ with the two courts below. See Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969).
The final claim is that petitioner was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel. The facts pertinent to this claim are these: The Legal Aid Society of Allegheny County was appointed to represent petitioner prior to his first trial. A representative of the society conferred with petitioner, and a member of its staff, Mr. Middleman, appeared for petitioner at the first trial. There is no claim that petitioner was not then adequately represented by fully prepared counsel. The difficulty arises out of the second trial. Apparently no one from the Legal Aid Society again conferred with petitioner until a few minutes before the second trial began. The attorney who then appeared to represent petitioner was not Mr. Middleman but Mr. Tamburo, another Legal Aid Society attorney. No charge is made that Mr. Tamburo was incompetent or inexperienced; rather the claim is that his appearance for petitioner was so belated that he could not have furnished effective legal assistance at the second trial. Without granting an evidentiary hearing, the District Court rejected petitioner’s claim. The Court of Appeals dealt with the matter in an extensive opinion. After carefully examining the state court record, which it had before it, the court found ample grounds for holding that the appearance of a different attorney at the second trial had not resulted in prejudice to petitioner. The claim that Mr. Tamburo was unprepared centered around his allegedly inadequate efforts to have the guns and ammunition excluded from evidence. But the Court of Appeals found harmless any error in the admission of the bullets and ruled that the guns and other materials seized from the car were admissible evidence. Hence the claim of prejudice from the substitution of counsel was without substantial basis. In this posture of the case we are not inclined to disturb the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to what the state record shows with respect to the adequacy of counsel. Unquestionably, the courts should make every effort to effect early appointments of counsel in all cases. But we are not disposed to fashion a per se rule requiring reversal of every conviction following tardy appointment of counsel or to hold that, whenever a habeas corpus petition alleges a belated appointment, an evidentiary hearing must be held to determine whether the defendant has been denied his constitutional right to counsel. The Court of Appeals reached the right result in denying a hearing in this case.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Petitioner was indicted separately for each robbery. One of the other three men was similarly indicted and the other two were indicted only for the Gulf robbery. All indictments and all defendants were tried together. In a second trial following a mistrial, the jury found all defendants guilty as charged.
Kovacieh identified petitioner at a pretrial stage of the proceedings, and so testified, but could not identify him at the trial. Havieon identified petitioner both before trial and at trial.
The bullets were apparently excluded at the first trial. The grounds for the exclusion do not clearly appear from the record now before us.
The four-to-eight-year sentence was to be served concurrently with another sentence, for an unrelated armed robbery offense, imposed earlier but vacated subsequent to imposition of sentence in this case. The two-to-seven-year term was to be consecutive to the other sentences. It appears that the offenses here at issue caused revocation of petitioner’s parole in connection with a prior conviction. Apparently petitioner has now begun to serve the first of the two sentences imposed for the convictions here challenged.
Since Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), the federal courts have regularly entertained and ruled on petitions for habeas corpus filed by state prisoners alleging that unconstitutionally seized evidence was admitted at their trials. See, e. g., Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U. S. 364 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234 (1968); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967). As for federal prisoners, a divided Court held that relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 was available to vindicate Fourth Amendment rights. Kaufman v. United States, 394 U. S. 217 (1969). Right-to-counsel claims of course have regularly been pressed and entertained in federal habeas corpus proceedings.
It is relevant to note here that petitioner Chambers at trial made no objection to the introduction of the items seized from the car; however his Fourth Amendment claims with respect to the auto search were raised and passed on by the Pennsylvania courts in the state habeas corpus proceeding. His objection to the search of his house was raised at his trial and rejected both on the merits and because he had not filed a motion to suppress; similar treatment was given the point in the state collateral proceedings, which took place before the same judge who had tried the criminal case. The counsel claim was not presented at trial but was raised and rejected in the state collateral proceedings.
In any event, as we point out below, the validity of an arrest is not necessarily determinative of the right to search a car if there is probable cause to make the search. Here, as will be true in many cases, the circumstances justifying the arrest are also those furnishing probable cause for the search.
Cooper involved the warrantless search of a car held for forfeiture under state law. Evidence seized from the car in that search was held admissible. In the case before us no claim is made that state law authorized that the station wagon be held as evidence or as an instrumentality of the crime; nor was the station wagon an abandoned or stolen vehicle. The question here is whether probable cause justifies a warrantless search in. the circumstances presented.
Nothing said last term in Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), purported to modify or affect the rationale of Carroll. As the Court noted:
“Our holding today is of course entirely consistent with the recognized principle that, assuming the existence of probable cause, automobiles and other vehicles may be searched without warrants 'where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.’ Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 153; see Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160.” 395 U. S., at 764 n. 9.
Following the car until a warrant can be obtained seems an impractical alternative since, among other things, the car may be taken out of the jurisdiction. Tracing the car and searching it hours or days later would of course permit instruments or fruits of crime to be removed from the car before the search.
It was not unreasonable in this case to take the car to the station house. All occupants in the car were arrested in a dark parking lot in the middle of the night. A careful search at that point was impractical and perhaps not safe for the officers, and it would serve the owner’s convenience and the safety of his car to have the vehicle and the keys together at the station house.
It is pertinent to note that each of the four defendants was represented by separate counsel. The attorney for Lawson, who was the car owner and who was the only defendant to take the stand, appears to have been the lead counsel. As far as the record before us reveals, no counsel made any objection at the trial to the admission of the items taken from the car. Petitioner’s counsel objected to the introduction of the bullets seized from petitioner’s house.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (hereafter LMRDA) provides that a union member who charges that his union violated his rights under Title I of the Act may bring a civil action against the union in a district court of the United States for appropriate relief. Respondent was expelled from membership in petitioner union and brought this action under § 102 in the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. He alleged that in expelling him the petitioner violated § 101 (a) (5) of the Act, 73 Stat. 523, 29 U. S. C. § 411 (a) (5) which provides: “No member of any labor organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined except for nonpayment of dues by such organization or by any officer thereof unless such member has been (A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare his defense; (C) afforded a full and fair hearing.” A jury awarded respondent damages of $152,150. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 420 F. 2d 485 (1969). We granted certiorari limited to the questions whether the subject matter of the suit was pre-empted because exclusively within the competence of the National Labor Relations Board and, if not pre-empted, whether the courts below had applied the proper standard of review to the union proceedings, 398 U. S. 926 (1970). We reverse.
The case arises out of events in the early part of October 1960. Respondent, George Hardeman, is a boilermaker. He was then a member of petitioner’s Local Lodge 112. On October 3, he went to the union hiring hall to see Herman Wise, business manager of the Local Lodge and the official responsible for referring workmen for jobs. Hardeman had talked to a friend of his, an employer who had promised to ask for him by name for a job in the vicinity. He sought assurance from Wise that he would be referred for the job. When Wise refused to make a definite commitment, Hardeman threatened violence if no work was forthcoming in the next few days.
On October 4, Hardeman returned to the hiring hall and waited for a referral. None was forthcoming. The next day, in his words, he “went to the hall . . . and waited from the time the hall opened until we had the trouble. I tried to make up my mind what to do, whether to sue the Local or Wise or beat hell out of Wise, and then I made up my mind.” When Wise came out of his office to go to a local jobsite, as required by his duties as business manager, Hardeman handed him a copy of a telegram asking for Hardeman by name. As Wise was reading the telegram, Hardeman began punching him in the face.
Hardeman was tried for this conduct on charges of creating dissension and working against the interest and harmony of the Local Lodge, and of threatening and using force to restrain an officer of the Local Lodge from properly discharging the duties of his office. The trial committee found him "guilty as charged,” and the Local Lodge sustained the finding and voted his expulsion for an indefinite period. Internal union review of this action, instituted by Hardeman, modified neither the verdict nor the penalty. Five years later, Hardeman brought this suit alleging that petitioner violated § 101 (a) (5) by denying him a full and fair hearing in the union disciplinary proceedings.
I
We consider first the union’s claim that the subject matter of this lawsuit is, in the first instance, within the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board. The union argues that the gravamen of Harde-man’s complaint — which did not seek reinstatement, but only damages for wrongful expulsion, consisting of loss of income, loss of pension and insurance rights, mental anguish and punitive damages — is discrimination against him in job referrals; that any such conduct on the part of the union is at the very least arguably an unfair labor practice under §§8 (b)(1)(A) and 8 (b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 141, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158 (b)(1)(A), 158 (b)(2); and that in such circumstances, “the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of . . . interference with national policy is to be averted.” San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 245 (1959); see Local 100, Journeymen v. Borden, 373 U. S. 690 (1963).
We think the union’s argument is misdirected. Harde-man’s complaint alleged that his expulsion was unlawful under §101 (a)(5), and sought compensation for the consequences of the claimed wrongful expulsion. The critical issue presented by Hardeman’s complaint was whether the union disciplinary proceedings had denied him a full and fair hearing within the meaning of § 101 (a) (5) (C) . Unless he could establish this claim, Harde-man would be out of court. We hold that this claim was not within the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board.
“ ‘The doctrine of primary jurisdiction . . . applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views.’ United States v. Western Pac. R. Co., 352 U. S. 59, 63-64. The doctrine is based on the principle ‘that in cases raising issues of fact not within the conventional experience of judges or cases requiring the exercise of administrative discretion, agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject matter should not be passed over,’ Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U. S. 570, 574, and ‘requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme,’ United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 353.” Local 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea Co., 381 U. S. 676, 684-685 (1965) (opinion of White, J., announcing judgment).
Those factors suggesting that resort must be had to the administrative process are absent from the present case. The fairness of an internal union disciplinary proceeding is hardly a question beyond “the conventional experience of judges,” nor can it be said to raise issues “within the special competence” of the NLRB. See NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 175, 181, 193-194 (1967). As we noted in that case, the 86th Congress which enacted § 101 (a) (5) was “plainly of the view” that the protections embodied therein were new material in the body of federal labor law. 388 U. S., at 194. And that same Congress explicitly referred claims under § 101 (a)(5), not to the NLRB, but to the federal district courts. This is made explicit in the opening sentence of § 102: “Any person whose rights secured by the provisions of this title have been infringed by any violation of this titlA may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate.” Of course, “[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone.” Retail Clerks Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn, 375 U. S. 96, 103 (1963). And in § 102 Congress has clearly indicated a purpose to refer claims regarding violation of § 101 (a) (5) to the district courts.
The union argues that Hardeman’s suit should nevertheless have been dismissed because he did not seek an injunction restoring him to membership, and because he did seek damages for loss of employment said to be the consequence of his expulsion from the union. Taken together, these factors are said to shift the primary focus of the action from a review of Hardeman’s expulsion to a review of alleged union discrimination against him in job referrals. Since this is a matter normally within the exclusive competence of the NLRB, see Local 100, Journeymen v. Borden, 373 U. S., at 695-696, the union argues that Hardeman’s suit was beyond the competence of the district court.
The argument has no merit. To begin with, the language of § 102 does not appear to make the availability of damages turn upon whether an injunction is requested as well. If anything, § 102 contemplates that damages will be the usual, and injunctions the extraordinary form of relief. Requiring that injunctive relief be sought as a precondition to damages would have little effect other than to force plaintiffs, as a matter of course, to add a few words to their complaints seeking an undesired injunction. We see no reason to import into § 102 so trivial a requirement.
Nor are our prior cases authority for such a result. We have repeatedly held, of course, that state law may not regulate conduct either protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. Local 100, Journeymen v. Borden, supra; San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S., at 244; Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, 480-481 (1955); Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, 490-491 (1953). Where it has not been clear whether particular conduct is protected, prohibited, or left to state regulation by that Act, we have likewise required courts to stay their hand, for “courts are not primary tribunals to adjudicate such issues. It is essential to the administration of the Act that these determinations be left in the first instance to the National Labor Relations Board.” Building Trades Council v. Garmon, supra, at 244-245. Nor may courts intervene in such matters even to apply the National Labor Relations Act, except by the normal mechanism of review of actions of the NLRB. For recognizing that “[a] multiplicity of tribunals and a diversity of procedures are quite as apt to produce incompatible or conflicting adjudications as are different rules of substantive law,” Garner v. Teamsters Union, supra, at 490-491, Congress confided to the NLRB the primary power of interpretation and application of the Act. See Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U. S. 1 (1957).
The present case, however, implicates none of the principles discussed above. There is no attempt, in this lawsuit, to apply state law to matters pre-empted by federal authority. Nor is there an attempt to apply federal law of general application, which is limited in the particular circumstances by the National Labor Relations Act. Nor is there an attempt to have the District Court enforce the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act itself, without guidance from the NLRB. As we have said, the critical question in this action is whether Hardeman was afforded the rights guaranteed him by § 101 (a) (5) of the LMRDA. If he was denied them, Congress has said that he is entitled to damages for the consequences of that denial. Since these questions are irrelevant to the legality of conduct under the National Labor Relations Act, there is no danger of conflicting interpretation of its provisions. And since the law applied is federal law explicitly made applicable to such circumstances by Congress, there is no danger that state law may come in through the back door to regulate conduct that has been removed by Congress from state control. Accordingly, this action was within the competence of the District Court.
II
Two charges were brought against Hardeman in the union disciplinary proceedings. He was charged with violation of Art. XIII, § 1, of the Subordinate Lodge Constitution, which forbids attempting to create dissension or working against the interest and harmony of the union, and carries a penalty of expulsion. He was also charged with violation of Art. XII, § 1, of the Subordinate Lodge By-Laws, which forbids the threat or use of force against any officer of the union in order to prevent him from properly discharging the duties of his office; violation may be punished “as warranted by the offense.” Hardeman’s conviction on both charges was upheld in internal union procedures for review.
The trial judge instructed the jury that “whether or not he [respondent] was rightfully or wrongfully discharged or expelled is a pure question of law for me to determine.” He assumed, but did not decide, that the transcript of the union disciplinary hearing contained evidence adequate to support conviction of violating Art. XII. He held, however, that there was no evidence at all in the transcript of the union disciplinary proceedings to support the charge of violating Art. XIII. This holding appears to have been based on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Boilermakers v. Braswell, 388 F. 2d 193 (CA5 1968). There the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had reasoned that “penal provisions in union constitutions must be strictly construed,” and that as so construed Art. XIII was directed only to “threats to the union as an organization and to the effective carrying out of the union’s aims,” not to merely personal altercations. 388 F. 2d, at 199. Since the union tribunal had returned only a general verdict, and since one of the charges was thought to be supported by no evidence whatsoever, the trial judge held that Harde-man had been deprived of the full and fair hearing guaranteed by § 101 (a) (5) . The Court of Appeals affirmed, simply citing Braswell. 420 F. 2d 485 (CA5 1969).
We find nothing in either the language or the legislative history of § 101 (a)(5) that could justify such a substitution of judicial for union authority to interpret the union’s regulations in order to determine the scope of offenses warranting discipline of union members. Section 101 (a)(5) began life as a floor amendment to S. 1555, the Kennedy-Ervin Bill, in the 86th Congress. As proposed by Senator McClellan, and as adopted by the Senate on April 22, 1959, the amendment would have forbidden discipline of union members “except for breach of a published written rule of [the union].”. 105 Cong. Rec. 6476, 6492-6493. But this language did not long survive. Two days later, a substitute amendment was offered by Senator Kuchel, who explained that further study of the McClellan amendment had raised “some rather vexing questions.” Id., at 6720. The Kuchel substitute, adopted the following day, deleted the requirement that charges be based upon a previously published, written union rule; it transformed Senator McClellan’s amendment, in relevant part, into the present language of § 101 (a)(5). Id., at 6720, 6727. As so amended, S. 1555 passed the Senate on April 25. Id., at 6745. Identical language was adopted by the House, id., at 15884, 15891, and appears in the statute as finally enacted.
The Congress understood that Senator Kuchel’s amendment was intended to make substantive changes in Senator McClellan’s proposal. Senator Kennedy had specifically objected to the McClellan amendment because
“In the case of . . . the . . . official who bribed a judge, unless there were a specific prohibition against bribery of judicial officers written into the constitution of the union, then no union could take disciplinary action against [an] officer or member guilty of bribery.
“It seems to me that we can trust union officers to run their affairs better than that.” Id., at 6491.
Senator Kuchel described his substitute as merely providing “the usual reasonable constitutional basis” for union disciplinary proceedings: union members were to have “constitutionally reasonable notice and a reasonable hearing.” Id., at 6720. After the Kuchel amendment passed the Senate, Senator Goldwater explained it to the House Committee on Labor and Education as follows:
“[T]he bill of rights in the Senate bill requires that the union member be served with written specific charges prior to any disciplinary proceedings but it does not require that these charges, to be valid, must be based on activity that the union had proscribed prior to the union member having engaged in such activity.” Labor-Management Reform Legislation, Hearings before a Joint Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 4, p. 1595 (1959).
And Senator McClellan’s testimony was to the same effect. Id., pt. 5, pp. 2235-2236, 2251, 2285.
We think that this is sufficient to indicate that § 101 (a)(5) was not intended to authorize courts to determine the scope of offenses for which a union may discipline its members. And if a union may discipline its members for offenses not proscribed by written rules at all, it is surely a futile exercise for a court to construe the written rules in order to determine whether particular conduct falls within or without their scope.
Of course, § 101 (a) (5) (A) requires that a member subject to discipline be “served with written specific charges.” These charges must be, in Senator McClellan’s words, “specific enough to inform the accused member of the offense that he has allegedly committed.” Where, as here, the union’s charges make reference to specific written provisions, § 101 (a) (5) (A) obviously empowers the federal courts to examine those provisions and determine whether the union member had been misled or otherwise prejudiced in the presentation of his defense. But it gives courts no warrant to scrutinize the union regulations in order to determine whether particular conduct may be punished at all.
Respondent does not suggest, and we cannot discern, any possibility of prejudice in the present case. Although the notice of charges with which he was served does not appear as such in the record, the transcript of the union hearing indicates that the notice did not confine itself to a mere statement or citation of the written regulations that Hardeman was said to have violated: the notice appears to have contained a detailed statement of the facts relating to the fight that formed the basis for the disciplinary action. Section 101 (a)(5) requires no more.
Ill
There remains only the question whether the evidence in the union disciplinary proceeding was sufficient to support the finding of guilt. Section 101 (a)(5)(C) of the LMRDA guarantees union members a “full and fair” disciplinary hearing, and the parties and the lower federal courts are in full agreement that this guarantee requires the charging party to provide some evidence at the disciplinary hearing to support the charges made. This is the proper standard of judicial review. We have repeatedly held that conviction on charges unsupported by any evidence is a denial of due process, Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199, 206 (1960); Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232, 246-247 (1957); Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, 106 (1927); Tisi v. Tod, 264 U. S. 131, 133-134 (1924); and we feel that § 101 (a) (5) (C) may fairly be said to import a similar requirement into union disciplinary proceedings. Senator Kuchel, who first introduced the provision, characterized it on the Senate floor as requiring the “usual reasonable constitutional basis” for disciplinary action, 105 Cong. Rec. 6720, and any lesser standard would make useless § 101 (a)(5)(A)’s requirement of written, specific charges. A stricter standard, on the other hand, would be inconsistent with the apparent congressional intent to allow unions to govern their own affairs, and would require courts to judge the credibility of witnesses on the basis of what would be at best a cold record.
Applying this standard to the present case, we think there is no question that the charges were adequately supported. Respondent was charged with having attacked Wise without warning, and with continuing to beat him for some time. Wise so testified at the disciplinary hearing, and his testimony was fully corroborated by one other witness to the altercation. Even Hardeman, although he claimed he was thereafter held and beaten, admitted having struck the first blow. On such a record there is no question but that the charges were supported by "some evidence.”
Reversed.
Section 102 of the Act, 73 Stat. 523, 29 U. S. C. § 412, provides:
“Any person whose rights secured by the provisions of this title have been infringed by any violation of this title may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate. Any such action against a labor organization shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the district where the alleged violation occurred, or where the principal office of such labor organization is located.”
The affirmance was on the basis of Boilermakers v. Braswell, 388 F. 2d 193 (CA5 1968).
Article XIII, § 1, of the Subordinate Lodge Constitution then in force provided:
“Any member who endeavors to create dissension among the members; or who works against the interest and harmony of the International Brotherhood or of any District or Subordinate Lodge; who advocates or encourages a division of the funds, or the dissolution of any District or Subordinate Lodge, or the separation of any District or Subordinate Lodge from the International Brotherhood; who supports or becomes a member of any dual or subversive organization which shall be hostile to the International Brotherhood or to any of its Subordinate Lodges, or which is antagonistic to the principles and purposes of the International Brotherhood, shall upon conviction thereof be punished by expulsion from the International Brotherhood.”
Article XII, § 1, of the Subordinate Lodge By-Laws then in force provided that: “It shall be a violation of these By-Laws for any member through the use of force or violence or the threat of the use of force or violence to restrain, coerce or intimidate, or attempt to restrain, coerce or intimidate any official of this International Brotherhood or Subordinate Lodge to prevent or attempt to prevent him from properly discharging the duties of his office.” Violators of Art. XII are to “be punished as warranted by the offense.”
Hardeman’s complaint did not claim that the charges were insufficiently specific, or that he did not have adequate time to prepare his defense in the union proceedings.
See Boilermakers v. Braswell, 388 F. 2d, at 195-197. Accord, Rekant v. Shochtay-Gasos Local 446, 320 F. 2d 271, 273-275 (CA3 1963); Parks v. Electrical Workers, 314 F. 2d 886, 922-923 (CA4 1963); Addison v. Machinists, 300 F. 2d 863 (CA9 1962); Machinists v. King, 335 F. 2d 340, 346-347 (CA9 1964).
See n. 3, supra.
See n. 4, supra.
388 F. 2d, at 198, quoting Allen v. Theatrical Employees, 338 F. 2d 309, 316 (CA5 1964).
This reasoning was noted but not specifically endorsed in Braswell, 388 F. 2d, at 198.
State law, in many circumstances, may go further. See Summers, The Law of Union Discipline: What the Courts Do in Fact, 70 Yale L. J. 175 (1960). But Congress, which preserved state law remedies by § 103 of the LMRDA, 29 U. S. C. § 413, was well aware that even the broad language of Senator McClellan’s original proposal was more limited in scope than much state law. See 105 Cong. Rec. 6481-6489.
Labor-Management Reform Legislation, Hearings before a Joint Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 5, p. 2285 (1959).
See tr. of union disciplinary hearing 26-28, 76.
Vars v. Boilermakers, 320 F. 2d 576 (CA2 1963); Rosen v. Painters, 198 F. Supp. 46 (SDNY 1961), appeal dismissed, 326 F. 2d 400 (CA2 1964); Lewis v. American Federation of State Employees, 407 F. 2d 1185 (CA3 1969); Boilermakers v. Braswell, 388 F. 2d 193 (CA5 1968); Burke v. Boilermakers, 417 F. 2d 1063 (CA9 1969), affirming 302 F. Supp. 1345 (ND Cal. 1967).
Although a transcript was made of the union proceedings in the present case, we have no reason to believe that this is a universal practice,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided 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: | 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.
This case presents the question whether the Court of Appeals may modify an award of backpay by the National Labor Relations Board on the grounds that the Board failed promptly to specify the amounts of the award. As the decision of the Court of Appeals apparently is inconsistent with this Court’s precedents, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and reverse.
I
Respondent, Local 480 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, operates a hiring hall for construction workers in northern New Jersey. The lengthy procedural history of the present case begins in May 1978 with the Board’s finding that the Local had violated §§ 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158(b)(1)(A) and (2), by discriminating against nonmembers in its hiring hall referral practices. The Board ordered the Local to compensate the five charging parties and other “similarly situated” employees for earnings lost because of discrimination. Ironworkers, Local 480, 235 N. L. R. B. 1511 (1978). The lost earnings were to be calculated according to a formula established by the Board. On May 11, 1979, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted enforcement of the Board’s order. 598 F. 2d 611.
The Board then began preparation of a backpay specification. To identify employees who had been subject to discrimination, the Board’s Regional Office employed the General Services Administration to conduct a computer analysis of respondent’s records. The computer was to perform the laborious task of comparing the sign-up dates and qualifications of nonunion members with those of all union members who had been referred ahead of them. Until October 1980, the union slowed the process by refusing to permit photocopying of relevant records. Preparation of the backpay specification was further delayed when the Regional Office in February 1981 discovered a substantial computer error that would require that the entire analysis be performed again at great expense to the Board. After settlement negotiations proved fruitless, the Board authorized reanalysis of the computer data.
In April 1982, as no backpay specification yet had issued, the Local filed a motion seeking relief from that part of the Court of Appeals order of May 11, 1979, that directed back-pay for nonmember applicants “similarly situated” to the five charging parties. The Local urged that the lengthy delay in issuance of the specification demonstrated that the Board’s order would be impossible to implement. Further, the Local contended that it had ceased discriminatory activity, that no “similarly situated” workers had come forward to allege discrimination, and that the Board’s delay in resolving the case had impaired the Local’s operations. The Court of Appeals on May 13, 1982, denied the motion “without prejudice to renew such motion after 90 days.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 7a-8a.
The Local renewed the motion on September 29, 1982. The General Counsel at that time estimated that the backpay specifications for similarly situated discriminatees would be completed by April 1983. The Court of Appeals, however, ordered the Board to enter its formal backpay specification by December 31, 1982.
To comply with this order, the Board set about preparing a separate list of employees who had suffered discrimination at respondent’s hiring hall. In estimating the amount of backpay due to each employee, it was necessary for the Board to obtain information as to earnings that was available only from the Ironworkers Pension and Welfare Fund. The Fund refused to provide the Board with this information without a subpoena or court order. Uncertain that such litigation successfully could be concluded in time to meet the deadline set by court order, the Board prepared a specification based upon projections from records of earnings that it had available. The Board submitted its Specification and Notice of Hearing on December 21, 1982, and set the case for May 16,1983. The Board later obtained the Fund’s earnings records pursuant to an investigatory subpoena and revised its specification to incorporate complete information on actual earnings. The revision decreased by one-fourth the Local’s liability.
On February 25,1983, respondent filed its third motion for relief from the original backpay judgment, requesting the court to require backpay only for named parties or to terminate the proceedings altogether. The Local contended that the Board’s specification of December 21, 1982, because it was not based upon actual earnings, was inconsistent with the Board’s rules and with the Board’s original backpay order. Further, the Local argued that the specification was “punitive” because the total liability exceeded the Local’s ability to pay. On July 27,1983, the Court of Appeals modified the Board’s order to require that the Local tender back-pay only to the charging parties and only as calculated by the backpay specification of December 21, 1982.
II
The Court of Appeals gave as its justification for modifying the Board’s order “the length of time that elapsed since the entry of [the court’s] original judgment.” App. to Pet. for Cert. la. It is well established, however, that the Court of Appeals may not refuse to enforce a backpay order merely because of the Board’s delay subsequent to that order in formulating a backpay specification. NLRB v. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., 396 U. S. 258 (1969).
The present case in some respects differs from Rutter-Rex. In Rutter-Rex, the Court of Appeals cut off the accrual of backpay at an earlier date than had the Board. Id., at 263. In the present case, the Court of Appeals has limited the class of employees to whom backpay may be awarded and has prohibited the Board from amending its backpay specification as the Board’s regulations would permit, see 29 CFR § 102.57 (1983). Nonetheless, the principle of Rutter-Rex remains applicable: “[T]he Board is not required to place the consequences of its own delay, even if inordinate, upon wronged employees. . . .” 396 U. S., at 265. By restricting the beneficiaries of the Board’s remedy and abridging procedures lawfully established by the Board for determining the amount of backpay, the order under review punishes employees for the Board’s nonfeasance. This Rutter-Rex forbids.
It is not entirely clear that the order of the Court of Appeals was premised simply upon the Board’s delay. The text of the order only hints at the court’s reasoning. Respondent had argued before the Court of Appeals that the Board’s long delay further demonstrated the impossibility of identifying the employees who had been subject to discrimination and of performing the calculations required by the Board’s backpay formula. Respondent also had contended that the Board’s specification of December 21, 1982, showed that the Board’s order was “punitive” and “confiscatory.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 63a. We do not consider whether the Court of Appeals on these grounds may modify its original judgment enforcing the Board's order. Nor do we foreclose challenges that might be raised to the conduct or outcome of the supplemental backpay proceedings.
But as it appears that the Court of Appeals may have rested the judgment under review simply upon the failure of the Board to act promptly, that judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Marshall dissents from this opinion deciding this case without briefing on the merits or oral argument.
Section 158(b) prohibits various unfair labor practices by labor organizations. That subsection provides in pertinent part:
“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 157 of this title . . . .”
“(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of this section or to discriminate against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.”
Section 158(a)(3) prohibits “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 157, as relevant here, protects the right to refrain from union activity.
A 1972 consent decree generally obligates respondent Local to refer applicants to jobs in order of registration at the hiring hall. The Local unlawfully discriminated in favor of its own members by referring them for steward positions instead of equally qualified and previously registered nonmembers.
Under the formula, “the overall earnings of all applicants, members and nonmembers, seeking employment through [the] referral system would be divided by the total number of ironworkers who worked out of the hiring hall, taking into account the net earnings of the individual discriminatees during the relevant period.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a-22a.
The Board prepares a backpay specification after issuance of an unfair labor practice order that awards backpay. The specification shows in detail how backpay is computed and serves to initiate supplemental administrative proceedings by giving notice of the amount allegedly due. See generally 29 CFR §§ 102.52-102.59 (1983).
The analysis was further complicated by the Board’s decision to consolidate the backpay specification for the present case with those for four similar cases of discrimination by other New Jersey locals of the International Ironworkers Association.
The court’s order stated:
“[A]fter a review of the various orders entered in this matter, and the length of time that elapsed since the entry of the original judgment of this Court, it is ordered that:
“1. Any backpay specifications not made by December 31, 1982, are hereby barred and are not to be considered. See order of court dated December 1, 1982.
“2. Payment in full by the Union of any claims asserted on behalf of [the charging parties] shall be considered compliance with paragraph 1 of this order.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a-2a.
Such a result is anomalous where there is some suggestion, as in the present case, that the wrongdoing union or employer itself contributed to delay by obstructing the Board’s processes. Yet, we must acknowledge that one must be sympathetic to respondent union’s loss of patience with what appears to be the Board’s serious delay.
This case also differs from Rutter-Rex in that the Court of Appeals here had issued an order that set a deadline for entry of a formal backpay specification. Rutter-Rex recognized the power of the courts of appeals to compel Board action that has been “unreasonably delayed.” 396 U. S., at 266, and n. 3. Cf. Silverman v. NLRB, 543 F. 2d 428 (CA2 1976) (order mandating timely completion of backpay proceedings). In the present case, however, the Board complied with the court’s deadline. Nor does it appear that the Board, by subsequently amending the specification, came into noncompliance. The Court of Appeals order of December 1,1982, did not limit in any way the authority of the Board to amend the specifications during the course of backpay proceedings. It was sufficient that the specification initiated these proceedings.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The principal issue raised by this case concerns the extent to which States may tax a national bank. The Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held that appellant, First Agricultural National Bank of Berkshire County, was subject to Massachusetts’ recently enacted sales and use taxes on purchases for its own use of tangible personal property. For reasons to be stated we believe this decision was erroneous, and we reverse.
As long ago as 1819, in the historic case of M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, this Court declared unconstitutional a state tax on the bank of the United States since, according to Chief Justice Marshall, this amounted to a “tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government of the Union to carry its powers into execution.” 4 Wheat., at 436-437. A long line of subsequent decisions by this Court has firmly established the proposition that the States are without power, unless authorized by Congress, to tax federally created, or, as they are presently called, national, banks. Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, 668; Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Fairweather, 263 U. S. 103, 106; First Nat. Bank v. Hartford, 273 U. S. 548, 550; Iowa-Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Bennett, 284 U. S. 239, 244. As recently as 1966, Mr. Justice Fortas, speaking for a unanimous Court, thought this ancient principle so well established that he used national banks as an example in holding the American Red Cross immune from state taxation:
“In those respects in which the Red Cross differs from the usual government agency — e. g., in that its employees are not employees of the United States, and that government officials do not direct its everyday affairs — the Red Cross is like other institutions — e. g., national banks — whose status as tax-immune instrumentalities of the United States is beyond dispute.” Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355, 360. (Emphasis added.)
The decision below recognized the strong precedents against taxation, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was of the opinion that the status of national banks has been so changed by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System that they should no longer be considered nontaxable by the States as instrumentalities of the United States. Essentially the reasoning of the Supreme Judicial Court is that under present-day conditions and regulations there is no substantial difference between national banks and state banks; and the implication of this is, of course, that national banks lack any unique quality giving them the character of a federal instrumentality. Because of pertinent congressional legislation in the banking field, we find it unnecessary to reach the constitutional question of whether today national banks should be considered nontaxable as federal instrumentalities.
As will be seen, Congress has been far from reluctant to pass legislation in the banking field. There are important committees on banking and currency in both Houses which continually monitor banking affairs and propose new legislation when changes are felt to be needed. For purposes of this case, the most important piece of banking legislation is 12 U. S. C. § 548 which originated as part of the Act of June 3, 1864, c. 106, § 41, 13 Stat. 111. This section allows state taxation of national banks in any one of four specified ways in addition to taxes on their real estate. Before this legislation was originally enacted in 1864, there was sharp controversy in the Congress over the extent to which the States should be allowed to tax national banks. A vocal opponent to any state taxation of national banks was the powerful Senator Sumner of Massachusetts, who said:
“If you allow the State to interfere with the proposed system [of national banks] in any way, may they not embarrass it? Where shall they stop? Where will you run a line?
“Now, sir, every consideration, every argument which goes to sustain this great judgment [M‘Culloch v. Maryland] may be employed against the proposed concession to the States of the power to tax this national institution in any particular, whether directly or indirectly.” Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess., 1893-1894 (1864).
On the other side, proposed amendments expressly permitting much broader state and local taxation of national banks were introduced, debated, and rejected by the Congress. Among these was an amendment introduced in the House which would have made national banks subject, without exception, to all state and local general taxes on personal as well as real property:
“And the said associations or corporations shall severally be subject to State and municipal taxation upon their real and personal estate, the same as persons residing at their respective places of business are subject to such taxation by State laws.” Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess., 1392 (1864).
The result of this conflict was that the legislation, when finally passed, was a compromise which permitted state taxation of national banks in certain ways, but prohibited all other forms of state taxation. Senator Fessenden, Chairman of the Finance Committee, clearly defined the compromise that was being enacted:
“If the Senator reads this bill he will perceive that all the power of taxation upon the operations of the bank itself, all upon the circulation, all upon the deposits, all upon everything which can properly be made by a tax is reserved to the General Government ; that the States cannot touch it in any possible form; that they are limited and controlled; the simple right is given them to say that the property which their own citizens have invested in it shall contribute to State taxation precisely as other property.” Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess., 1895 (1864).
It seems clear to us from the legislative history that 12 U. S. C. § 548 was intended to prescribe the only ways in which the States can tax national banks. And this is certainly not a novel interpretation of the section, as shown by previous decisions of this Court. As early as 1899 the Court declared:
“This section [R. S. §5219, 12 U. S. C. § 548], then, of the Revised Statutes is the measure of the power of a State to tax national banks, their property or their franchises. By its unambiguous provisions the power is confined to a taxation of the shares of stock in the names of the shareholders and to an assessment of the real estate of the bank. Any state tax therefore which is in excess of and not in conformity to these requirements is void.” Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, 669.
A more complete explanation of § 548 and its meaning appears in this Court’s opinion in Bank of California v. Richardson, 248 U. S. 476, where it was said:
“There is also no doubt from the section [R. S. § 5219, 12 U. S. C. § 548] that it was intended to comprehensively control the subject with which it dealt and thus to furnish the exclusive rule governing state taxation as to the federal agencies created as provided in the section. . . .
“Two provisions in apparent conflict were adopted. First, the absolute exclusion of power in the States to tax the banks, the national agencies created, so as to prevent all interference with their operations, the integrity of their assets, or the administrative governmental control over their affairs. Second, preservation of the taxing power of the several States so as to prevent any impairment thereof from arising from the existence of the national agencies created, to the end that the financial resources engaged in their development might not be withdrawn from the reach of state taxation ....
“The first aim was attained by the non-recognition of any power whatever in the States to tax the federal agencies, the banks, except as to real estate specially provided for, and, therefore, the exclusion of all such powers. The second was reached by a recognition of the fact that, considered from the point of view of ultimate and beneficial interest, every available asset possessed or enjoyed by the banks would be owned by their sto.ckholders and would be, therefore, reached by taxation of the stockholders as such. . . 248 U. S., at 483.
Finally, so there can be no doubt, consider these words of the Court in Des Moines Bank v. Fairweather, 263 U. S. 103:
“This section [R. S. § 5219, 12 U. S. C. § 548] shows, and the decisions under it hold, that what Congress intended was that national banks and their property should be free from taxation under state authority, other than taxes on their real property and on shares held by them in other national banks; and that all shares in such banks should be taxable to their owners, the stockholders, much as other personal property is taxable . . ." 263 U. S., at 107.
Thus, at least since the Owensboro decision, supra, in 1899, it has been abundantly clear that 12 U. S. C. § 548 marks the outer limit within which States can tax national banks. Now this Court is asked to change what legislative history and prior decisions have established is the precise meaning of an Act of Congress. This we cannot do. For, as we pointed out above, the banking field has traditionally been an area of particular congressional concern marked by legislation responsive to new problems. This can be illustrated by the history of § 548 alone. It was originally passed in 1864 because the 1863 Currency Act contained no provision for state taxation of national banks or their shares. In 1868 a technical amendment was made to the section. Then in 1923 a substantive amendment was made which, among other things, authorized the state taxation of national bank income and dividends. Another important part of this amendment was the declaration that “bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness” in the hands of individual citizens were not to be considered “moneyed capital . . . coming into competition with the business of national banks.” Just two years before, this Court had ruled in Merchants’ Nat. Bank of Richmond v. Richmond, 256 U. S. 635 (1921), that such bonds and notes were moneyed capital in competition with national banks and thus covered by § 548. Senator Pepper, who spoke for the amendment, made clear that it was offered as a response to this Court’s decision which had placed an erroneous interpretation on the section. Then again in 1926, § 548 was amended to permit States to levy franchise and excise taxes on national banks measured by the entire income (including income from tax-exempt securities) of the banks. Finally, in 1950, a bill was sent to the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency which expressly permitted the levying of state sales and use taxes on national banks, but Congress did not pass it.
Because of § 548 and its legislative history, we are convinced that if a change is to be made in state taxation of national banks, it must come from the Congress, which has established the present limits.
With this primary question out of the way, there is one additional issue which must be resolved. The court below held, contrary to appellant’s contention, that the Massachusetts sales tax is not imposed upon the bank as a purchaser, but is a tax upon vendors who sell tangible personal property to the bank. Of course if this is true, the bank cannot object if a particular vendor decides to pass the burden of the tax on to it through an increased price. But if this is not true, and if the tax is on the bank as a purchaser, then, because it is a national bank, appellant is exempt under 12 U. S. C. § 548. Because the question here is whether the tax affects federal immunity, it is clear that for this limited purpose we are not bound by the state court’s characterization of the tax. See Society for Savings v. Bowers, 349 U. S. 143, 151, and the cases cited therein. And essentially the question for us is: On whom does the incidence of the tax fall? See Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock, 347 U. S. 110, 121-122. Also see Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co., 342 U. S. 232.
It would appear to be indisputable that a sales tax which by its terms must be passed on to the purchaser imposes the legal incidence of the tax upon the purchaser. See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U. S. 95, 99. Subsection 3 of the Massachusetts sales tax provides:
“Reimbursement for the tax hereby imposed shall be paid by the purchaser to the vendor and each vendor in this commonwealth shall add to the sales price and shall collect from the purchaser the full amount of the tax imposed by this section, or an amount equal as nearly as possible or practicable to the average equivalent thereof; and such tax shall be a debt from the purchaser to the vendor, when so added to the sales price, and shall be recoverable at law in the same manner as other debts.” Acts and Resolves, 1966, c. 14, § 1, subsec. 3. (Emphasis added.)
This subsection reads to us as a clear requirement that the sales tax be passed on to the purchaser. And this interpretation is reinforced by subsection 23 which pro-Mbits as unlawful advertising the holding out by any vendor that he will assume or absorb the tax on any sale that he may make. We cannot accept the reasoning of the court below that simply because there is no sanction against a vendor who refuses to pass on the tax (assuming this is true), this means the tax is on the vendor. There can be no doubt from the clear wording of the statute that the Massachusetts Legislature intended that this sales tax be passed on to the purchaser. For our purposes, at least, that intent is controlling. And it seems clear to us that the force of the law, especially the language in subsection 3, is such that, regardless of sanctions, businessmen will attempt, in their everyday commercial affairs, to conform to its provisions as written.
For these reasons we reverse and hold that appellant is immune from both the Massachusetts use and sales taxes.
Reversed.
MR. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Acts and Resolves, 1966, e. 14, §§ 1 and 2.
The Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, c. 6, 38 Stat. 251, 12 U. S. C. § 221 et seq.
This section provides in pertinent part:
"The legislature of each State may determine and direct, subject to the provisions of this section, the manner and place of taxing all the shares of national banking associations located within its limits. The several States may (1) tax said shares, or (2) include dividends derived therefrom in the taxable income of an owner or holder thereof, or (3) tax such associations on their net income, or (4) according to or measured by their net income ....
“1. (a) The imposition by any State of any one of the above four forms of taxation shall be in lieu of the others ....
“3. Nothing herein shall be construed to exempt the real property of associations from taxation in any State or in any subdivision thereof, to the same extent, according to its value, as other real property is taxed.”
Act of February 25, 1863, c. 58, 12 Stat. 665.
Act of February 10, 1868, c. 7, 15 Stat. 34.
Act of March. 4, 1923, c. 267, 42 Stat. 1499.
64 Cong. Rec. 1454 (1923).
Act of March 25, 1926, c. 88, 44 Stat. 223.
See Hearing on S. 2547 before the Subcommittee on Federal Reserve Matters of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 9 (1950).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case presents the question whether the consideration received from a noncollusive, real estate mortgage foreclosure sale conducted in conformance with applicable state law conclusively satisfies the Bankruptcy Code’s requirement that transfers of property by insolvent debtors within one year prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition be in exchange for “a reasonably equivalent value.” 11 U. S. C. § 548(a)(2).
I
Petitioner BFP is a partnership, formed, by Wayne and Marlene Pedersen and Russell Barton in 1987, for the purpose of buying a home in Newport Beach, California, from Sheldon and Ann Foreman. Petitioner took title subject to a first deed of trust in favor of Imperial Savings Association (Imperial) to secure payment of a loan of $356,250 made to the Pedersens in connection with petitioner’s acquisition of the home. Petitioner granted a second deed of trust to the Foremans as security for a $200,000 promissory note. Subsequently, Imperial, whose loan was not being serviced, entered a notice of default under the first deed of trust and scheduled a properly noticed foreclosure sale. The foreclosure proceedings were temporarily delayed by the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition on behalf of petitioner. After the dismissal of that petition in June 1989,. Imperial’s foreclosure proceeding was completed at a foreclosure sale on July 12, 1989. The home was purchased by respondent Paul Osborne for $433,000.
In October 1989, petitioner filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. §§ 1101-1174. Acting as a debtor in possession, petitioner filed a complaint in Bankruptcy Court seeking to set aside the conveyance of the home to respondent Osborne on the grounds that the foreclosure sale constituted a fraudulent transfer under § 548 of the Code, 11 U. S. C. §548. Petitioner alleged that the home was actually worth over $725,000 at the time of the sale to Osborne. Acting on separate motions, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the complaint as to the private respondents and granted summary judgment in favor of Imperial. The Bankruptcy Court found, inter alia, that the foreclosure sale had been conducted in compliance with California law and was neither collusive nor fraudulent. In an unpublished opinion, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s granting of the private respondents’ motion to dismiss. A divided bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of summary judgment for Imperial. 132 B. R. 748 (1991). Applying the analysis set forth in In re Madrid, 21 B. R. 424 (Bkrtcy. App. Pan. CA9 1982), affirmed on other grounds, 725 F. 2d 1197 (CA9), cert, denied, 469 U. S. 833 (1984), the panel majority held that a “non-collusive and regularly conducted nonjudicial foreclosure sale... cannot be challenged as a fraudulent conveyance because the consideration received in such a sale establishes ‘reasonably equivalent value’ as a matter of law.” 132 B. R., at 750.
Petitioner sought review of both decisions in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which consolidated the appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed. In re BFP, 974 F. 2d 1144 (1992). BFP filed a petition for certiorari, which we granted. 508 U. S. 938 (1993).
II
Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 548, sets forth the powers of a trustee in bankruptcy (or, in a Chapter 11 case, a debtor in possession) to avoid fraudulent transfers. It permits to be set aside not only transfers infected by actual fraud but certain other transfers as well — so-called constructively fraudulent transfers. The constructive fraud provision at issue in this case applies to transfers by insolvent debtors. It permits avoidance if the trustee can establish (1) that the debtor had an interest in property; (2) that a transfer of that interest occurred within one year of the filing of the bankruptcy petition; (3) that the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer or became insolvent as a result thereof; and (4) that the debtor received “less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer.” 11 U. S. C. § 548(a)(2)(A). It is the last of these four elements that presents the issue in the case before us.
Section 548 applies to any “transfer,” which includes “foreclosure of the debtor’s equity of redemption.” 11 U. S. C. § 101(54) (1988 ed., Supp. IV). Of the three critical terms “reasonably equivalent value,” only the last is. defined: “value” means, for purposes of § 548, “property, or satisfaction or securing of a... debt of the debtor,” 11 U. S. C. § 548(d)(2)(A). The question presented here, therefore, is whether the amount of debt (to the first and second lienholders) satisfied at the foreclosure sale (viz., a total of $433,000) is “reasonably equivalent” to the worth of the real estate conveyed. The Courts of Appeals have divided on the meaning of those undefined terms. In Durrett v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 621 F. 2d 201 (1980), the Fifth Circuit, interpreting a provision of the old Bankruptcy Act analogous to § 548(a)(2), held that a foreclosure sale that yielded 57% of the property’s fair market value could be set aside, and indicated in dicta that any such sale for less than 70% of fair market value should be invalidated. Id., at 203-204. This “Durrett rule” has continued to be applied by some courts under § 548 of the new Bankruptcy Code. See In re Little-ton, 888 F. 2d 90, 92, n. 5 (CA11 1989). In In re Bundles, 856 F. 2d 815, 820 (1988), the Seventh Circuit rejected the Durrett rule in favor of a case-by-case, “all facts and circumstances” approach to the question of reasonably equivalent value, with a rebuttable presumption that the foreclosure sale price is sufficient to withstand attack under § 548(a)(2). 856 F. 2d, at 824-825; see also In re Grissom, 955 F. 2d 1440, 1445-1446 (CA11 1992). In this case the Ninth Circuit, agreeing with the Sixth Circuit, see In re Winshall Settler’s Trust, 758 F. 2d 1136, 1139 (CA6 1985), adopted the position first put forward in In re Madrid, 21 B. R. 424 (Bkrtcy. App. Pan. CA9 1982), affirmed on other grounds, 725 F. 2d 1197 (CA9), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 833 (1984), that the consideration received at a noncollusive, regularly conducted real estate foreclosure sale constitutes a reasonably equivalent value under § 548(a)(2)(A). The Court of Appeals acknowledged that it “necessarily part[ed] from the positions taken by the Fifth Circuit in Durrett... and the Seventh Circuit in Bundles.” 974 F. 2d, at 1148.
In contrast to the approach adopted by the Ninth Circuit in the present case, both Durrett and Bundles refer to fair market value as the benchmark against which determination of reasonably equivalent value is to be measured. In the context of an otherwise lawful mortgage foreclosure sale of real estate, such reference is in our opinion not consistent with the text of the Bankruptcy Code. The term “fair market value,” though it is a well-established concept, does not appear in § 548. In contrast, § 522, dealing with a debtor’s exemptions, specifically provides that, for purposes of that section, “ ‘value’ means fair market value as of the date of the filing of the petition.” 11 U. S. C. § 522(a)(2). “Fair market value” also appears in the Code provision that defines the extent to which indebtedness with respect to an equity security is not forgiven for the purpose of determining whether the debtor’s estate has realized taxable income. §346(j)(7)(B). Section 548, on the other hand, seemingly goes out of its way to avoid that standard term. It might readily have said “received less than fair market value in exchange for such transfer or obligation,” or perhaps “less than a reasonable equivalent of fair market value.” Instead, it used the (as far as we are aware) entirely novel phrase “reasonably equivalent value.” “[I]t is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely when it includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another,” Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, ante, at 338 (internal quotation marks omitted), and that presumption is even stronger when the omission entails the replacement of standard legal terminology with a neologism. One must suspect the language means that fair market value cannot — or at least cannot always — be the benchmark.
That suspicion becomes a certitude when one considers that market value, as it is commonly understood, has no applicability in the forced-sale context; indeed, it is the very antithesis of forced-sale value. “The market value of... a piece of property is the price which it might be expected to bring if offered for sale in a fair market; not the price which might be obtained on a sale at public auction or a sale forced by the necessities of the owner, but such a price as would be fixed by negotiation and mutual agreement, after ample time to find a purchaser, as between a vendor who is willing (but not compelled) to sell and a purchaser who desires to buy but is not compelled to take the particular... piece of property.” Black’s Law Dictionary 971 (6th ed. 1990). In short, “fair market value” presumes market conditions that, by definition, simply do not obtain in the context of a forced sale. See, e. g., East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Kieffer, 99 Cal. App. 240, 255, 278 P. 476, 482 (1929), overruled on other grounds by County of San Diego v. Miller, 13 Cal. 3d 684, 532 P. 2d 139 (1975) (in bank); Nevada Nat. Leasing Co. v. Hereford, 36 Cal. 3d 146, 152, 680 P. 2d 1077, 1080 (1984) (in bank); Guardian Loan Co. v. Early, 47 N. Y. 2d 515, 521, 392 N. E. 2d 1240, 1244 (1979).
Neither petitioner, petitioner’s amici, nor any federal court adopting the Durrett or the Bundles analysis has come to grips with this glaring discrepancy between the factors relevant to an appraisal of a property’s market value, on the one hand, and the strictures of the foreclosure process on the other. Market value cannot be the criterion of equivalence in the foreclosure-sale context. The language of § 548(a)(2)(A) (“received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange”) requires judicial inquiry into whether the foreclosed property was sold for a price that approximated its worth at the time of sale. An appraiser’s reconstruction of “fair market value” could show what similar property would be worth if it did not have to be sold within the time and manner strictures of state-prescribed foreclosure. But property that must be sold within those strictures is simply worth less. No one would pay as much to own such property as he would pay to own real estate that could be sold at leisure and pursuant to normal marketing techniques. And it is no more realistic to ignore that characteristic of the property (the fact that state foreclosure law permits the mortgagee to sell it at forced sale) than it is to ignore other price-affecting characteristics (such as the fact that state zoning law permits the owner of the neighboring lot to open a gas station). Absent a clear statutory requirement to the contrary, we must assume the validity of this state-law regulatory background and take due account of its effect. “The existence and force and function of established institutions of local government are always in the consciousness of lawmakers and, while their weight may vary, they may never be completely overlooked in the task of interpretation.” Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 144, 154 (1944). Cf. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 460-462 (1991).
There is another artificially constructed criterion we might look to instead of “fair market price.” One might judge there to be such a thing as a “reasonable” or “fair” forced-sale price. Such a conviction must lie behind the Bundles inquiry into whether the state foreclosure proceedings “were calculated... to return to the debtor-mortgagor his equity in the property.” 856 F. 2d, at 824. And perhaps that is what the courts that follow the Durrett rule have in mind when they select 70% of fair market value as the outer limit of “reasonably equivalent value” for forecloseable property (we have no idea where else such an arbitrary percentage could have come from). The problem is that such judgments represent policy determinations that the Bankruptcy Code gives us no apparent authority to make. How closely the price received in a forced sale is likely to approximate fair market value depends upon the terms of the forced sale — how quickly it may be made, what sort of public notice must be given, etc. But the terms for foreclosure sale are not standard. They vary Considerably from State to State, depending upon, among other things, how the particular State values the divergent interests of debtor and creditor. To specify a federal “reasonable” foreclosure-sale price is to extend federal bankruptcy law well beyond the traditional field of fraudulent transfers, into realms of policy where it has not ventured before. Some sense of history is needed to appreciate this.
The modern law of fraudulent transfers had its origin in the Statute of 13 Elizabeth, which invalidated “covinous and fraudulent” transfers designed “to delay, hinder or defraud creditors and others.” 13 Eliz., ch. 5 (1570). English courts soon developed the doctrine of “badges of fraud”: proof by a creditor of certain objective facts (for example, a transfer to a close relative, a secret transfer, a transfer of title without transfer of possession, or grossly inadequate consideration) would raise a rebuttable presumption of actual fraudulent intent. See Twyne’s Case, 3 Coke Rep. 80b, 76 Eng. Rep. 809 (K. B. 1601); O. Bump, Fraudulent Conveyances: A Treatise upon Conveyances Made by Debtors to Defraud Creditors 31-60 (3d ed. 1882). Every American bankruptcy law has incorporated a fraudulent transfer provision; the 1898 Act specifically adopted the language of the Statute of 13 Elizabeth. Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898, ch. 541, § 67(e), 30 Stat. 564-565.
The history of foreclosure law also begins in England, where courts of chancery developed the “equity of redemption” — the equitable right of a borrower to buy back, or redeem, property conveyed as security by paying the secured debt on a later date than “law day,” the original due date. The courts’ continued expansion of the period of redemption left lenders in a quandary, since title to forfeited property could remain clouded for years after law day. To meet this problem, courts created the equitable remedy of foreclosure: after a certain date the borrower would be forever foreclosed from exercising his equity of redemption. This remedy was called strict foreclosure because the borrower’s entire interest in the property was forfeited, regardless of any accumulated equity. See G. Glenn, 1 Mortgages 3-18,358-362,395-406 (1943); G. Osborne, Mortgages 144 (2d ed. 1970). The next major change took place in 19th-century America, with the development of foreclosure by sale (with the surplus over the debt refunded to the debtor) as a means of avoiding the draconian consequences of strict foreclosure. Id., at 661-663; Glenn, supra, at 460-462, 622. Since then, the States have created diverse networks of judicially and legislatively crafted rules governing the foreclosure process, to achieve what each of them considers the proper balance between the needs of lenders and borrowers. All States permit judicial foreclosure, conducted under direct judicial oversight; about half of the States also permit foreclosure by exercising a private power of sale provided in the mortgage documents. See Zinman, Houle, & Weiss, Fraudulent Transfers According to Alden, Gross and Borowitz: A Tale of Two Circuits, 39 Bus. Law. 977,1004-1005 (1984). Foreclosure laws typically require notice to the defaulting borrower, a substantial lead time before the commencement of foreclosure proceedings, publication of a notice of sale, and strict adherence to prescribed bidding rules and auction procedures. Many States require that the auction be conducted by a government official, and some forbid the property to be sold for less than a specified fraction of a mandatory presale fair-market-value appraisal. See id., at 1002, 1004-1005; Osborne, supra, at 683, 733-735; G. Osborne, G. Nelson, & D. Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law 9, 446-447, 475-477 (1979). When these procedures have been followed, however, it is “black letter” law that mere inadequacy of the foreclosure sale price is no basis for setting the sale aside, though it may be set aside (under state foreclosure law, rather than fraudulent transfer law) if the price is so low as to “shock the conscience or raise a presumption of fraud or unfairness.” Osborne, Nelson, & Whitman, supra, at 469; see also Gelfert v. National City Bank of N. Y., 313 U. S. 221, 232 (1941); Ballentyne v. Smith, 205 U. S. 285, 290 (1907).
Fraudulent transfer law and foreclosure law enjoyed over 400 years of peaceful coexistence in Anglo-American jurisprudence until the Fifth Circuit’s unprecedented 1980 decision in Durrett. To our knowledge no prior decision had ever applied the “grossly inadequate price” badge of fraud under fraudulent transfer law to set aside a foreclosure sale. To say that the “reasonably equivalent value” language in the fraudulent transfer provision of the Bankruptcy Code requires a foreclosure sale to yield a certain minimum price beyond what state foreclosure law requires, is to say, in essence, that the Code has adopted Durrett or Bundles. Surely Congress has the power pursuant to its constitutional grant of authority over bankruptcy, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to disrupt the ancient harmony that foreclosure law and fraudulent conveyance law, those two pillars of debtor-creditor jurisprudence, have heretofore enjoyed. But absent clearer textual guidance than the phrase “reasonably equivalent value” — a phrase entirely compatible with preexisting practice — we will not presume such a radical departure. See United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 380 (1988); Midlantic Nat. Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 474 U. S. 494, 501 (1986); cf. United States v. Texas, 507 U. S. 529, 534 (1993) (statutes that invade common law must be read with presumption favoring retention of long-established principles absent evident statutory purpose to the contrary).
Federal statutes impinging upon important state interests “cannot... be construed without regard to the implications of our dual system of government.... [W]hen the Federal Government takes over... local radiations in the vast network of our national economic enterprise and thereby radically readjusts the balance of state and national authority, those charged with the duty of legislating [must be] reasonably explicit.” Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 539-540 (1947), quoted in Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U. S. 36, 49-50, n. 11 (1986). It is beyond question that an essential state interest is at issue here: We have said that “the general welfare of society is involved in the security of the titles to real estate” and the power to ensure that security “inheres in the very nature of [state] government.” American Land Co. v. Zeiss, 219 U. S. 47, 60 (1911). Nor is there any doubt that the interpretation urged by petitioner would have a profound effect upon that interest: The title of every piece of realty purchased at foreclosure would be under a federally created cloud. (Already, title insurers have reacted to the Durrett rule by including specially crafted exceptions from coverage in many policies issued for properties purchased at foreclosure sales. See, e. g., L. Cherkis & L. King, Collier Real Estate Transactions and the Bankruptcy Code, pp. 5-18 to 5-19 (1992).) To displace traditional state regulation in such a manner, the federal statutory purpose must be “clear and manifest,” English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U. S. 72, 79 (1990). Cf. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S., at 460-461. Otherwise, the Bankruptcy Code will be construed to adopt, rather than to displace, pre-existing state law. See Kelly, supra, at 49; Butner v. United States, 440 U. S. 48, 54-55 (1979); Vanston Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Green, 329 U. S. 156, 171 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
For the reasons described, we decline to read the phrase “reasonably equivalent value” in § 548(a)(2) to mean, in its application to mortgage foreclosure sales, either “fair market value” or “fair foreclosure price” (whether calculated as a percentage of fair market value or otherwise). We deem, as the law has always deemed, that a fair and proper price, or a “reasonably equivalent value,” for foreclosed property, is the price in fact received at the foreclosure sale, so long as all the requirements of the State’s foreclosure law have been complied with.
This conclusion does not render § 548(a)(2) superfluous, since the “reasonably equivalent value” criterion will continue to have independent meaning (ordinarily a meaning similar to fair market value) outside the foreclosure context. Indeed, § 548(a)(2) will even continue to be an exclusive means of invalidating some foreclosure sales. Although collusive foreclosure sales are likely subject to attack under § 548(a)(1), which authorizes the trustee to avoid transfers “made... with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” creditors, that provision may not reach foreclosure sales that, while not intentionally fraudulent, nevertheless fail to comply with all governing state laws. Cf. 4 L. King, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 548.02, p. 548-35 (15th ed. 1993) (contrasting subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) of §548). Any irregularity in the conduct of the sale that would permit judicial invalidation of the sale under applicable state law deprives the sale price of its conclusive force under § 548(a)(2)(A), and the transfer may be avoided if the price received was not reasonably equivalent to the property’s actual value at the time of the sale (which we think would be the price that would have been received if the foreclosure sale had proceeded according to law).
Ill
A few words may be added in general response to the dissent. We have no quarrel with the dissent’s assertion that where the “meaning of the Bankruptcy Code’s text is itself clear,” post, at 566, its operation is unimpeded by contrary state law or prior practice. Nor do we contend that Congress must override historical state practice “expressly or not at all.” Post, at 565. The Bankruptcy Code can of course override by implication when the implication is unambiguous. But where the intent to override is doubtful, our federal system demands deference to long-established traditions of state regulation.
The dissent’s insistence that here no doubt exists — that our reading of the statute is “in derogation of the straightforward language used by Congress,” post, at 549 (emphasis added) — does not withstand scrutiny. The problem is not that we disagree with the dissent’s proffered “plain meaning” of § 548(a)(2)(A) (“[T]he bankruptcy court must compare the price received by the insolvent debtor and the worth of the item when sold and set aside the transfer if the former was substantially (‘[un]reasonabl[y]’) ‘less than’ the latter,” post, at 552) — which indeed echoes our own framing of the question presented (“whether the amount of debt... satisfied at the foreclosure sale... is ‘reasonably equivalent’ to the worth of the real estate conveyed,” supra, at 536). There is no doubt that this provision directs an inquiry into the relationship of the value received by the debtor to the worth of the property transferred. The problem, however, as any “ordinary speaker of English would have no difficulty grasping,” post, at 552, is that this highly generalized reformulation of the “plain meaning” of “reasonably equivalent value” continues to leave unanswered the one question central to this case, wherein the ambiguity lies: What is aforeclosed, property worth? Obviously, until that is determined, we cannot know whether the value received in exchange for foreclosed property is “reasonably equivalent.” We have considered three (not, as the dissent insists, only two, see post, at 549) possible answers to this question — fair market value, supra, at 536-540, reasonable forced-sale price, supra, at 540, and the foreclosure-sale price itself — and have settled on the last. We would have expected the dissent to opt for one of the other two, or perhaps even to concoct a fourth; but one searches Justice Souter’s opinion in vain for any alternative response to the question of the transferred property’s worth. Instead, the dissent simply reiterates the “single meaning” of “reasonably equivalent value” (with which we entirely agree): “[A] court should discern the ‘value’ of the property transferred and determine whether the price paid was, under the circumstances, ‘less than reasonable].’ ” Post, at 559. Well and good. But what is the “value”? The dissent has no response, evidently thinking that, in order to establish that the law is clear, it suffices to show that “the eminent sense of the natural reading,” post, at 565, provides an unanswered question.
Instead of answering the question, the dissent gives us hope that someone else will answer it, exhorting us “to believe that [bankruptcy courts], familiar with these cases (and with local conditions) as we are not, will give [“reasonably equivalent value”] sensible content in evaluating particular transfers on foreclosure.” Post, at 560. While we share the dissent’s confidence in the capabilities of the United States Bankruptcy Courts, it is the proper function of this Court to give “sensible content” to the provisions of the United States Code. It is surely the case that bankruptcy “courts regularly make... determinations about the ‘reasonably equivalent value’ of assets transferred through other means than foreclosure sales.” Post, at 560. But in the vast majority of those cases, they can refer to the traditional common-law notion of fair market value as the benchmark. As we have demonstrated, this generally useful concept simply has no application in the foreclosure-sale context, supra, at 536-540.
Although the dissent’s conception of what constitutes a property’s “value” is unclear, it does seem to take account of the fact that the property is subject to forced sale. The dissent refers, for example, to a reasonable price “under the circumstances,” post, at 559, and to the “worth of the item when sold,” post, at 552 (emphasis added). But just as we are never told how the broader question of a property’s “worth” is to be answered, neither are we informed how the lesser included inquiry into the impact of forced sale is to be conducted. Once again, we are called upon to have faith that bankruptcy courts will be able to determine whether a property’s foreclosure-sale price falls unreasonably short of its “optimal value,” post, at 559, whatever that may be. This, the dissent tells us, is the statute’s plain meaning.
We take issue with the dissent’s characterization of our interpretation as carving out an “exception” for foreclosure sales, post, at 549, or as giving “two different and inconsistent meanings,” post, at 557, to “reasonably equivalent value.” As we have emphasized, the inquiry under § 548(a)(2)(A)— whether the debtor has received value that is substantially comparable to the worth of the transferred property — is the same for all transfers. But as we have also explained, the fact that a piece of property is legally subject to forced sale, like any other fact bearing upon the property’s use or alien-ability, necessarily affects its worth. Unlike most other legal restrictions, however, foreclosure has the effect of completely redefining the market in which the property is offered for sale; normal free-market rules of exchange are replaced by the far more restrictive rules governing forced sales. Given this altered reality, and the concomitant inutility of the normal tool for determining what property is worth (fair market value), the only legitimate evidence of the property’s value at the time it is sold is the foreclosure-sale price itself.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is
Affirmed.
Respondent Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) acts in this case as receiver of Imperial Federal Savings Association (Imperial Federal), which was organized pursuant to a June 22,1990, order of the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and into which RTC transferred certain assets and liabilities of Imperial. The Director previously had appointed RTC as receiver of Imperial. For convenience we refer to all respondents other than RTC and Imperial as the private respondents.
Title 11 U. S. C. §548 provides in relevant part:
“(a) The trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property, or any obligation incurred by the debtor, that was made or incurred on or within one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily or involuntarily—
“(1) made such transfer or incurred such obligation with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or became, on or after the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred, indebted; or
“(2)(A) received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer or obligation; and
“(B)(i) was insolvent on the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred, or became insolvent as a result of such transfer or obligation....”
We emphasize that our opinion today covers only mortgage foreclosures of real estate. The considerations bearing upon other foreclosures and forced sales (to satisfy tax liens, for example) may be different.
Our discussion assumes that the phrase “reasonably equivalent” means “approximately equivalent,” or “roughly equivalent.” One could, wé suppose, torture it into meaning “as close to equivalent as can reasonably be expected” — in which event even a vast divergence from equivalent value would be permissible so long as there is good reason for it. On such an analysis, fair market value could be the criterion of equivalence, even in a forced-sale context; the forced sale would be the reason why gross in-equivalence is nonetheless reasonable equivalence. Such word-gaming would deprive the criterion of all meaning. If “reasonably equivalent value” means only “as close to equivalent value as is reasonable,” the statute might as well have said “reasonably infinite value.”
We are baffled by the dissent’s perception of a “patent” difference between zoning and foreclosure laws insofar as impact upon property value is concerned, post, at 657-558, n. 10. The only distinction we perceive is that the former constitute permanent restrictions upon use of the subject property, while the latter apply for a brief period of time and restrict only the manner of its sale. This difference says nothing about how significantly the respective regimes affect the property’s value when they are operative. The dissent characterizes foreclosure rules as “merely procedural,” and asserts that this renders them, unlike “substantive” zoning regulations, irrelevant in bankruptcy. We are not sure we agree with the characterization. But in any event, the cases relied on for this distinction all address creditors’ attempts to claim the benefit of state rules of law (whether procedural or substantive) as property rights, in a bankruptcy proceeding. See United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 370-371 (1988); Owen v. Owen, 500 U. S. 305, 313 (1991); United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U. S. 198, 206-207, and nn. 14, 15 (1983). None of them declares or even intimates that state laws, procedural or otherwise, are irrelevant to prebankruptcy valuation questions such as that presented by § 548(a)(2)(A).
The only ease cited by Durrett in support of its extension of fraudulent transfer doctrine, Schafer v. Hammond, 456 F. 2d 15 (CA10 1972), involved a direct sale, not a foreclosure.
We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s argument that the 1984 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code codified the Durrett rule. Those amendments expanded the definition of “transfer” to include “foreclosure of the debtor’s equity of redemption,” 11 U. S. C. § 101(54) (1988 ed., Supp. IV), and added the words “voluntarily or involuntarily” as modifiers of the term “transfer” in § 548(a). The first of these provisions establishes that foreclosure sales fall within the general definition of “transfers” that may be avoided under several statutory provisions, including (but not limited to) §548. See § 522(h) (transfers of exempt property), §544 (transfers voidable under state law), § 547 (preferential transfers), § 549 (postpetition transfers). The second of them establishes that a transfer may be avoided as fraudulent even if it was against the debtor’s will. See In re Madrid, 725 F. 2d 1197, 1199 (CA9 1984) (preamendment decision holding that a foreclosure sale is not a “transfer” under §548). Neither of these consequences has any bearing upon the meaning of “reasonably equivalent value” in the context of a foreclosure sale.
Nor does our reading render these amendments “superfluous,” as the dissent contends, post
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether, consistent with the Federal Government’s immunity from state taxation inherent in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, see M‘Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819), the State of California may tax federal employees on their possessory interests in housing owned and supplied to them by the Federal Government as part of their compensation. We hold that it may.
I
The individual appellants in this case are employees of the Forest Service, a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture responsible for administering the national forests. These appellants work in the Sierra, Sequoia, and Stanislaus National Forests which are located in Fresno and Tuolumne Counties in California. During the year 1967 each appellant lived with his family in a house which was built and owned by the Forest Service in one of these national forests. Appellants were required by the Forest Service to live in these houses so that they would be nearer to the place where they performed their duties and so that they would be better able to perform those duties. Structurally, the houses were very similar to residential houses of the same size available in the private sector. The Forest Service viewed the occupancy of these houses as partial compensation for the services of its employees, and made a deduction from the salary of the employee for each two-week pay period in which the employee occupied such a house. The Forest Service fixed the amount of the deduction by estimating the fair rental value of a similar house in the private sector and then discounting that figure to take account of the distance between the Forest Service house and the nearest established community and the absence, if any, of any customary amenities in or near the house. Adjustment was also made for the fact that the Forest Service reserved the right to remove employees from their houses at any time, to enter the houses with or without notice for inspection purposes, and to use part or all of the houses for official purposes in an emergency.
Pursuant to 16 U. S. C. § 480, the States retain civil and criminal jurisdiction over the national forests notwithstanding the fact that the national forests are owned by the Federal Government. Under the California Revenue and Taxation Code, §§ 104, 107 (West 1970), and § 21 (b) of Title 18 of the California Administrative Code (1971), counties in California are authorized to impose an annual use or property tax on possessory interests in improvements on tax-exempt land. The Counties of Fresno and Tuolumne imposed such a tax on the appellants — Forest Service employees who live in the federally owned houses in the national forests located in those counties. In computing the value of the possessory interests on which the tax is imposed, the counties used the annual estimated fair rental value of the houses, discounted to take into account essentially the same factors considered by the Forest Service in computing the amount that it deducted from the salaries of employees who used the houses.
Appellants paid the taxes under protest and they, together with the United States, sued for a refund in California courts in Fresno and Tuolumne Counties. They claimed, inter alia, that the tax interfered with a federal function — i. e., the running of the Forest Service — that it discriminated against employees of the Federal Government, and that it was therefore forbidden by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. E. g., M‘Culloch v. Maryland, supra. The trial courts each sustained appellants' claims, holding, inter alia, that appellants had no taxable possessory interest under state law. The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reversed, 50 Cal. App. 3d 633, 123 Cal. Rptr. 548 (1975) (County of Fresno case, followed in County of Tuolumne case (unreported)). It held that each appellant had a possessory interest in the houses owned by the Forest Service that was subject to taxation under state law. The court then held that the tax on such possessory interests is not a tax on the Federal Government, on Government property, or on a “federal function.” Rather, it is a tax imposed on “the private citizen, and it is the private citizen’s usufructuary interest in the government land and improvements alone that is being taxed. (City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., 355 U. S. 489 . . . ; United States v. Township of Muskegon, 355 U. S. 484 . . . ; United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U. S. 466 .. . .)” Id., at 640, 123 Cal. Rptr., at 552. Consequently, the court held, the tax is not barred by the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution. The California Court of Appeal also rejected appellants’ contention that the tax operates to discriminate against the Federal Government and its employees. The Supreme Court of California denied review. We noted probable jurisdiction to review the decision of the California Court of Appeal, 425 U. S. 970 (1976).
Appellants argue that the tax is “a levy upon the activities of the United States” because the occupancy of the houses by the Forest Service employees was “for the sole purpose of discharging their governmental function of running the national forests.” Brief for Appellants 11. Consequently, the Government argues, the tax is forbidden by the doctrine announced in M‘Culloch v. Maryland, that under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution the States may not tax the properties, functions, or instrumentalities of the Federal Government. We disagree with the Government, and affirm the judgment below.
II
The Government relies principally on the landmark case of M‘Culloch v. Maryland. There the State of Maryland imposed a tax on notes issued by “any Bank ... established without authority from the State.” ' The only such bank in Maryland was the Bank of the United States, created and incorporated by Act of Congress in order to carry out Congress’ enumerated powers. No similar tax was imposed on the issuance of notes by any other bank in Maryland. The Court held the tax to violate that part of the Federal Constitution which declares that the laws of the United States are the “supreme law of the land.” An Act of Congress had created the bank in order to carry out functions of the National Government enumerated in the United States Constitution. The Court noted that the power to tax the bank “by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it,” 4 Wheat., at 427, and consequently that the power to tax, if admitted, could be exercised so as effectively to repeal the Act of Congress which created the bank. If the State’s power to tax the bank were recognized in principle, the Court doubted 'the ability of federal courts to review each exercise of such power to determine whether the tax would or would not destroy a federal function. Finally, the Court rejected the State’s argument that the power to tax involves the power to destroy only where the taxing power is abused, and that the Court should simply trust the States not to abuse their power to tax a federal function just as it must trust a State not to abuse its power to tax its own citizens. The Court rejected the argument because the political check against abuse of the power to tax a State’s constituents is absent when the State taxes only a federal function. A State’s constituents can be rebed on to vote out of office any legislature that imposes an abusively high tax on them. They cannot be relied upon to be similarly motivated when the tax is instead solely on a federal function.
The Court was careful to limit the reach of its decision. It stated that its opinion does not
_ “extend to a tax . . . imposed on the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold in this institution [the bank], in common with other property of the same description throughout the State.” Id., at 436. (Emphasis added.)
Since M‘Culloch, this Court has adhered to the rule that States may not impose taxes directly on the Federal Government, nor may they impose taxes the legal incidence of which falls on the Federal Government. The decisions of this Court since M‘Culloch have been less uniform on the question whether taxes, the economic but not the legal incidence of which falls in part or in full on the Federal Government, are invalid.
For many years the Court read the decision in M‘Culloch as forbidding taxes on those who had contractual relationships with the Federal Government or with its instrumentalities whenever the <■ feet of the tax was or might be to increase the cost to the Federal Government of performing its functions. In later years, however, the Court departed from this interpretation of M'Culloch. In James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134 (1937), a contractor sought immunity from a state occupation tax measured by the gross receipts, insofar as those receipts had been received under a contract with the Federal Government. The Court declared the tax valid even if “the gross receipts tax may increase the cost to the Government” under the contract. Id., at 160. So long as the tax is not directly laid on the Federal Government, it is valid if nondiscriminatory, id., at 150, or until Congress declares otherwise. Id., at 161. Similarly, in Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U. S. 466 (1939), the Court sustained a nondiscriminatory tax on the income of a federal employee, thereby overruling Dobbins v. Commis sioners of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435 (1842). See also Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1 (1941), overruling Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218 (1928).
Finally, and for the purposes of this case dispositively, in City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., 356 U. S. 489 (1958), United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U. S. 466 (1958), and United States v. Township of Muskegon, 355 U. S. 484 (1958), this Court sustained state use taxes on the use by private companies of machinery and other property owned by the United States and leased to them .for use in their businesses — even though in two of these cases the companies had cost-plus contracts with the Government requiring the Government to reimburse them for state taxes paid by them. These cases make clear that a State may, in effect, raise revenues on the basis of property owned by the United States as long as that property is being used by a private citizen or corporation and so long as it is the possession or use by the private citizen that is being taxed. See also Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 U. S. 495 (1953).
The rule to be derived from the Court’s more recent decisions, then, is that the economic burden on a federal function of a state tax imposed on those who deal with the Federal Government does not render the tax unconstitutional so long as the tax is imposed equally on the other similarly situated constituents of the State. This rule returns to the original intent of M‘Culloch v. Maryland. The political check against abuse of the taxing power found lacking in M'Culloch, where the tax was imposed solely on the Bank of the United States, is present where the State imposes a nondiscriminatory tax only on its constituents or their artificially owned entities; and M'Culloch foresaw the unfairness in forcing a State to exempt private individuals with beneficial interests in federal property from taxes imposed on similar interests held by others in private property. Accordingly, M‘Culloch expressly excluded from its rule a tax on “the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold [in a federal instrumentality] in common with other property of the same description throughout the State.” 4 Wheat., at 436.
Ill
Applying the rule set forth above, decision of this case is relatively simple. The “legal incidence” of the tax involved in this case falls neither on the Federal Government nor on federal property. The tax is imposed solely on private citizens who work for the Federal Government. The tax threatens to interfere with federal laws relating to the functions of the Forest Service only insofar as it may impose an economic burden on the Forest Service — causing it to reimburse its employees for the taxes legally owed by them or, failing reimbursement, removing an advantage otherwise enjoyed by the Federal Government in the employment market. There is no other respect in which the tax involved in this case threatens to obstruct or burden a federal function. The tax can be invalidated, then, only if it discriminates against the Forest Service or other federal employees, which it does not do.
Although .the tax is imposed by the appellee counties on renters of real property only if the owner is exempt from taxation — and consequently is not imposed on the vast majority of renters of real property in California — the tax is not for that reason discriminatory. In this respect this case is governed by United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U. S. 466 (1958). There the city of Detroit imposed a use tax on those who used tax-exempt property owned by the United States. The tax was measured by the value of the property. With respect to nonexempt property, a similar tax was imposed on the owner and none on the user. In answering an argument that the tax discriminated against those dealing with the Federal Government, the Court said:
“As suggested before the legislature apparently was trying to equate the tax burden imposed on private enterprise using exempt property with that carried by similar businesses using taxed property. Those using exempt property are required to pay no greater tax than that placed on private owners or passed on by them to their business lessees.” Id., at 473-474. (Emphasis added.)
Similarly, here the State of California imposes a property tax on owners of nonexempt property which is “passed on by them to their . . . lessees.” Consequently, the appellants who rent from the Forest Service are no worse off under California tax laws than those who work for private employers and rent houses in the private sector.
The Government argues nonetheless that the appellants are required to occupy the houses owned by the Forest Service not for their own personal benefit but for the sole benefit of the Forest Service and that “[t]here is accordingly no constitutionally permissible way to isolate any 'personal residence’ portion of these possessory interests that could be deemed to be unrelated to the official duties of these Forest Service employees.” Brief for United States 18. The argument is at odds with the Government’s own concessions during this lawsuit, with its treatment of its employees apart from this lawsuit, and with common sense. The Government’s complaint in this case alleges that the occupancy of the Forest Service houses constitutes part of appellants’ “compensation” for services performed- — -thus conceding that the occupancy is of personal benefit to the employee. At oral argument the Government conceded that a state income tax could be imposed on the employees for the value of the occupancy — thus conceding that its value to the employee is capable of being severed from its value to the Forest' Service and of being accurately measured. The Forest Service itself purports to measure the personal benefit of the occupancy to the employee and collects rent in such an amount through deductions from the employee’s paycheck. Since virtually everyone in this country pays for housing for himself or herself and family, common sense compels the conclusion that the occupancy of a house provided by an employer for an employee’s family is of personal financial benefit to the employee — relieving him of the expense of paying for housing elsewhere. The disadvantages attendant on living in Forest Service housing may affect the amount of the value of the house to the employee, but it is unquestionably of some value to him. Here both appellees have sought to take account of these disadvantages and to tax the employees only on the portion of the total value of the houses which may be properly attributed to their possessory interest. In this respect, the taxes are valid even under United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174 (1944), see n. 10, supra, so heavily relied on by the Government. There the Court invalidated a tax on use by a private corporation of Government-owned property because “the State has made no effort to segregate [the corporation’s] interest and tax it.” Id., at 187. The Court stated, however:
“Actual possession and custody of Government property nearly always are in someone who is not himself the Government but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. . . . His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed as we have held.” Id., at 187-188. (Emphasis added.)
This statement ripened into holdings in United States v. City of Detroit, supra, at 472, and United States v. Township of Muskegon, 355 U. S. 484 (1958). The only difference between Township of Muskegon — where Government-owned property was being used by a private corporation in complying with a Government contract — and this case is that there the property was being used by business for “profit” and here the property is being put to “beneficial personal use.” Under the rule of United States v. Allegheny County and United States v. City of Detroit, this difference is inconsequential. The two types of interests are equally taxable.
In conclusion, as the Court said in City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., 355 U. S., at 495:
“There was no discrimination against the Federal Government, its property or those with whom it does business. There was no crippling obstruction of any of the Government’s functions, no sinister effort to hamstring its power, not even the slightest interference with its property. Cf. M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316. In such circumstances the Congress is the proper agency, as we pointed,out in United States v. City of Detroit, to make the difficult policy decisions o necessarily involved in determining whether and to what extent private parties who do business with the Government should be given immunity from states taxes.”
Affirmed.
Some of the appellants were not required but simply permitted to live in houses owned by the Forest Service, in the sense that these particular appellants might have been able to live in a privately owned house outside the forest if they had so elected. However, the Forest Service required that some employee occupy each house owned by the Forest Service, and if no employee had volunteered, some employee, perhaps including some of these appellants, would have been required to live there. In light of our disposition of this case, the distinction between employees required to live in Forest Service housing and those permitted to live there is unimportant and we will not refer to it again.
Examples of the amenities considered are, according to the testimony of a Forest Service official:
“Paved streets, street lighting at least at intersections, sidewalks, lawns, trees and landscaping, general attractiveness of the neighborhood, community sanitation services, reliability and adequacy of water safe for household use, reliability of [sic] adequacy of electrical service, reliability and adequacy of telephone service, reliability and adequacy of fuel for heating, hot water and cooking, police protection, fire protection, unusual design features of a dwelling, absence of disturbing noises or offensive odors and standards of maintenance.” App. 32.
Section 107, Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code (West 1970), provides:
■‘“Possessory interests’ means the following:
“(a) Possession of, claim to, or right to the possession of land or improvements, except when, coupled with ownership of the land or improvements in the same person.”
Title 18 Cal. Adm. Code § 21 (b) (1971) provides:
“ ‘Taxable possessory interest’ means a possessory interest in nontaxable publicly owned real property, as such property is defined in section 104 of the Revenue and Taxation Code . . . .”
Section 104, Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code (West 1970), provides:
“ ‘Real estate’ or ‘real property’ includes:
“(a) The possession of, claim to, ownership of, or right to the possession of land.”
All parties agree that the national forests owned by the Federal Government are tax-exempt land by reason of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, e. g., United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174 (1944), and that no tax may be imposed either on the land itself or on the United States.
With respect to non-tax-exempt land, California imposes a property tax on the owner. No tax is imposed directly on a renter of non-tax-exempt land. However, the tax on the owner is presumably reflected in the rent and the renter may thus pay the tax indirectly.
In computing the value of appellants’ possessory interests on which the tax was imposed, Fresno County used the value of one year of occupancy. Tuolumne County used the present discounted value of five years’ occupancy — the length of time which it estimated the average Forest Service employee remained in a Forest Service house.
The tax was in the form of a forced purchase from a state official of stamped paper on which such notes were required to be printed. The tax could be avoided by an annual lump-sum payment to the state official of $15,000.
The Court stated:
'‘[Normally in] imposing a tax the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is in general a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.
“The people of a State, therefore, give to their government a right of taxing themselves and their property, . . . resting confidently on the interest of the legislator, and on the influence of the constituents over their representative, to guard them against its abuse.” 4 Wheat., at 428. “. . . When they tax the chartered institutions of the States, they tax their constituents; and these taxes must be uniform. But, when a State taxes the operations of the government of the United States, it acts upon institutions created, not by their own constituents, but by people over whom they claim no control.” Id., at 435.
Accordingly, the Court concluded:
“The result is a conviction that the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, 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. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared.” Id., at 436.
Thus the Court invalidated a state law which required a seller of liquor to United States post exchanges to collect a markup — the practical equivalent of a tax — from the post exchange and to remit it to the State Tax Commission. United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm’n, 421 U. S. 599 (1975). There, although the tax was nominally collected from the seller, the legal incidence of the tax was said to fall on the United States because state law required it to be charged to and collected from the United States by the seller. See First Agricultural Nat. Bank v. Tax Comm’n, 392 U. S. 339 (1968). Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock, 347 U. S. 110 (1954), heavily relied on by appellants, also stands only for the proposition that the State may not impose a tax the legal incidence of which falls on the Federal Government. Id., at 122. There the State imposed a sales tax on purchasers. Kern-Limerick, Inc., had a cost-plus contract with the Department of the Navy which provided that all purchases made in furtherance of the contract were made by the Department of the Navy, with Kern-Limerick acting only as its agent. The Court held that the question of who was the purchaser for state-tax purposes was a federal question, and it held the Department of the Navy to be the purchaser and the tax to be thus unenforceable. See also Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U. S. 95 (1941); Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151 (1886).
E. g., Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435 (1842) (holding unconstitutional a state tax on the income of a federal employee); Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218 (1928) (holding unconstitutional a sales tax imposed on one who made sales to the Federal Government); Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501 (1922) (holding unconstitutional a state income tax as it applied to income generated from property leased from the Federal Government). See also United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432 (1903).
In Graves, the Court said:
“The theory, which once won a qualified approval, that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable.” 306 U. S., at 480.
“[T]he only possible basis for implying a constitutional immunity from state income tax of the salary of an employee of the national government or of a governmental agency is that the economic burden of the tax is in some way passed on so as to impose a burden on the national government tantamount to an interference by one government with the other in the performance of its functions.” Id., at 481. (Emphasis added.)
The Court rejected this economic burden as a justification for immunizing the employee from income taxation:
“[T]he purpose of the immunity was not to confer benefits on the employees by relieving them from contributing their share of the financial support of the other government, whose benefits they enjoy, or to give an advantage to a government by enabling it to engage employees at salaries lower than those paid for like services by other employers, public or private, but to prevent undue interference with the one government by imposing on it the tax burdens of the other.
“[A] non-discriminatory tax laid on the income of all members of the community could not be assumed to obstruct the function which [a government entity] had undertaken to perform, or to cast an economic burden upon them, more than does the general taxation of property and income which, to some extent, incapable of measurement by economists, may tend to raise the price level of labor and materials.” Id., at 483-484.
“So much of the burden of a non-discriminatory general tax upon the incomes of employees of a government, state or national, as may be passed on economically to that government, through the effect of the tax on the price level of labor or materials, is but the normal incident of the organization within the same territory of two governments, each possessing the taxing power.” Id., at 487.
The single arguable departure from this principle since 1937 is United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174 (1944). There the Mesta Machine Company had a contract with the Federal Government to produce field guns for the War Department during 1941. Some of the machinery with which Mesta produced the guns was owned by the United States and was in the possession of Mesta. There were limitations on Mesta’s right to use this machinery: Mesta’s “leasehold interest [in the machines] is subject to some qualification of the right to use the property except for gun manufacture . . . and is perhaps burdened by other contractual conditions.” Id., at 186-187. Pennsylvania, the State in which Mesta’s factory was located, imposed a property tax on Mesta’s land and machinery attached thereto, including the machinery owned by the United States. This Court ruled the tax invalid, stating: “Mesta has some legal and beneficial interest in this property. It is a bailee for mutual benefit. Whether such a right of possession and use in view of all the circumstances could be taxed by appropriate proceedings we do not decide. . . . [T]he state has made no effort to segregate Mesta’s interest [in the machinery] and tax it. The full value of the property including the whole ownership interest, as well as whatever value proper appraisal might attribute to the leasehold, was included in Mesta’s assessment.” Ibid.
Insofar as United States v. Allegheny County, supra, holds that a tax measured by the value of Government-owned property may never be imposed on a private party who is using it, that decision has been overruled by United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U. S. 466 (1958), and its companion cases. See id., at 495 (Frankfurter, J., concurring and dissenting). Insofar as it stands for the proposition that Government property used by a private citizen may not be taxed at its full value where contractual restrictions on its use for the Government’s benefit render the property less valuable to the user, the case has no application here. Appellee counties have sought to tax only the individual appellants’ interests in the Forest Service houses and have reduced their assessments to take account of the limitations on the use of the houses imposed by the Government.
A tax on the income of federal employees, or a tax on the possessory interest of federal employees in Government houses, if imposed only on them, could be escalated by a State so as to destroy the federal function performed by them either by making the Federal Government unable to hire anyone or by causing the Federal Government to pay prohibitively high salaries. This danger would never arise, however, if the tax is also imposed on the income and property interests of all other residents and voters of the State.
The Federal Government would otherwise have had the power— enjoyed by no other employer — of giving its employees housing on which no property tax is paid by them either directly or indirectly as rent paid to a landlord who himself paid a property tax.
The Government has expressly abandoned its claim, made below, that the tax treats federal employees who live in federally owned houses differently from state employees who lived in state-owned houses.
If it were factually accurate that the use of Forest Service housing is of no personal benefit to appellants, the tax would chscrhninate against those who work for the Federal Government since California imposes no other tax on its citizens with respect to property in which those citizens have no beneficial personal or business interest. The tax would thus run afoul at least of the Supremacy Clause. M‘Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819); United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U. S., at 473.
An attempt by California to impose a use tax on a Forest Service employee for his fire ax — which he used only in performing his job — or on' a fire tower inhabited by such employee in the daytime and solely in order to- perform his job would present a different question. The employee does not put either the ax or the tower to “‘beneficial personal use,’ ” and it is not part of his “ ‘profit’ ” or his “ ‘salary.’ ” United States v. City of Detroit, supra, at 471. See n. 14, 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: | 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 White
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy join.
The issue presented by this case is whether § 106(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 106(c), authorizes a bankruptcy court to issue a money judgment against a State that has not filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Petitioner Martin W. Hoffman is the bankruptcy trustee for Willington Convalescent Home, Inc. (Willington), and Edward Zera in two unrelated Chapter 7 proceedings. On behalf of Willington, he filed an adversarial proceeding in United States Bankruptcy Court — a “turnover” proceeding under 11 U. S. C. § 542(b) — against respondent Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance. Petitioner sought to recover $64,010.24 in payments owed to Willington for services it had rendered during March 1983 under its Medicaid contract with Connecticut. Willington closed in April 1983. At that time, it owed respondent $121,408 for past Medicaid overpayments that Willington had received, but respondent filed no proof of claim in the Chapter 7 proceeding.
Petitioner likewise filed an adversarial proceeding in United States Bankruptcy Court on behalf of Edward Zera against respondent Connecticut Department of Revenue Services. Zera owed the State of Connecticut unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest, and in the month prior to Zera’s filing for bankruptcy the Revenue Department had issued a tax warrant resulting in a payment of $2,100.62. Petitioner sought to avoid the payment as a preference and recover the amount paid. See 11 U. S. C. § 547(b).
Respondents moved to dismiss both actions as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In each case the Bankruptcy Court denied the motions to dismiss, reasoning that Congress in § 106(c) had abrogated the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from actions under §§ 542(b) and 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and that Congress had authority to do so under the Bankruptcy Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 4. Respondents appealed to the United States District Court, and the United States intervened because of the challenge to the constitutionality of § 106. The District Court reversed without reaching the issue of congressional authority. 72 B. R. 1002 (Conn. 1987). The court held that § 106(c), when read with the other provisions of § 106, did not unequivocally abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court. 850 F. 2d 50 (1988). The Court of Appeals concluded that the plain language of § 106(c) abrogates sovereign immunity “only to the extent necessary for the bankruptcy court to determine a state’s rights in the debtor’s estate.” Id., at 55. The section does not, according to the Court of Appeals, abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from recovery of an avoided preferential transfer of money or from a turnover proceeding. The Court of Appeals specifically rejected petitioner’s reliance on the legislative history of § 106(c) because that expression of congressional intent was not contained in the language of the statute as required by Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 242 (1985). Because the actions brought by petitioner were not within the scope of § 106(c), the court held that they were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
The Second Circuit’s decision conflicts with the decisions of the Third Circuit in Vazquez v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare, 788 F. 2d 130, 133, cert. denied, 479 U. S. 936 (1986), and the Seventh Circuit in McVey Trucking, Inc. v. Secretary of State of Illinois, 812 F. 2d 311, 326-327, cert. denied, 484 U. S. 895 (1987). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 488 U. S. 1003 (1989), and we now affirm.
Section 106 provides as follows:
“(a) A governmental unit is deemed to have waived sovereign immunity with respect to any claim against such governmental unit that is property of the estate and that arose out of the same transaction or occurrence out of which such governmental unit’s claim arose. -
“(b) There shall be offset against an allowed claim or interest of a governmental unit any claim against such governmental unit that is property of the estate.
“(c) Except as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section and notwithstanding any assertion of sovereign immunity—
“(1) a provision of this title that contains ‘creditor,’ ‘entity,’ or ‘governmental unit’ applies to governmental units; and
“(2) a determination by the court of an issue arising under such a provision binds governmental units.” 11 U. S. C. § 106.
Neither § 106(a) nor § 106(b) provides a basis for petitioner’s actions here, since respondents did not file a claim in either Chapter 7 proceeding. Instead, petitioner relies on § 106(c), which he asserts subjects “governmental units,” which includes States, 11 U. S. C. § 101(26), to all provisions of the Bankruptcy Code containing any of the “trigger” words in § 106(c)(1). Both the turnover provision, § 542(b), and the preference provision, § 547(b), contain trigger words — “an entity” is required to pay to the trustee a debt that is the property of the estate, and a trustee can under appropriate circumstances avoid the transfer of property to “a creditor.” Therefore, petitioner reasons, those provisions apply to respondents “notwithstanding any assertion of sovereign immunity,” including Eleventh Amendment immunity.
We disagree. As we have repeatedly stated, to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, which the parties do not dispute would otherwise bar these actions, Congress must make its intention “unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.” Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, supra, at 242; see also Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U. S. 223, 227-228 (1989); Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U. S. 468, 474 (1987) (plurality opinion). In our view, § 106(c) does not satisfy this standard.
Initially, the narrow scope of the waivers of sovereign immunity in §§ 106(a) and (b) makes it unlikely that Congress adopted in § 106(c) the broad abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity for which petitioner argues. The language of § 106(a) carefully limits the waiver of sovereign immunity under that provision, requiring that the claim against the governmental unit arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the governmental unit’s claim. Subsection (b) likewise provides for a narrow waiver of sovereign immunity, with the amount of the offset limited to the value of the governmental unit’s allowed claim. Under petitioner’s interpretation of § 106(c), however, the only limit is the number of provisions of the Bankruptcy Code containing one of the trigger words. With this “limit,” § 106(c) would apply in a scattershot fashion to over 100 Code provisions.
We believe that § 106(c)(2) operates as a further limitation on the applicability of § 106(c), narrowing the type of relief to which the section applies. Section 106(c)(2) is joined with subsection (c)(1) by the conjunction “and.” It provides that a “determination” by the bankruptcy court of an “issue” “binds governmental units.” This language differs significantly from the wording of §§ 106(a) and (b), both of which use the word “claim,” defined in the Bankruptcy Code as including a “right to payment.” See 11 U. S. C. §101(4)(A). Nothing in § 106(c) provides a similar express authorization for monetary recovery from the States.
The language of § 106(c)(2) is more indicative of declaratory and injunctive relief than of monetary recovery. The clause echoes the wording of sections of the Code such as §505, which provides that “the court may determine the amount or legality of any tax,” 11 U. S. C. § 505(a)(1), a determination of an issue that obviously should bind the governmental unit but that does not require a monetary recovery from a State. We therefore construe § 106(c) as not authorizing monetary recovery from the States. Under this construction of § 106 (c), a State that files no proof of claim would be bound, like other creditors, by discharge of debts in bankruptcy, including unpaid taxes, see Neavear v. Schweiker, 674 F. 2d 1201, 1204 (CA7 1982); cf. Gwilliam v. United States, 519 F. 2d 407, 410 (CA9 1975), but would not be subjected to monetary recovery.
We are not persuaded by the. suggestion of petitioner’s amicus that the use of the word “determine” in the jurisdictional provision of the Code, 28 U. S. C. § 157(b)(1) (1982 ed., Supp. V), is to the contrary. Brief for INSLAW, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 10-11. That provision authorizes bankruptcy judges to determine “cases” and “proceedings,” not issues, and provides that the judge may “enter appropriate orders and judgments,” not merely bind the governmental unit by its determinations. Moreover, the construction we give to § 106(c) does not render irrelevant the language of the section that it applies “notwithstanding any assertion of sovereign immunity.” The section applies to the Federal Government as well, see 11 U. S. C. § 101(26) (defining “governmental unit” as including the “United States”), and the language in § 106(c) waives the sovereign immunity of the Federal Government so that the Federal Government is bound by determinations of issues by the bankruptcy courts even when it did not appear and subject itself to the jurisdiction of such courts. See, e. g., Neavear, supra, at 1204.
Petitioner contends that the language of the sections containing the trigger words supplies the necessary authorization for monetary recovery from the States. This interpretation, however, ignores entirely the limiting language of § 106(c)(2). Indeed, § 106(c), as interpreted by petitioner, would have exactly the same effect if subsection (c)(2) had been totally omitted. “It is our duty ‘to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute,’” United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955) (quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152 (1883)), and neither petitioner nor his amicus suggests any effect that their interpretation gives to subsection (c)(2).
Finally, petitioner’s reliance on the legislative history of § 106(c) is.also misplaced. He points in particular to floor statements to the effect that “section 106(c) permits a trustee or debtor in possession to assert avoiding powers under title 11 against a governmental unit.” See 124 Cong. Rec. 32394 (1978) (statement of Rep. Edwards); id., at 33993 (statement of Sen. DeConcini). The Government suggests that these statements should be construed as referring only to cases in which the debtor retains a possessory or ownership interest in the property that the trustee seeks to recover, Brief for United States 20, and cites as an example this Court’s decision in United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U. S. 198 (1983) (holding that the Internal Revenue Service could be required to turn over to bankrupt estate tangible property to which debtor retained ownership).
The weakness in petitioner’s argument is more fundamental, however, as the Second Circuit properly recognized. As we observed in Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U. S., at 230, “[legislative history generally will be irrelevant to a judicial inquiry into whether Congress intended to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment.” If congressional intent is unmistakably clear in the language of the statute, reliance on committee reports and floor statements will be unnecessary, and if it is not, Atascadero will not be satisfied. 491 U. S., at 228-229. Similarly, the attempts of petitioner and his amicus to construe § 106(c) in light of the policies underlying the Bankruptcy Code are unavailing. These arguments are not based in the text of the statute and so, too, are not helpful in determining whether the command of Atascadero is satisfied. See 491 U. S., at 230.
We hold that in enacting § 106(c) Congress did not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States. Therefore, petitioner’s actions in United States Bankruptcy Court under §§ 542(b) and 547(b) of the Code are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Since we hold that Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting § 106 (c), we need not address whether it had the authority to do so under its bankruptcy power. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1 (1989). The judgment of the Second Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide whether the attachment of a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device to an individual’s vehicle, and subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, constitutes a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
HH
In 2004 respondent Antoine Jones, owner and operator of a nightclub in the District of Columbia, came under suspicion of trafficking in narcotics and was made the target of an investigation by a joint Federal Bureau of Investigation and Metropolitan Police Department task force. Officers employed various investigative techniques, including visual surveillance of the nightclub, installation of a camera focused on the front door of the club, and a pen register and wiretap covering Jones’s cellular phone.
Based in part on information gathered from these sources, in 2005 the Government applied to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a warrant authorizing the use of an electronic tracking device on the Jeep Grand Cherokee registered to Jones’s wife. A warrant issued, authorizing installation of the device in the District of Columbia and within 10 days.
On the 11th day, and not in the District of Columbia but in Maryland, agents installed a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of the Jeep while it was parked in a public parking lot. Over the next 28 days, the Government used the device to track the vehicle’s movements, and once had to replace the device’s battery when the vehicle was parked in a different public lot in Maryland. By means of signals from multiple satellites, the device established the vehicle’s location within 50 to 100 feet, and communicated that location by cellular phone to a Government computer. It relayed more than 2,000 pages of data over the 4-week period.
The Government ultimately obtained a multiple-count indictment charging Jones and several alleged co-conspirators with, as relevant here, conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§ 841 and 846. Before trial, Jones filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained through the GPS device. The District Court granted the motion only in part, suppressing the data obtained while the vehicle was parked in the garage adjoining Jones’s residence. 451 F. Supp. 2d 71, 88 (2006). It held the remaining data admissible, because “ ‘[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.’ ” Ibid, (quoting United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 281 (1983)). Jones’s trial in October 2006 produced a hung jury on the conspiracy count.
In March 2007, a grand jury returned another indictment, charging Jones and others with the same conspiracy. The Government introduced at trial the same GPS-derived locational data admitted in the first trial, which connected Jones to the alleged conspirators’ stash house that contained $850,000 in cash, 97 kilograms of cocaine, and 1 kilogram of cocaine base. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the District Court sentenced Jones to life imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the conviction because of admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device which, it said, violated the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Maynard, 615 F. 3d 544 (2010). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s petition for rehearing en banc, with four judges dissenting. 625 F. 3d 766 (2010). We granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011).
1 — 1 1 — I
A
The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” It is beyond dispute that a vehicle is an “effect” as that term is used in the Amendment. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 12 (1977). We hold that the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a “search.”
It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted. Entick v. Carrington, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C. P. 1765), is a “case we have described as a ‘monument of English freedom’ ‘undoubtedly familiar’ to ‘every American statesman’ at the time the Constitution was adopted, and considered to be ‘the true and ultimate expression of constitutional law’ ” with regard to search and seizure. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U. S. 593, 596 (1989) (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 626 (1886)). In that case, Lord Camden expressed in plain terms the significance of property rights in search-and-seizure analysis:
“[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s close without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon his neigh-bour’s ground, he must justify it by law.” Entick, swpra, at 817.
The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property, since otherwise it would have referred simply to “the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures”; the phrase “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” would have been superfluous.
Consistent with this understanding, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to common-law trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th century. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 31 (2001); Kerr, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 801, 816 (2004). Thus, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 (1928), we held that wiretaps attached to telephone wires on the public streets did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search because “ft]here was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants,” id., at 464.
Our later cases, of course, have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach. In Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967), we said that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,” and found a violation in attachment of an eavesdropping device to a public telephone booth. Our later cases have applied the analysis of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in that case, which said that a violation occurs when government officers violate a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” id., at 360. See, e. g., Bond v. United States, 529 U. S. 334 (2000); California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207 (1986); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979).
The Government contends that the Harlan standard shows that no search occurred here, since Jones had no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the area of the Jeep accessed by Government agents (its underbody) and in the locations of the Jeep on the public roads, which were visible to all. But we need not address the Government’s contentions, because Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation. At bottom, we must “assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” Kyllo, supra, at 34. As explained, for most of our history the Fourth Amendment was understood to embody a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas (“persons, houses, papers, and effects”) it enumerates. Katz did not repudiate that understanding. Less than two years later the Court upheld defendants’ contention that the Government could not introduce against them conversations between other people obtained by warrantless placement of electronic surveillance devices in their homes. The opinion rejected the dissent’s contention that there was no Fourth Amendment violation “unless the conversational privacy of the homeowner himself is invaded.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 176 (1969). “[W]e [do not] believe that Katz, by holding that the Fourth Amendment protects persons and their private conversations, was intended to withdraw any of the protection which the Amendment extends to the home .. . .” Id., at 180.
More recently, in Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56 (1992), the Court unanimously rejected the argument that although a “seizure” had occurred “in a ‘technical’ sense” when a trailer home was forcibly removed, id., at 62, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred because law enforcement had not “invade[d] the [individuals’] privacy,” id., at 60. Katz, the Court explained, established that “property rights are not the sole measure of Fourth Amendment violations,” but did not “snuf[f] out the previously recognized protection for property.” 506 U. S., at 64. As Justice Brennan explained in his concurrence in Knotts, Katz did not erode the principle “that, when the Government does engage in physical intrusion of a constitutionally protected area in order to obtain information, that intrusion may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” 460 U. S., at 286 (opinion concurring in judgment). We have embodied that preservation of past rights in our very definition of “reasonable expectation of privacy” which we have said to be an expectation “that has a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.” Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U. S. 83, 88 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Katz did not narrow the Fourth Amendment’s scope.
The Government contends that several of our post-Aate cases foreclose the conclusion that what occurred here constituted a search. It relies principally on two cases in which we rejected Fourth Amendment challenges to “beepers,” electronic tracking devices that represent another form of electronic monitoring. The first ease, Knotts, upheld against Fourth Amendment challenge the use of a “beeper” that had been placed in a container of chloroform, allowing law enforcement to monitor the location of the container. 460 U. S., at 278. We said that there had been no infringement of Knotts’ reasonable expectation of privacy since the information obtained — the location of the automobile carrying the container on public roads, and the location of the offloaded container in open fields near Knotts’ cabin — had been voluntarily conveyed to the public. Id., at 281-282. But as we have discussed, the Katz reasonable-expeetation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test. The holding in Knotts addressed only the former, since the latter was not at issue. The beeper had been placed in the container before it came into Knotts’ possession, with the consent of the then-owner. 460 U. S., at 278. Knotts did not challenge that installation, and we specifically declined to consider its effect on the Fourth Amendment analysis. Id., at 279, n. Knotts would be relevant, perhaps, if the Government were making the argument that what would otherwise be an unconstitutional search is not such where it produces only public information. The Government does not make that argument, and we know of no case that would support it.
The second “beeper” case, United States v. Karo, 468 U. S.-705 (1984), does not suggest a different conclusion. There we addressed the question left open by Knotts, whether the installation of a beeper in a container amounted to a search or seizure. 468 U. S., at 713. As in Knotts, at the time the beeper was installed the container belonged to a third party, and it did not come into possession of the defendant until later. 468 U. S., at 708. Thus, the specific question we considered was whether the installation “with the consent of the original owner constitute^] a search or seizure . . . when the container is delivered to a buyer having no knowledge of the presence of the beeper.” Id., at 707 (emphasis added). We held not. The Government, we said, came into physical contact with the container only before it belonged to the defendant Karo; and the transfer of the container with the unmonitored beeper inside did not convey any information and thus did not invade Karo’s privacy. See id., at 712. That conclusion is perfectly consistent with the one we reach here. Karo accepted the container as it came to him, beeper and all, and was therefore not entitled to object to the beeper’s presence, even though it was used to monitor the container’s location. Cf. On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747, 751-752 (1952) (no search or seizure where an informant, who was wearing a concealed microphone, was invited into the defendant’s business). Jones, who possessed the Jeep at the time the Government trespassorily inserted the information-gathering device, is on much different footing.
The Government also points to our exposition in New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106 (1986), that “[t]he exterior of a car . .. is thrust into the public eye, and thus to examine it does not constitute a ‘search.’ ” Id., at 114. That statement is of marginal relevance here since, as the Government acknowledges, “the officers in this ease did more than conduct a visual inspection of respondent’s vehicle,” Brief for United States 41 (emphasis added). By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area. In Class itself we suggested that this would make a difference, for we concluded that an officer’s momentary reaching into the interior of a vehicle did constitute a search. 475 U. S., at 114-115.
Finally, the Government’s position gains little support from our conclusion in Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170 (1984), that officers’ information-gathering intrusion on an “open field” did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search even though it was a trespass at common law, id., at 183. Quite simply, an open field, unlike the curtilage of a home, see United States v. Dunn, 480 U. S. 294, 300 (1987), is not one of those protected areas enumerated in the Fourth Amendment. Oliver, supra, at 176-177. See also Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57, 59 (1924). The Government’s physical intrusion on such an area — unlike its intrusion on the “effect” at issue here — is of no Fourth Amendment significance.
B
The concurrence begins by accusing us of applying “18th-century tort law.” Post, at 418. That is a distortion. What we apply is an 18th-century guarantee against unreasonable searches, which we believe must provide at a minimum the degree of protection it afforded when it was adopted. The concurrence does not share that belief. It would apply exclusively Katz’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test, even when that eliminates rights that previously existed.
The concurrence faults our approach for “presenting] particularly vexing problems” in cases that do not involve physical contact, such as those that involve the transmission of electronic signals. Post, at 426. We entirely fail to understand that point. For unlike the concurrence, which would make Katz the exclusive test, we do not make trespass the exclusive test. Situations involving merely the transmission of electronic signals without trespass would remain subject to Katz analysis.
In fact, it is the concurrence’s insistence on the exclusivity of the Katz test that needlessly leads us into “particularly vexing problems” in the present case. This Court has to date not deviated from the understanding that mere visual observation does not constitute a search. See Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 31-32. We accordingly held in Knotts that “[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.” 460 U. S., at 281. Thus, even assuming that the concurrence is correct to say that “[tjraditional surveillance” of Jones for a 4-week period “would have required a large team of agents, multiple vehicles, and perhaps aerial assistance,” post, at 429, our cases suggest that such visual observation is constitutionally permissible. It may be that achieving the same result through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but the present case does not require us to answer that question.
And answering it affirmatively leads us needlessly into additional thorny problems. The concurrence posits that “relatively short-term monitoring of a person’s movements on public streets” is okay, but that “the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses” is no good. Post, at 430 (emphasis added). That introduces yet another novelty into our jurisprudence. There is no precedent for the proposition that whether a search has occurred depends on the nature of the crime being investigated. And even accepting that novelty, it remains unexplained why a 4-week investigation is “surely” too long and why a drug-trafficking conspiracy involving substantial amounts of cash and narcotics is not an “extraordinary offens[e]” which may permit longer observation. See post, at 430-431. What of a 2-day monitoring of a suspected purveyor of stolen electronics? Or of a 6-month monitoring of a suspected terrorist? We may have to grapple with these “vexing problems” in some future case where a classic trespassory search is not involved and resort must be had to Katz analysis; but there is no reason for rushing forward to resolve them here.
III
The Government argues in the alternative that even if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was reasonable — and thus lawful — under the Fourth Amendment because “officers had reasonable suspicion, and indeed probable cause, to believe that [Jones] was a leader in a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy.” Brief for United States 50-51. We have no occasion to consider this argument. The Government did not raise it below, and the D. C. Circuit therefore did not address it. See 625 F. 3d, at 767 (Ginsburg, Tatel, and Griffith, JJ., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc). We consider the argument forfeited. See Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U. S. 51, 56, n. 4 (2002).
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
In this litigation, the Government has conceded noncompliance with the warrant and has argued only that a warrant was not required. United States v. Maynard, 615 F. 3d 544, 566, n. (CADC 2010).
As we have noted, the Jeep was registered to Jones’s wife. The Government acknowledged, however, that Jones was “the exclusive driver.” Id., at 555, n. (internal quotation marks omitted). If Jones was not the owner he had at least the property rights of a bailee. The Court of Appeals concluded that the vehicle’s registration did not affect his ability to make a Fourth Amendment objection, ibid., and the Government has not challenged that determination here. We therefore do not consider the Fourth Amendment significance of Jones’s status.
Justice Alito’s concurrence (hereinafter concurrence) doubts the wisdom of our approach because “it is almost impossible to think of late-18thcentury situations that are analogous to what took place in this case.” Post, at 420 (opinion concurring in judgment). But in fact it posits a situation that is not far afield — a constable’s concealing himself in the target’s coach in order to track its movements. Ibid. There is no doubt that the information gained by that trespassory activity would be the product of an unlawful search — whether that information consisted of the conversations occurring in the coach, or of the destinations to which the coach traveled.
In any case, it is quite irrelevant whether there was an 18th-century analog. Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, our task, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in question would have constituted a “search” within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as here, the Government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search has undoubtedly occurred.
Thus, the concurrence’s attempt to recast Alderman as meaning that individuals have a “legitimate expectation of privacy in all conversations that [take] place under their roof,” 'post, at 423-424, is foreclosed by the Court’s opinion. The Court took as a given that the homeowner’s “conversational privacy” had not been violated.
The concurrence notes that post-Aate we have explained that “ ‘an actual trespass is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish a constitutional violation.’” Post, at 423 (quoting United States v. Karo, 468 U. S. 705, 713 (1984)). That is undoubtedly true, and undoubtedly irrelevant. Karo was considering whether a seizure occurred, and as the concurrence explains, a seizure of property occurs, not when there is a trespass, but “when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s posses-sory interests in that property.” Post, at 419 (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise with a search. Trespass alone does not qualify, but there must be conjoined with that what was present here: an attempt .to find something or to obtain information.
Related to this, and similarly irrelevant, is the concurrence’s point that, if analyzed separately, neither the installation of the device nor its use would constitute a Fourth Amendment search. See post, at 420. Of course not. A trespass on “houses” or “effects,” or a Katz invasion of privacy, is not alone a search unless it is done to obtain information; and the obtaining of information is not alone a search unless it is achieved by such a trespass or invasion of privacy.
Knotts noted the “limited use which the government made of the signals from this particular beeper,” 460 U. S., at 284, and reserved the question whether “different constitutional principles may be applicable” to “dragnet-type law enforcement practices” of the type that GPS tracking made possible here, ibid.
The Government also points to Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583 (1974), in which the Court rejected the claim that the inspection of an impounded vehicle’s tire tread and the collection of paint scrapings from its exterior violated the Fourth Amendment. Whether the plurality said so because no search occurred or because the search was reasonable is unclear. Compare id., at 591 (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (“[W]e fail to comprehend what expectation of privacy was infringed”), with id., at 592 (“Under circumstances such as these, where probable cause exists, a warrantless examination of the exterior of a car is not unreasonable ... ”).
Thus, our theory is not that the Fourth Amendment is concerned with “any technical trespass that led to the gathering of evidence.” Post, at 420 (Alito, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis added). The Fourth Amendment protects against trespassory searches only with regard to those items (“persons, houses, papers, and effects”) that it enumerates. The trespass that occurred in Oliver may properly be understood as a “search,” but not one “in the constitutional sense.” 466 U. S., at 170,183.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed further in forma pau-peris and the petition for a writ of certiorari, are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123. See Roberts v. Russell, ante, p. 293.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice White’s dissenting opinion in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, 138 (1968).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns a criminal drug offender originally sentenced in accordance with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Subsequently, the Sentencing Commission lowered the applicable Guidelines sentencing range; the offender asked for a sentence reduction in light of the lowered range; and the District Judge reduced his original sentence from 135 months' imprisonment to 114 months'. The offender, believing he should have obtained a yet greater reduction, argues that the District Judge did not adequately explain why he imposed a sentence of 114 months rather than a lower sentence. The Court of Appeals held that the judge's explanation was adequate. And we agree with the Court of Appeals.
I
A
The Sentencing Guidelines require a sentencing judge to consider certain listed characteristics of the offender and the offense for which he was convicted. Those characteristics (and certain other factors) bring the judge to a Guidelines table that sets forth a range of punishments, for example, 135 to 168 months' imprisonment. A sentencing judge often will choose a specific penalty from a Guidelines range. But a judge also has the legal authority to impose a sentence outside the range either because he or she "departs" from the range (as is permitted by certain Guidelines rules) or because he or she chooses to "vary" from the Guidelines by not applying them at all. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 258-265, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory). The judge, however, must always take account of certain statutory factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (requiring the judge to consider the "seriousness of the offense" and the need to "afford adequate deterrence," among other factors). And, of particular relevance here, the judge "shall state in open court the reasons for [the] imposition of the particular sentence." § 3553(c). If the sentence is outside the Guidelines range (whether because of a "departure" or a "variance"), the judge must state "the specific reason for the imposition of a ... different" sentence. § 3553(c)(2). If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, and the Guidelines range exceeds 24 months, the judge must also state "the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range." § 3553(c)(1).
B
We here consider one aspect of the judge's obligation to provide reasons. In an earlier case, we set forth the law that governs the explanation requirement at sentencing. In Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), the offender sought a downward departure from the Guidelines. The record, we said, showed that the sentencing judge "listened to each argument[,] ... considered the supporting evidence[,] ... was fully aware of defendant's various physical ailments[,]" imposed a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range, and, having considered the § 3553(a) factors, said simply that the sentence was " 'appropriate.' " Id., at 358, 127 S.Ct. 2456. We held that where "a matter is as conceptually simple as in the case at hand and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires the judge to write more extensively." Id., at 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456.
We also discussed more generally the judge's obligation to explain. We wrote that the statute calls
"for the judge to 'state' his 'reasons.' And that requirement reflects sound judicial practice. Judicial decisions are reasoned decisions. Confidence in a judge's use of reason underlies the public's trust in the judicial institution. A public statement of those reasons helps provide the public with the assurance that creates that trust." Id., at 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456.
But, we continued,
"we cannot read the statute (or our precedent) as insisting upon a full opinion in every case. The appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say, depends upon circumstances. Sometimes a judicial opinion responds to every argument; sometimes it does not; sometimes a judge simply writes the word 'granted' or 'denied' on the face of a motion while relying upon context and the parties' prior arguments to make the reasons clear. The law leaves much, in this respect, to the judge's own professional judgment." Ibid.
At bottom, the sentencing judge need only "set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority." Ibid.
When a judge applies a sentence within the Guidelines range, he or she often does not need to provide a lengthy explanation. As we said in Rita, "[c]ircumstances may well make clear that the judge rests his decision upon the Commission's own reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence (in terms of § 3553(a) and other congressional mandates) in the typical case, and that the judge has found that the case before him is typical." Id., at 357, 127 S.Ct. 2456.
We have followed this same reasoning in other sentencing cases, including Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), which we decided the same year as Rita . Cf. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (suggesting a district judge's decision to vary from the Guidelines range may be entitled to greater respect when the judge finds a particular case " 'outside the "heartland" ' " of the Guidelines). Indeed, the case before us differs from the Guidelines cases that Rita describes in only one significant respect. It concerns a limited form of re sentencing.
C
The relevant lower court proceedings are not complicated. In 2013, petitioner pleaded guilty to a federal crime, namely, possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. The judge reviewed the Guidelines, determined that the applicable range was 135 to 168 months' imprisonment and imposed a sentence at the bottom of that range: 135 months. Pursuant to its statutory authority, the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered the relevant Guidelines range from 135 to 168 months to 108 to 135 months. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual App. C, Amdt. 782 (Supp. Nov. 2012-Nov. 2016) (USSG); see also 28 U.S.C. § 994(o ). Petitioner then sought and obtained a sentence modification. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) ; USSG § 1B1.10. He asked the judge to lower his sentence to the bottom of the new range, namely 108 months. But the judge instead lowered it to 114 months, not 108 months. The order was entered on a form issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The form certified the judge had "considered" petitioner's motion and "tak[en] into account" the § 3553(a) factors and the relevant Guidelines policy statement. App. 106-107 (under seal).
Petitioner appealed, claiming that the judge did not adequately explain why he rejected petitioner's 108-month request. The Court of Appeals rejected his argument. 854 F.3d 655 (C.A.10 2017). In its view, "absent any indication the court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, a district court ... need not explain choosing a particular guidelines-range sentence." Id., at 659. Petitioner sought certiorari, and we granted his petition.
II
A
The Government, pointing out that this is a sentence-modification case, argues that this fact alone should secure it a virtually automatic victory. That is because, unlike an ordinary Guidelines sentencing case, the statute governing sentence-modification motions does not insist that the judge provide a "reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range." Compare § 3553(c)(1) with § 3582(c)(2). It adds that sentence modifications also differ procedurally from sentencing in that the offender is not entitled to be present in court at the time the reduced sentence is imposed. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (citing Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 43(b)(4) ). As we have said before, "Congress intended to authorize only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding." Dillon, supra, at 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683. These procedural features, the Government asserts, mean that "the court has no duty" to provide an "on-the-record explanation" of its reasons. Brief for United States 12, 19.
We need not go so far. Even assuming (purely for argument's sake) district courts have equivalent duties when initially sentencing a defendant and when later modifying the sentence, what the District Court did here was sufficient. At the original sentencing, the judge "must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review." 552 U.S., at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586 ; see also Rita, 551 U.S., at 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456 ("The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority"). Just how much of an explanation this requires, however, depends, as we have said, upon the circumstances of the particular case. Id., at 356-357, 127 S.Ct. 2456. In some cases, it may be sufficient for purposes of appellate review that the judge simply relied upon the record, while making clear that he or she has considered the parties' arguments and taken account of the § 3553(a) factors, among others. But in other cases, more explanation may be necessary (depending, perhaps, upon the legal arguments raised at sentencing, see id., at 357, 127 S.Ct. 2456 ). That may be the case even when there is little evidence in the record affirmatively showing that the sentencing judge failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors. If the court of appeals considers an explanation inadequate in a particular case, it can send the case back to the district court for a more complete explanation. Cf. Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1348, 194 L.Ed.2d 444 (2016) ("[A]ppellate courts retain broad discretion in determining whether a remand for resentencing is necessary").
B
Petitioner argues that the judge should have explained more here because there is, or should be, some kind of presumption that the judge will choose a point within the new lower Guidelines range that is "proportional" to the point previously chosen in the older higher Guidelines range. We are not aware of any law or any convincing reason, however, suggesting that this is so.
As a technical matter, determining just what "proportionality" means in this context would often prove difficult when the sentence is somewhere in the middle of the Guidelines range. The Sentencing Table calculates punishments according to a logarithmic scale. Take petitioner's original and amended Guidelines ranges, for example. The original range was 135 to 168 months, a difference of 33 months. The amended range, by comparison, is 108 to 135 months, a difference of 27 months. And viewed logarithmically, what may seem the middle of a new lower range is not necessarily proportionate to what may seem the middle of the old higher range. Nothing in the Guidelines, or elsewhere, encourages arguments about such matters among lawyers or judges who are not experts in advanced mathematics.
More importantly, the Guidelines ranges reflect to some degree what many, perhaps most, judges believed in the pre-Guidelines era was a proper sentence based upon the criminal behavior at issue and the characteristics of the offender. Thus, a judge's choice among points on a range will often simply reflect the judge's belief that the chosen sentence is the "right" sentence (or as close as possible to the "right" sentence) based on various factors, including those found in § 3553(a). Insofar as that is so, it is unsurprising that changing the applicable range may lead a judge to choose a nonproportional point on the new range. We see nothing that favors the one or the other. So, as is true of most Guidelines sentences, the judge need not provide a lengthy explanation if the "context and the record" make clear that the judge had "a reasoned basis" for reducing the defendant's sentence. Rita, supra, at 356, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456.
C
Turning to the facts of this case, we find that the District Court's explanation satisfies the standard we used in Rita and Gall, assuming it applies to sentence modifications. In Rita, as we earlier said, we upheld as lawful a sentencing judge's explanation that stated simply that the Guidelines sentence imposed was " 'appropriate.' " 551 U.S., at 358, 127 S.Ct. 2456. We noted that, in respect to the brevity or length of the reasons the judge gives for imposing a particular Guidelines sentence, the "law leaves much" to "the judge's own professional judgment." Id., at 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456. We pointed out that the sentencing judge in that case had "set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he ha[d] considered the parties' arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority." Ibid. The same is true here.
At petitioner's original sentencing, he sought a variance from the Guidelines range (135 to 168 months) on the ground that his history and family circumstances warranted a lower sentence. The judge denied his request. In doing so, the judge noted that he had "consulted the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1)." He explained that the "reason the guideline sentence is high in this case, even the low end of 135 months, is because of the [drug] quantity." He pointed out that petitioner had "distributed 1.7 kilograms of actual methamphetamine," a "significant quantity." And he said that "one of the other reasons that the penalty is severe in this case is because of methamphetamine." He elaborated this latter point by stating that he had "been doing this a long time, and from what [he] gather[ed] and what [he had] seen, methamphetamine, it destroys individual lives, it destroys families, it can destroy communities." App. 25.
This record was before the judge when he considered petitioner's request for a sentence modification. He was the same judge who had sentenced petitioner originally. Petitioner asked the judge to reduce his sentence to 108 months, the bottom of the new range, stressing various educational courses he had taken in prison. The Government pointed to his having also broken a moderately serious rule while in prison. The judge certified (on a form) that he had "considered" petitioner's "motion" and had "tak[en] into account" the relevant Guidelines policy statements and the § 3553(a) factors. Id ., at 106-107 (under seal). He then reduced the sentence to 114 months. The record as a whole strongly suggests that the judge originally believed that, given petitioner's conduct, 135 months was an appropriately high sentence. So it is unsurprising that the judge considered a sentence somewhat higher than the bottom of the reduced range to be appropriate. As in Rita, there was not much else for the judge to say.
The dissent would have us ignore the record from the initial sentencing and consider only what the judge said when modifying petitioner's sentence. See post, at 1969 - 1970 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). But, as we have made clear before, a sentence modification is "not a plenary resentencing proceeding." Dillon, 560 U.S., at 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683. We therefore need not turn a blind eye to what the judge said at petitioner's initial sentencing. The dissent suggests the judge's failure to grant petitioner a proportional reduction "limits the relevance of the initial sentencing proceeding." Post, at 1970. To the contrary, the record of the initial sentencing sheds light on why the court picked a point slightly above the bottom of the reduced Guidelines range when it modified petitioner's sentence. Our decision is not (as the dissent claims) based on mere "speculation." Post, at 1971. Rather, we simply find the record as a whole satisfies us that the judge "considered the parties' arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority." Rita, supra, at 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456.
This is not to say that a disproportionate sentence reduction never may require a more detailed explanation. It could be that, under different facts and a different record, the district court's use of a barebones form order in response to a motion like petitioner's would be inadequate. As we said above, the courts of appeals are well suited to request a more detailed explanation when necessary. See supra, at 1965 - 1966. The dissent asserts that appellate courts would not need to remand for further explanation if district courts provided an additional "short statement or check[ed] additional boxes" on the form order. Post, at 1971. That may be so, and nothing in this decision prevents judges from saying more when, in their professional judgment, saying more is appropriate. Providing a more detailed statement of reasons often serves "a salutary purpose" separate and apart from facilitating appellate review. Rita, 551 U.S., at 357, 127 S.Ct. 2456. But our task here is to decide the case before us. And given the simplicity of this case, the judge's awareness of the arguments, his consideration of the relevant sentencing factors, and the intuitive reason why he picked a sentence above the very bottom of the new range, the judge's explanation (minimal as it was) fell within the scope of the lawful professional judgment that the law confers upon the sentencing judge. See Id. at 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456.
The Court of Appeals concluded the same. Its judgment is therefore affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
When the District Court reduced petitioner Adaucto Chavez-Meza's sentence, it entered its order on a terse "AO-247" form. An example of this form is attached as an Appendix, infra . On the form order, the District Court checked a box next to preprinted language stating that it had "considered" Chavez-Meza's motion for a reduced sentence and that it had "tak[en] into account the policy statement set forth at USSG § 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable." App. 106-107 (under seal). The District Court checked another box indicating that Chavez-Meza's motion was granted, and the court stated that it was reducing his sentence to 114 months. Ibid. But the District Court did not explain why it chose that particular sentence or why it had not sentenced Chavez-Meza to the bottom of his Guidelines range, as it had done at his original sentencing. Under these circumstances, in my view the District Court's order was insufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review, a conclusion that requires this respectful dissent.
My disagreement with the majority is based on a serious problem-the difficulty for prisoners and appellate courts in ascertaining a district court's reasons for imposing a sentence when the court fails to state those reasons on the record; yet, in the end, my disagreement turns on a small difference, for a remedy is simple and easily attained.
Just a slight expansion of the AO-247 form would answer the concerns expressed in this dissent in most cases, and likely in the instant one. If the form were expanded to include just a few more categories covering the factors most often bearing on a trial court's sentencing determination, the objections petitioner raises likely would be met. The statute would be satisfied; district judges would have a helpful form that might well reduce the time for consideration of cases-and even if not would help ensure the full consideration which tends to result in uniformity and fairness; the Courts of Appeals, from the outset, would have far more assistance in determining whether appeals have merit; and this in turn would yield judicial efficiencies that the sentencing system must have to be effective and that Courts of Appeals must have to ensure that the relevant statute can be administered and applied in an efficient, fair, and uniform way. The Court today, however, gives its full approval to a conclusory order. Its resulting holding is detrimental to the judicial system and to prisoners alike.
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 authorizes a district court to reduce a prisoner's sentence when he "has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Congress specified that district courts may reduce a defendant's sentence only "after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Ibid.
In United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336, 108 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1988), this Court addressed a statutory scheme that, like § 3582(c)(2), required district courts to consider specific statutory factors when they exercised their discretion. The Court held that "[w]here, as here, Congress has declared that a decision will be governed by consideration of particular factors, a district court must carefully consider those factors as applied to the particular case and, whatever its decision, clearly articulate their effect in order to permit meaningful appellate review." Id., at 336-337, 108 S.Ct. 2413.
Here, the form order fails to provide sufficient information either to give adequate and efficient instruction to the trial court or to permit meaningful appellate review. The form order discloses no basis for determining why the District Court did not sentence Chavez-Meza to the bottom of his new Guidelines range, as it had when it imposed his original sentence.
The Court points out that there is no presumption in favor of a proportional reduction when a judge reduces a prisoner's sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). Ante, at 1965 - 1966. That is true, as far as it goes. The issue here, however, is not whether district courts must grant proportional reductions; rather, the issue is what explanation should be required to permit meaningful review of a trial court's resentencing order.
The amount of necessary explanation might be different when a district court grants a proportional reduction-for example, when it sentences a defendant to the top or the bottom of his Guidelines range for both the initial and reduced sentence. In that circumstance, in most instances, an appellate court properly can infer that the district court's reasons were the same as those it gave when it imposed the initial sentence. See Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as Amici Curiae 6-11 (explaining that district courts typically grant proportional reductions and that the Sentencing Commission often assumes they will do so). Less explanation is necessary, not because proportional reductions are favored as a legal matter but because the initial sentencing proceeding provides a record from which an appellate court can make prompt and reliable inferences as to the reasons that informed the trial court's decision to resentence a defendant to the same relative point on his amended Guidelines range. Contrary to the Court's suggestion, furthermore, one need not have an advanced degree in mathematics, much less a calculator, to draw this reasonable inference. District courts, as a matter of routine, regularly grant proportional reductions; and it seems unlikely that they conduct intricate logarithmic computations before doing so.
In contrast to a proportional reduction in a prisoner's sentence, a nonproportional reduction suggests that the district court's reasons for choosing a particular sentence might be different from those it gave when it imposed the sentence in the first instance. Accordingly, a more specific explanation-but by no means an elaborate one-is necessary for an appellate court to determine why the district court chose a new point on the revised Guidelines range.
The Court's analogy to Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), fails as well. See ante, at 1966 - 1967. In Rita, the District Court imposed the defendant's sentence at a hearing. The record made clear that "the sentencing judge listened to each argument," "considered the supporting evidence," and then determined that a 33-month sentence was "appropriate."
551 U.S., at 357-358, 127 S.Ct. 2456. But here there was no hearing when the District Court reduced Chavez-Meza's sentence in light of the amended Guidelines. The District Court's reasoning must be surmised from its terse, largely uninformative order. At Chavez-Meza's initial sentencing there was a hearing similar to the one in Rita . But the fact that the District Court did not grant Chavez-Meza a proportional reduction when it later reconsidered his sentence limits the relevance of the initial sentencing proceeding.
The District Court may well have had a legitimate reason for reducing Chavez-Meza's sentence to 114 months instead of 108 months. And even a brief explanation stating that reason likely would have sufficed, for district courts need not write at length each time they rule upon a § 3582(c)(2) motion.
The Court is quite correct to point out that a trial judge "need only 'set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.' " Ante, at 1970 (quoting Rita, supra, at 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456 ). It is likely that even a checkbox form would suffice in most cases, provided the form lists enough of the common reasons so that an appellate court, in most cases, can easily ascertain why the district court chose a particular sentence. Here, for example, the District Court simply could have added a sentence or two to the AO-247 form's "Additional Comments" box. Or, perhaps preferably, trial courts could use an expanded version of the AO-247 form that allows judges to indicate, even by checking a box, the reason or reasons for choosing a particular sentence.
In this case, however, the District Court's reasons remain a mystery. The Court today speculates that the District Court sentenced Chavez-Meza to 114 months because he distributed a large quantity of methamphetamine. Ante, at 1966 - 1967. For its part, the Court of Appeals speculated that the reason might have been "an incident of misconduct while in prison." See 854 F.3d 655, 660 (C.A.10 2017). But there is no basis for these assumptions in the District Court's order. The sort of guesswork the Court relies upon in today's decision is insufficient to provide meaningful appellate review of a district court's exercise of its discretion under § 3582(c)(2). See Taylor, 487 U.S., at 342-343, 108 S.Ct. 2413.
According to the Court of Appeals, the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act must be read to allow a trial court not to give or state any reasons at all for a resentencing order. 854 F.3d, at 658. This was error. The Court of Appeals reached its conclusion by comparing the provisions that relate to original sentencing- § 3553(c) -with the provisions that pertain to the resentencing process- § 3582(c)(2). It reasoned that, because the former has an express requirement to state reasons while the latter does not, the statutory structure eliminates any requirement for reasons upon resentencing. The Court of Appeals' analysis, however, ignores the scope of the statutory text in § 3553(c). That section pertains to a procedure that is a full-scale adversary proceeding, where the defendant and counsel are present. As part of that procedure, the statute states: "The court, at the time of sentencing, shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence." § 3553(c).
The statute does not require a full-scale adversary proceeding when resentencing is being considered after a Guidelines reduction. But it is incorrect to conclude that the absence of all those requirements forecloses the necessity to make a record that allows an appellate court to exercise meaningful review of the reasons for the resentencing order. This conclusion follows from this Court's decision in Taylor, holding that courts must "clearly articulate" their reasoning "in order to permit meaningful appellate review," even without any specific statutory command. 487 U.S., at 336-337, 108 S.Ct. 2413. So the fact that Congress adopted a detailed explanatory requirement in another part of the statute does not displace Taylor 's background rule that district courts must provide enough reasoning for appellate courts to review their decisions when they exercise discretion under a statute like § 3582(c)(2).
The Court quite correctly rejects the Government's invitation to adopt the Court of Appeals' interpretation. See ante, at 1965 - 1966. The Court's ensuing analysis, however, is, in my respectful view, still incorrect. On the one hand, the Court holds that appellate courts may determine on a case-by-case basis whether a form order like the one here provides enough explanation. See ante, at 1965 - 1966, 1967 - 1968. Thus, any prisoner can appeal and argue that the order was insufficient in his case. On the other hand, the Court does not impose any serious requirement that a district court state its reasons on the front end-that is, before the appeal, when the district court rules on the § 3582(c)(2) motion. Thus, in cases like this one, appeals will often be based on speculation that requires the prisoner, the Government, and the Court of Appeals to hypothesize the potential reasons for the prisoner's sentence when a reduction is weighed and considered.
This is an unwise allocation of judicial resources. District courts, to state the obvious, are best positioned to explain their reasons for imposing a particular sentence. Under the majority's opinion, however, appellate courts will often lack clarity as to a district court's reasoning and will be forced to either speculate (as the Court does today) based on their own view of the record, or remand the case for further explanation, likely followed by another appeal. What could have taken a sentence or two at the front end now can, and likely will, produce dozens of pages of briefs, bench memoranda, orders, and judicial opinions as the case makes its way first to the appellate court, then back down to the trial court and perhaps back to the appellate court again.
A better, more efficient rule would require trial courts in cases like this one to provide their reasons in their initial decisions either by giving a short statement or checking additional boxes. We must be conscious of the fact that retroactive amendments to the Guidelines can result in thousands of resentencings. That is all the more reason the inefficiencies resulting from today's decision ought to be avoided. And given the uncertainty that will ensue from today's decision, district courts would be wise to say more than the court said in this case, even in the absence of a holding requiring it to do so on the specific facts at issue here.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
APPENDIX
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
The Chief Justice 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: | 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, except as to Part II.
Every day, immigration officials must determine whether to admit or remove the many aliens who have arrived at an official "port of entry" (e.g., an international airport or border crossing) or who have been apprehended trying to enter the country at an unauthorized location. Immigration officials must also determine on a daily basis whether there are grounds for removing any of the aliens who are already present inside the country. The vast majority of these determinations are quickly made, but in some cases deciding whether an alien should be admitted or removed is not as easy. As a result, Congress has authorized immigration officials to detain some classes of aliens during the course of certain immigration proceedings. Detention during those proceedings gives immigration officials time to determine an alien's status without running the risk of the alien's either absconding or engaging in criminal activity before a final decision can be made.
In this case we are asked to interpret three provisions of U.S. immigration law that authorize the Government to detain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings. All parties appear to agree that the text of these provisions, when read most naturally, does not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention. But by relying on the constitutional-avoidance canon of statutory interpretation, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that detained aliens have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings under the provisions at issue.
Under the constitutional-avoidance canon, when statutory language is susceptible of multiple interpretations, a court may shun an interpretation that raises serious constitutional doubts and instead may adopt an alternative that avoids those problems. But a court relying on that canon still must interpret the statute, not rewrite it. Because the Court of Appeals in this case adopted implausible constructions of the three immigration provisions at issue, we reverse its judgment and remand for further proceedings.
I
A
To implement its immigration policy, the Government must be able to decide (1) who may enter the country and (2) who may stay here after entering.
1
That process of decision generally begins at the Nation's borders and ports of entry, where the Government must determine whether an alien seeking to enter the country is admissible. Under 122 Stat. 867, 8 U.S.C. § 1225, an alien who "arrives in the United States," or "is present" in this country but "has not been admitted," is treated as "an applicant for admission." § 1225(a)(1). Applicants for admission must "be inspected by immigration officers" to ensure that they may be admitted into the country consistent with U.S. immigration law. § 1225(a)(3).
As relevant here, applicants for admission fall into one of two categories, those covered by § 1225(b)(1) and those covered by § 1225(b)(2). Section 1225(b)(1) applies to aliens initially determined to be inadmissible due to fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of valid documentation. See § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) (citing §§ 1182(a)(6)(C), (a)(7)). Section 1225(b)(1) also applies to certain other aliens designated by the Attorney General in his discretion. See § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii). Section 1225(b)(2) is broader. It serves as a catchall provision that applies to all applicants for admission not covered by § 1225(b)(1) (with specific exceptions not relevant here). See §§ 1225(b)(2)(A), (B).
Both § 1225(b)(1) and § 1225(b)(2) authorize the detention of certain aliens. Aliens covered by § 1225(b)(1) are normally ordered removed "without further hearing or review" pursuant to an expedited removal process. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). But if a § 1225(b)(1) alien "indicates either an intention to apply for asylum... or a fear of persecution," then that alien is referred for an asylum interview. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii). If an immigration officer determines after that interview that the alien has a credible fear of persecution, "the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum." § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Aliens who are instead covered by § 1225(b)(2) are detained pursuant to a different process. Those aliens "shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding" if an immigration officer "determines that [they are] not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted" into the country. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Regardless of which of those two sections authorizes their detention, applicants for admission may be temporarily released on parole "for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit." § 1182(d)(5)(A); see also 8 C.F.R §§ 212.5(b), 235.3 (2017). Such parole, however, "shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). Instead, when the purpose of the parole has been served, "the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States." Ibid.
2
Even once inside the United States, aliens do not have an absolute right to remain here. For example, an alien present in the country may still be removed if he or she falls "within one or more... classes of deportable aliens." § 1227(a). That includes aliens who were inadmissible at the time of entry or who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses since admission. See §§ 1227(a)(1), (2).
Section 1226 generally governs the process of arresting and detaining that group of aliens pending their removal. As relevant here, § 1226 distinguishes between two different categories of aliens. Section 1226(a) sets out the default rule: The Attorney General may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of an alien "pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States." § 1226(a). "Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section," the Attorney General "may release" an alien detained under § 1226(a)"on bond... or conditional parole." Ibid.
Section 1226(c), however, carves out a statutory category of aliens who may not be released under § 1226(a). Under § 1226(c), the "Attorney General shall take into custody any alien" who falls into one of several enumerated categories involving criminal offenses and terrorist activities.
§ 1226(c)(1). The Attorney General may release aliens in those categories "only if the Attorney General decides... that release of the alien from custody is necessary" for witness-protection purposes and "the alien satisfies the Attorney General that the alien will not pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property and is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding." § 1226(c)(2). Any release under those narrow conditions "shall take place in accordance with a procedure that considers the severity of the offense committed by the alien." Ibid.
In sum, U.S. immigration law authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens seeking admission into the country under §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2). It also authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens already in the country pending the outcome of removal proceedings under §§ 1226(a) and (c). The primary issue is the proper interpretation of §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c).
B
Respondent Alejandro Rodriguez is a Mexican citizen. Since 1987, he has also been a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In April 2004, after Rodriguez was convicted of a drug offense and theft of a vehicle, the Government detained him under § 1226 and sought to remove him from the country. At his removal hearing, Rodriguez argued both that he was not removable and, in the alternative, that he was eligible for relief from removal. In July 2004, an Immigration Judge ordered Rodriguez deported to Mexico. Rodriguez chose to appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but five months later the Board agreed that Rodriguez was subject to mandatory removal. Once again, Rodriguez chose to seek further review, this time petitioning the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the Board's decision.
In May 2007, while Rodriguez was still litigating his removal in the Court of Appeals, he filed a habeas petition in the District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that he was entitled to a bond hearing to determine whether his continued detention was justified. Rodriguez's case was consolidated with another, similar case brought by Alejandro Garcia, and together they moved for class certification. The District Court denied their motion, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. See Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1111 (2010). It concluded that the proposed class met the certification requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it remanded the case to the District Court. Id., at 1111, 1126.
On remand, the District Court certified the following class:
"[A]ll non-citizens within the Central District of California who: (1) are or were detained for longer than six months pursuant to one of the general immigration detention statutes pending completion of removal proceedings, including judicial review, (2) are not and have not been detained pursuant to a national security detention statute, and (3) have not been afforded a hearing to determine whether their detention is justified." Class Certification Order in Rodriguez v. Hayes, CV 07-03239 (CD Cal., Apr. 5, 2010).
The District Court named Rodriguez as class representative of the newly certified class, ibid., and then organized the class into four subclasses based on the four "general immigration detention statutes" under which it understood the class members to be detained: Sections 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231(a). See Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in Rodriguez v. Holder, CV 07-03239 (CD Cal., Mar. 8, 2011) (2011 Order); Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1130-1131 (C.A.9 2013). Each of the four subclasses was certified to pursue declaratory and injunctive relief. 2011 Order. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the § 1231(a) subclass had been improperly certified, but it affirmed the certification of the other three subclasses. See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1074, 1085-1086 (C.A.9 2015).
In their complaint, Rodriguez and the other respondents argued that the relevant statutory provisions- §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) -do not authorize "prolonged" detention in the absence of an individualized bond hearing at which the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that the class member's detention remains justified. Absent such a bond-hearing requirement, respondents continued, those three provisions would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In their prayer for relief, respondents thus asked the District Court to require the Government "to provide, after giving notice, individual hearings before an immigration judge for... each member of the class, at which [the Government] will bear the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable conditions will ensure the detainee's presence in the event of removal and protect the community from serious danger, despite the prolonged length of detention at issue." Third Amended Complaint in Rodriguez v. Holder, CV 07-03239, p. 31 (CD Cal., Oct. 20, 2010). Respondents also sought declaratory relief. Ibid.
As relevant here, the District Court entered a permanent injunction in line with the relief sought by respondents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. See 804 F.3d, at 1065. Relying heavily on the canon of constitutional avoidance, the Court of Appeals construed §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) as imposing an implicit 6-month time limit on an alien's detention under these sections. Id., at 1079, 1082. After that point, the Court of Appeals held, the Government may continue to detain the alien only under the authority of § 1226(a). Ibid. The Court of Appeals then construed § 1226(a) to mean that an alien must be given a bond hearing every six months and that detention beyond the initial 6-month period is permitted only if the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that further detention is justified. Id., at 1085, 1087.
The Government petitioned this Court for review of that decision, and we granted certiorari. 579 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2489, 195 L.Ed.2d 821 (2016).
II
Before reaching the merits of the lower court's interpretation, we briefly address whether we have jurisdiction to entertain respondents' claims. We discuss two potential obstacles, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and 1226(e).
A
Under § 1252(b)(9) :
"Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter [including §§ 1225 and 1226 ] shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section."
This provision does not deprive us of jurisdiction. We are required in this case to decide "questions of law," specifically, whether, contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeals, certain statutory provisions require detention without a bond hearing. We assume for the sake of argument that the actions taken with respect to all the aliens in the certified class constitute "action[s] taken... to remove [them] from the United States." On that assumption, the applicability of § 1252(b)(9) turns on whether the legal questions that we must decide "aris[e] from" the actions taken to remove these aliens.
It may be argued that this is so in the sense that if those actions had never been taken, the aliens would not be in custody at all. But this expansive interpretation of § 1252(b)(9) would lead to staggering results. Suppose, for example, that a detained alien wishes to assert a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), based on allegedly inhumane conditions of confinement. See, e.g., Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 1863-1867, 198 L.Ed.2d 290 (2017). Or suppose that a detained alien brings a state-law claim for assault against a guard or fellow detainee. Or suppose that an alien is injured when a truck hits the bus transporting aliens to a detention facility, and the alien sues the driver or owner of the truck. The "questions of law and fact" in all those cases could be said to "aris[e] from" actions taken to remove the aliens in the sense that the aliens' injuries would never have occurred if they had not been placed in detention. But cramming judicial review of those questions into the review of final removal orders would be absurd.
Interpreting "arising from" in this extreme way would also make claims of prolonged detention effectively unreviewable. By the time a final order of removal was eventually entered, the allegedly excessive detention would have already taken place. And of course, it is possible that no such order would ever be entered in a particular case, depriving that detainee of any meaningful chance for judicial review.
In past cases, when confronted with capacious phrases like " 'arising from,' " we have eschewed " 'uncritical literalism' " leading to results that " 'no sensible person could have intended.' " Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 936, 943, 194 L.Ed.2d 20 (2016) (interpreting phrase "relate to" in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's pre-emption provision). See also, e.g., FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., 577 U.S. ----, ----- -----, 136 S.Ct. 760, 773-775, 193 L.Ed.2d 661 (2016) (interpreting term "affecting" in Federal Power Act); Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48, 59-61, 133 S.Ct. 2191, 186 L.Ed.2d 275 (2013) (interpreting phrase "in connection with" in Driver's Privacy Protection Act); Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251, 260-261, 133 S.Ct. 1769, 185 L.Ed.2d 909 (2013) (interpreting phrase "related to" in Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act); Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 308, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995) (interpreting phrase "related to" in Bankruptcy Act). In Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999), we took this approach in construing the very phrase that appears in § 1252(b)(9). A neighboring provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act refers to "any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (emphasis added). We did not interpret this language to sweep in any claim that can technically be said to "arise from" the three listed actions of the Attorney General. Instead, we read the language to refer to just those three specific actions themselves. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., supra, at 482-483, 119 S.Ct. 936.
The parties in this case have not addressed the scope of § 1252(b)(9), and it is not necessary for us to attempt to provide a comprehensive interpretation. For present purposes, it is enough to note that respondents are not asking for review of an order of removal; they are not challenging the decision to detain them in the first place or to seek removal; and they are not even challenging any part of the process by which their removability will be determined. Under these circumstances, § 1252(b)(9) does not present a jurisdictional bar.
B
We likewise hold that § 1226(e) does not bar us from considering respondents' claims.
That provision states:
"The Attorney General's discretionary judgment regarding the application of [ § 1226 ] shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole." § 1226(e).
As we have previously explained, § 1226(e) precludes an alien from "challeng[ing] a 'discretionary judgment' by the Attorney General or a 'decision' that the Attorney General has made regarding his detention or release." Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516, 123 S.Ct. 1708, 155 L.Ed.2d 724 (2003). But § 1226(e) does not preclude "challenges [to] the statutory framework that permits [the alien's] detention without bail." Id., at 517, 123 S.Ct. 1708.
Respondents mount that second type of challenge here. First and foremost, they are challenging the extent of the Government's detention authority under the "statutory framework" as a whole. If that challenge fails, they are then contesting the constitutionality of the entire statutory scheme under the Fifth Amendment. Because the extent of the Government's detention authority is not a matter of "discretionary judgment," "action," or "decision," respondents' challenge to "the statutory framework that permits [their] detention without bail," ibid., falls outside of the scope of § 1226(e). We may therefore consider the merits of their claims.
III
When "a serious doubt" is raised about the constitutionality of an act of Congress, "it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided." Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932). Relying on this canon of constitutional avoidance, the Court of Appeals construed §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) to limit the permissible length of an alien's detention without a bond hearing. Without such a construction, the Court of Appeals believed, the " 'prolonged detention without adequate procedural protections' " authorized by the provisions " 'would raise serious constitutional concerns.' " 804 F.3d, at 1077 (quoting Casas-Castrillon v. DHS, 535 F.3d 942, 950 (C.A.9 2008) ).
The canon of constitutional avoidance "comes into play only when, after the application of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found to be susceptible of more than one construction." Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 385, 125 S.Ct. 716, 160 L.Ed.2d 734 (2005). In the absence of more than one plausible construction, the canon simply " 'has no application.' " Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 521, 529, 190 L.Ed.2d 422 (2014) (quoting United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483, 494, 121 S.Ct. 1711, 149 L.Ed.2d 722 (2001) ).
The Court of Appeals misapplied the canon in this case because its interpretations of the three provisions at issue here are implausible. In Parts III-A and III-B, we hold that, subject only to express exceptions, §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) authorize detention until the end of applicable proceedings. And in Part III-C, we hold that there is no justification for any of the procedural requirements that the Court of Appeals layered onto § 1226(a) without any arguable statutory foundation.
A
As noted, § 1225(b) applies primarily to aliens seeking entry into the United States ("applicants for admission" in the language of the statute). Section 1225(b) divides these applicants into two categories. First, certain aliens claiming a credible fear of persecution under § 1225(b)(1)"shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum." § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Second, aliens falling within the scope of § 1225(b)(2)"shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding." § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Read most naturally, §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded. Section 1225(b)(1) aliens are detained for "further consideration of the application for asylum," and § 1225(b)(2) aliens are in turn detained for "[removal] proceeding[s]." Once those proceedings end, detention under § 1225(b) must end as well. Until that point, however, nothing in the statutory text imposes any limit on the length of detention. And neither § 1225(b)(1) nor § 1225(b)(2) says anything whatsoever about bond hearings.
Despite the clear language of §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2), respondents argue-and the Court of Appeals held-that those provisions nevertheless can be construed to contain implicit limitations on the length of detention. But neither of the two limiting interpretations offered by respondents is plausible.
1
First, respondents argue that §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) contain an implicit 6-month limit on the length of detention. Once that 6-month period elapses, respondents contend, aliens previously detained under those provisions must instead be detained under the authority of § 1226(a), which allows for bond hearings in certain circumstances.
There are many problems with this interpretation. Nothing in the text of § 1225(b)(1) or § 1225(b)(2) even hints that those provisions restrict detention after six months, but respondents do not engage in any analysis of the text. Instead, they simply cite the canon of constitutional avoidance and urge this Court to use that canon to read a "six-month reasonableness limitation" into § 1225(b). Brief for Respondents 48.
That is not how the canon of constitutional avoidance works. Spotting a constitutional issue does not give a court the authority to rewrite a statute as it pleases. Instead, the canon permits a court to "choos[e] between competing plausible interpretations of a statutory text." Clark, supra, at 381, 125 S.Ct. 716 (emphasis added). To prevail, respondents must thus show that § 1225(b)'s detention provisions may plausibly be read to contain an implicit 6-month limit. And they do not even attempt to defend that reading of the text.
In much the same manner, the Court of Appeals all but ignored the statutory text. Instead, it read Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), as essentially granting a license to graft a time limit onto the text of § 1225(b). Zadvydas, however, provides no such authority.
Zadvydas concerned § 1231(a)(6), which authorizes the detention of aliens who have already been ordered removed from the country. Under this section, when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General is directed to complete removal within a period of 90 days, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), and the alien must be detained during that period, § 1231(a)(2). After that time elapses, however, § 1231(a)(6) provides only that certain aliens "may be detained" while efforts to complete removal continue. (Emphasis added.)
In Zadvydas, the Court construed § 1231(a)(6) to mean that an alien who has been ordered removed may not be detained beyond "a period reasonably necessary to secure removal," 533 U.S., at 699, 121 S.Ct. 2491 and it further held that six months is a presumptively reasonable period, id., at 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491. After that, the Court concluded, if the alien "provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future," the Government must either rebut that showing or release the alien. Ibid.
The Zadvydas Court justified this interpretation by invoking the constitutional-avoidance canon, and the Court defended its resort to that canon on the ground that § 1231(a)(6) is ambiguous. Specifically, the Court detected ambiguity in the statutory phrase "may be detained." " '[M]ay,' " the Court said, "suggests discretion" but not necessarily "unlimited discretion. In that respect the word'may' is ambiguous." Id., at 697, 121 S.Ct. 2491. The Court also pointed to the absence of any explicit statutory limit on the length of permissible detention following the entry of an order of removal. Ibid.
Zadvydas represents a notably generous application of the constitutional-avoidance canon, but the Court of Appeals in this case went much further. It failed to address whether Zadvydas's reasoning may fairly be applied in this case despite the many ways in which the provision in question in Zadvydas, § 1231(a)(6), differs materially from those at issue here, §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2). Those differences preclude the reading adopted by the Court of Appeals.
To start, §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2), unlike § 1231(a)(6), provide for detention for a specified period of time. Section 1225(b)(1) mandates detention "for further consideration of the application for asylum," § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), and § 1225(b)(2) requires detention "for a [removal] proceeding," § 1225(b)(2)(A). The plain meaning of those phrases is that detention must continue until immigration officers have finished "consider [ing]" the application for asylum, § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), or until removal proceedings have concluded, § 1225(b)(2)(A). By contrast, Congress left the permissible length of detention under § 1231(a)(6) unclear.
Moreover, in Zadvydas, the Court saw ambiguity in § 1231(a)(6)'s use of the word "may." Here, by contrast, §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) do not use the word "may." Instead, they unequivocally mandate that aliens falling within their scope "shall" be detained. "Unlike the word'may,' which implies discretion, the word'shall' usually connotes a requirement." Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1969, 1977, 195 L.Ed.2d 334 (2016). That requirement of detention precludes a court from finding ambiguity here in the way that Zadvydas found ambiguity in § 1231(a)(6).
Zadvydas's reasoning is particularly inapt here because there is a specific provision authorizing release from § 1225(b) detention whereas no similar release provision applies to § 1231(a)(6). With a few exceptions not relevant here, the Attorney General may "for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit" temporarily parole aliens detained under §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2). 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). That express exception to detention implies that there are no other circumstances under which aliens detained under § 1225(b) may be released. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 107 (2012) ("Negative-Implication Canon[:] The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius )"). That negative implication precludes the sort of implicit time limit on detention that we found in Zadvydas.
In short, a series of textual signals distinguishes the provisions at issue in this case from Zadvydas's interpretation of § 1231(a)(6). While Zadvydas found § 1231(a)(6) to be ambiguous, the same cannot be said of §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2): Both provisions mandate detention until a certain point and authorize release prior to that point only under limited circumstances. As a result, neither provision can reasonably be read to limit detention to six months.
2
In this Court, respondents advance an interpretation of the language of §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) that was never made below, namely, that the term "for," which appears in both provisions, mandates detention only until the start of applicable proceedings rather than all the way through to their conclusion. Respondents contrast the language of §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) authorizing detention "for" further proceedings with another provision's authorization of detention "pending" further proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) ("Any alien... shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed"). According to respondents, that distinction between "for" and "pending" makes an enormous difference. As they see things, the word "pending" authorizes detention throughout subsequent proceedings, but the term "for" means that detention authority ends once subsequent proceedings begin. As a result, respondents argue, once the applicable proceedings commence, §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) no longer authorize detention, and the Government must instead look to § 1226(a) for continued detention authority.
That interpretation is inconsistent with ordinary English usage and is incompatible with the rest of the statute. To be sure, "for" can sometimes mean "in preparation for or anticipation of." 6 Oxford English Dictionary 24 (2d ed. 1989). But "for" can also mean "[d]uring [or] throughout," id., at 26, as well as "with the object or purpose of," id., at 23; see also American Heritage Dictionary 709 (3d ed. 1992) ("Used to indicate the object, aim, or purpose of an action or activity"; "Used to indicate amount, extent, or duration"); Random House Dictionary of the English Language 747 (2d ed. 1987) ("with the object or purpose of"; "during the continuance of"); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 886 (1993) ("with the purpose or object of"; "to the... duration of"). And here, only that second set of definitions makes sense in the context of the statutory scheme as a whole.
For example, respondents argue that, once detention authority ends under §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2), aliens can be detained only under § 1226(a). But that section authorizes detention only "[o]n a warrant issued" by the Attorney General leading to the alien's arrest. § 1226(a). If respondents' interpretation of § 1225(b) were correct, then the Government could detain an alien without a warrant at the border, but once removal proceedings began, the Attorney General would have to issue an arrest warrant in order to continue detaining the alien. To put it lightly, that makes little sense.
Nor does respondents' interpretation of the word "for" align with the way Congress has historically used that word in § 1225. Consider that section's text prior to the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-546. Under the older version of § 1225(b), "[e]very alien" within its scope "who may not appear... to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to [entry] shall be detained for further inquiry to be conducted by a special inquiry officer." 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) (1994 ed.). It would make no sense to read "for further inquiry" as authorizing detention of the alien only until the start of the inquiry; Congress obviously did not mean to allow aliens to feel free to leave once immigration officers asked their first question.
In sum, §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) mandate detention of aliens throughout the completion of applicable proceedings and not just until the moment those
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, 28 U. S. C. § 1738A, furnishes an implied cause of action in federal court to determine which of two conflicting state custody decisions is valid.
I
The Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (PKPA or Act) imposes a duty on the States to enforce a child custody determination entered by a court of a sister State if the determination is consistent with the provisions of the Act. In order for a state court’s custody decree to be consistent with the provisions of the Act, the State must have jurisdiction under its own local law and one of five conditions set out in § 1738A(c)(2) must be met. Briefly put, these conditions authorize the state court to enter a custody decree if the child’s home is or recently has been in the State, if the child has no home State and it would be in the child’s best interest for the State to assume jurisdiction, or if the child is present in the State and has been abandoned or abused. Once a State exercises jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of the Act, no other State may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the custody dispute, § 1738A(g), even if it would have been empowered to take jurisdiction in the first instance, and all States must accord full faith and credit to the first State’s ensuing custody decree.
As the legislative scheme suggests, and as Congress explicitly specified, one of the chief purposes of the PKPA is to “avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict between State courts.” Pub. L. 96-611, 94 Stat. 3569, § 7(c)(5), note following 28 U. S. C. § 1738A. This case arises out of a jurisdictional stalemate that came to pass notwithstanding the strictures of the Act. In July 1978, respondent Susan Clay (then Susan Thompson) filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court asking the court to dissolve her marriage to petitioner David Thompson and seeking custody of the couple’s infant son, Matthew. The court initially awarded the parents joint custody of Matthew, but that arrangement became infeasible when respondent decided to move from California to Louisiana to take a job. The court then entered an order providing that respondent would have sole custody of Matthew once she left for Louisiana. This state of affairs was to remain in effect until the court investigator submitted a report on custody, after which the court intended to make a more studied custody determination. See App. 6.
Respondent and Matthew moved to Louisiana in December 1980. Three months later, respondent filed a petition in Louisiana state court for enforcement of the California custody decree, judgment of custody, and modification of petitioner’s visitation privileges. By order dated April 7, 1981, the Louisiana court granted the petition and awarded sole custody of Matthew to respondent. Two months later, however, the California court, having received and reviewed its investigator’s report, entered an order awarding sole custody of Matthew to petitioner. Thus arose the current impasse.
In August 1983, petitioner brought this action in the District Court for the Central District of California. Petitioner requested an order declaring the Louisiana decree invalid and the California decree valid, and enjoining the enforcement of the Louisiana decree. Petitioner did not attempt to enforce the California decree in a Louisiana state court before he filed suit in federal court. The District Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. Civ. Action No. 88-5221 (Apr. 10, 1984). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Although it disagreed with the District Court’s jurisdictional analyses, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that petitioner had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 798 F. 2d 1547 (1986). Canvassing the background, language, and legislative history of the PKPA, the Court of Appeals held that the Act does not ere-ate a private right of action in federal court to determine the validity of two conflicting custody decrees. Id., at 1552-1559. We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 1063 (1987), and we now affirm.
II
In determining whether to infer a private cause of action from a federal statute, our focal point is Congress’ intent in enacting the statute. As guides to discerning that intent, we have relied on the four factors set out in Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 78 (1975), along with other tools of statutory construction. See Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, 464 U. S. 523, 535-536 (1984); California v. Sierra Club, 451 U. S. 287, 293 (1981); Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560, 575-576 (1979). Our focus on congressional intent does not mean that we require evidence that Members of Congress, in enacting the statute, actually had in mind the creation of a private cause of action. The implied cause of action doctrine would be a virtual dead letter were it limited to correcting drafting errors when Congress simply forgot to codify its evident intention to provide a cause of action. Rather, as an implied cause of action doctrine suggests, “the legislative history of a statute that does not expressly create or deny a private remedy will typically be equally silent or ambiguous on the question.” Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 694 (1979). We therefore have recognized that Congress’ “intent may appear implicitly in the language or structure of the statute, or in the circumstances of its enactment.” Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11, 18 (1979). The intent of Congress remains the ultimate issue, however, and “unless this congressional intent can be inferred from the language of the statute, the statutory structure, or some other source, the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy simply does not exist.” Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U. S. 77, 94 (1981). In this case, the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy plainly does not exist. None of the factors that have guided our inquiry in this difficult area points in favor of inferring a private cause of action. Indeed, the context, language, and legislative history of the PKPA all point sharply away from the remedy petitioner urges us to infer.
We examine initially the context of the PKPA with an eye toward determining Congress’ perception of the law that it was shaping or reshaping. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353, 378 (1982); Cort v. Ash, supra, at 69. At the time Congress passed the PKPA, custody orders held a peculiar status under the full faith and credit doctrine, which requires each State to give effect to the judicial proceedings of other States, see U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 1; 28 U. S. C. § 1738. The anomaly traces to the fact that custody orders characteristically are subject to modification as required by the best interests of the child. As a consequence, some courts doubted whether custody orders were sufficiently “final” to trigger full faith and credit requirements, see, e. g., Hooks v. Hooks, 771 F. 2d 935, 948 (CA6 1985); McDougald v. Jenson, 596 F. Supp. 680, 684-685 (ND Fla. 1984), aff’d, 786 F. 2d 1465 (CA11), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 860 (1986), and this Court had declined expressly to settle the question. See Ford v. Ford, 371 U. S. 187, 192 (1962). Even if custody orders were subject to full faith and credit requirements, the Full Faith and Credit Clause obliges States only to accord the same force to judgments as would be accorded by the courts of the State in which the judgment was entered. Because courts entering custody orders generally retain the power to modify them, courts in other States were no less entitled to change the terms of custody according to their own views of the child’s best interest. See New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U. S. 610, 614-615 (1947). For these reasons, a parent who lost a custody battle in one State had an incentive to kidnap the child and move to another State to relitigate the issue. This circumstance contributed to widespread jurisdictional deadlocks like this one, and more importantly, to a national epidemic of parental kidnaping. At the time the PKPA was enacted, sponsors of the Act estimated that between 25,000 and 100,000 children were kidnaped by parents who had been unable to obtain custody in a legal forum. See Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1979: Joint Hearing on S. 105 before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Child and Human Development of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1980) (hereinafter PKPA Joint Hearing) (statement of Sen. Malcolm Wallop).
A number of States joined in an effort to avoid these jurisdictional conflicts by adopting the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 9 U. L. A. §§ 1-28 (1979). The UCCJA prescribed uniform standards for deciding which State could make a custody determination and obligated enacting States to enforce the determination made by the State with proper jurisdiction. The project foundered, however, because a number of States refused to enact the UCCJA while others enacted it with modifications. In the absence of uniform national standards for allocating and enforcing custody determinations, noncustodial parents still had reason to snatch their children and petition the courts of any of a number of haven States for sole custody.
The context of the PKPA therefore suggests that the principal problem Congress was seeking to remedy was the inapplicability of full faith and credit requirements to custody determinations. Statements made when the Act was introduced in Congress forcefully confirm that suggestion. The sponsors and supporters of the Act continually indicated that the purpose of the PKPA was to provide for nationwide enforcement of custody orders made in accordance with the terms of the UCCJA. As Acting Deputy Attorney General Michel testified:
“[CJurrent law in many States encourages a parent who does not have custody to snatch the child from the parent who does and take the child to another State to relitigate the custody issue in a new forum. This kind of ‘forum shopping’ is possible because child custody orders are subject to modification to conform with changes in circumstances. Consequently, a court deciding a custody case is not, as a Federal constitutional requirement of the full faith and credit clause, bound by a decree by a court of another State even where the action involves the same parties.
“In essence [the PKPA] would impose on States a Federal duty, under enumerated standards derived from the UCCJA, to give full faith and credit to the custody decrees of other States. Such legislation would, in effect, amount to Federal adoption of key provisions of the UCCJA for all States and would eliminate the incentive for one parent to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction.” PKPA Joint Hearing 48.
The significance of Congress’ full faith and credit approach to the problem of child snatching is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause, in either its constitutional or statutory incarnations, does not give rise to an implied federal cause of action. Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 72 (1904); see 13B C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3563, p. 50 (1984). Rather, the Clause “only prescribes a rule by which courts, Federal and state, are to be guided when a question arises in the progress of a pending suit as to the faith and credit to be given by the court to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of a State other than that in which the court is sitting.” Northern Securities, supra, at 72. Because Congress’ chief aim in enacting the PKPA was to extend the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to custody determinations, the Act is most naturally construed to furnish a rule of decision for courts to use in adjudicating custody disputes and not to create an entirely new cause of action. It thus is not compatible with the purpose and context of the legislative scheme to infer a private cause of action. See Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S., at 78.
The language and placement of the statute reinforce this conclusion. The PKPA, 28 U. S. C. § 1738A, is an addendum to the full faith and credit statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1738. This fact alone is strong proof that the Act is intended to have the same operative effect as the full faith and credit statute. Similarly instructive is the heading to the PKPA: “Full faith and credit given to child custody determinations.” As for the language of the Act, it is addressed entirely to States and state courts. Unlike statutes that explicitly confer a right on a specified class of persons, the PKPA is a mandate directed to state courts to respect the custody decrees of sister States. See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S., at 690, n. 13; Cort v. Ash, supra, at 81-82. We agree with the Court of Appeals that “[i]t seems highly unlikely Congress would follow the pattern of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and section 1738 by structuring section 1738A as a command to state courts to give full faith and credit to the child custody decrees of other states, and yet, without comment, depart from the enforcement practice followed under the Clause and section 1738.” 798 F. 2d, at 1556.
Finally, the legislative history of the PKPA provides unusually clear indication that Congress did not intend the federal courts to play the enforcement role that petitioner urges. Two passages are particularly revealing. The first of these is a colloquy between Congressmen Conyers and Fish. Congressman Fish had been the sponsor of a competing legislative proposal — ultimately rejected by Congress — that would have extended the district courts’ diversity jurisdiction to encompass actions for enforcement of state custody orders. In the following exchange, Congressman Conyers questioned Congressman Fish about the differences between his proposal and “the Bennett proposal,” which was a precursor to the PKPA.
“Mr. Conyers: Could I just interject, the difference between the Bennett proposal and yours: You would have, enforcing the full faith and credit provision, the parties removed to a Federal court. Under the Bennett provision, his bill would impose the full faith and credit enforcement on the State court.
“It seems to me that that is a very important difference. The Federal jurisdiction, could it not, Mr. Fish, result in the Federal court litigating between two State court decrees; whereas, in an alternate method previously suggested, we would be imposing the responsibility of the enforcement upon the State court, and thereby reducing, it seems to me, the amount of litigation.
“Do you see any possible merit in leaving the enforcement at the State level, rather than introducing the Federal judiciary?
“Mr. Fish: Well, I really think that it is easier on the parent that has custody of the child to go to the nearest Federal district court....
“Mr. Conyers: Of course you know that the Federal courts have no experience in these kinds of matters, and they would be moving into this other area. I am just thinking of the fact that they have [many areas of federal concern and] on the average of a 21-month docket, you would now be imposing custody matters which it seems might be handled in the courts that normally handle that. . . Parental Kidnaping: Hearing on H. R. 1290 before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1980).
This exchange suggests that Congress considered and rejected an approach to the problem that would have resulted in a “Federal court litigating between two State court decrees.” Ibid.
The second noteworthy entry in the legislative history is a letter from then Assistant Attorney General Patricia Wald to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which was referred to extensively during the debate on the PKPA. The letter outlined a variety of solutions to the child-snatching problem. It specifically compared proposals that would “grant jurisdiction to the federal courts to enforce state custody decrees” with an approach, such as was proposed in the PKPA, that would “impose on states a federal duty, under enumerated standards derived generally from the UCCJA, to give full faith and credit to the custody decrees of other states.” Addendum to Joint Hearing 103. The letter endorsed the full faith and credit approach that eventually was codified in the PKPA. More importantly, it “strongly oppose[d]. . . the creation of a federal forum for resolving custody disputes.” Id., at 108. Like Congressman Conyers, the Justice Department reasoned that federal enforcement of state custody decrees would increase the workload of the federal courts and entangle the federal judiciary in domestic relations disputes with which they have little experience and which traditionally have been the province of the States. That the views of the Justice Department and Congressman Conyers prevailed, and that Congress explicitly opted for a full faith and credit approach over reliance on enforcement by the federal courts, provide strong evidence against inferring a federal cause of action. Cf. Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S., at 82 (congressional determination not to create a private cause of action is dispositive).
Petitioner discounts these portions of the legislative history. He argues that the cause of action that he asks us to infer arises only in cases of an actual conflict between two state custody decrees, and thus is substantially narrower than the cause of action proposed by Congressman Fish and rejected by Congress. The Fish bill would have extended federal diversity jurisdiction to permit federal courts to enforce custody orders in the first instance, before a second State had created a conflict by refusing to do so. This cause of action admittedly is farther reaching than that which we reject today. But the considerations that prompted Congress to reject the Fish bill also militate against the more circumscribed role for the federal courts that petitioner proposes. See Rogers v. Platt, 259 U. S. App. D. C. 154, 164, 814 F. 2d 683, 693 (1987). Instructing the federal courts to play Solomon where two state courts have issued conflicting custody orders would entangle them in traditional state-law questions that they have little expertise to resolve. This is a cost that Congress made clear it did not want the PKPA to carry.
In sum, the context, language, and history of the PKPA together make out a conclusive case against inferring a cause of action in federal court to determine which of two conflicting state custody decrees is valid. Against this impressive evidence, petitioner relies primarily on the argument that failure to infer a cause of action would render the PKPA nugatory. We note, as a preliminary response, that ultimate review remains available in this Court for truly intractable jurisdictional deadlocks. In addition, the unspoken presumption in petitioner’s argument is that the States are either unable or unwilling to enforce the provisions of the Act. This is a presumption we are not prepared, and more importantly, Congress was not prepared, to indulge. State courts faithfully administer the Full Faith and Credit Clause every day; now that Congress has extended full faith and credit requirements to child custody orders, we can think of no reason why the courts’ administration of federal law in custody disputes will be any less vigilant. Should state courts prove as obstinate as petitioner predicts, Congress may choose to revisit the issue. But any more radical approach to the problem will have to await further legislative action; we “will not engraft a remedy on a statute, no matter how salutary, that Congress did not intend to provide.” California v. Sierra Club, 451 U. S. 287, 297 (1981). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section 1738A reads in relevant part:
“(a) The appropriate authorities of every State shall enforce according to its terms, and shall not modify except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, any child custody determination made consistently with the provisions of this section by a court of another State.
“(c) A child custody determination made by a court of a State is consistent with the of this section only if—
“(1) such court has jurisdiction under the law of such state; and
“(2) one of the following conditions is met:
“(A) such State (i) is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child’s home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State;
“(B)(i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subparagraph (A), and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of such State assume jurisdiction because (I) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with such State other than mere physical presence in such State, and (II) there is available in such State substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships;
“(C) the child is physically present in such State and (i) the child has been abandoned, or (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse;
“(D)(i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (E), or another State has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the State whose jurisdiction is in issue is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child, and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that such court assume jurisdiction; or
“(E) the court has continuing jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
“(d) The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a child custody determination consistently with the provisions of this section continues as long as the requirement of subsection (c)(1) of this section continues to be met and such State remains the residence of the child or of any contestant.
“(f) A court of a State may modify a determination of the custody of the same child made by a court of another State, if—
“(1) it has jurisdiction to make such a child custody determination; and
“(2) the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction, or it has declined to exercise such jurisdiction to modify such determination.
“(g) A court of a State shall not exercise jurisdiction in any proceeding for a custody determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another State where such court of that other State is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section to make a custody determination.”
The sole exception to this constraint occurs where the first State either has lost jurisdiction or has declined to exercise continuing jurisdiction. See § 1738A(f).
Mr. Michel’s remarks are echoed in numerous other portions of the legislative history. See, e. g., PKPA Joint Hearing 40-41 (statement of Sen. Durenberger); id., at 12 (statement of Sen. Wallop); PKPA: Addendum to Joint Hearing on S. 105 before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Child and Human Development of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., 104-105 (1980) (hereinafter Addendum to Joint Hearing) (letter from Assistant Attorney General Patricia Wald to Rep. Peter Rodino).
Petitioner argues that determining which of two conflicting custody decrees should be given effect under the PKPA would not require the federal courts to resolve the merits of custody disputes and thus would not offend the longstanding tradition of reserving domestic relations matters to the States. Petitioner contends that the cause of action he champions would require federal courts only to analyze which of two States is given exclusive jurisdiction under a federal statute, a task for which the federal courts are well qualified. We cannot agree with petitioner that making a jurisdictional determination under the PKPA would not involve the federal courts in substantive domestic relations determinations. Under the Act, jurisdiction can turn on the child’s “best interest” or on proof that the child has been abandoned or abused. See §§ 1738A (c)(2)(B), (C), and (D). In fact, it would seem that the jurisdictional disputes that are sufficiently complicated as to have provoked conflicting state-court holdings are the most likely to require resolution of these traditional domestic relations inquiries. See Rogers v. Platt, 259 U. S. App. D. C. 154, 162, 814 F. 2d 683, 691 (1987). Cf. Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 84 (1975) (possibility that implied federal cause of action may in certain instances turn on state-law issues counsels against inferring such an action.)
Moreover, petitioner’s argument serves to underscore the extraordinary nature of the cause of action he urges us to infer. Petitioner essentially asks that federal district courts exercise appellate review of state-court judgments. This is an unusual cause of action for Congress to grant, either expressly or by implication. Petitioner’s proposal is all the more remarkable in the present case, in which he seeks to have a Federal District Court in California enjoin enforcement of a Louisiana state-court judgment before the intermediate and highest appellate courts of Louisiana even have had an opportunity to review that 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. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a capital case, petitioner having been sentenced to death on a count of an indictment charging breaking and entering a dwelling at night with intent to ravish. Petitioner appealed, claiming he had been denied counsel at the time of arraignment. The Alabama Supreme Court, although stating that the right to counsel under the State and Federal Constitutions included the right to counsel at the time of arraignment, did not reach the merits of the claim because to do so would require impeaching the minute entries at the trial, which may not be done in Alabama on an appeal. 270 Ala. 184, 116 So. 2d 906. When petitioner sought certiorari here, Alabama responded saying that his remedy to attack the judgment with extrinsic evidence was by way of coram nobis. We denied certiorari. 363 U. S. 852.
Petitioner thereupon proceeded by way of coram nobis in the Alabama courts. The Supreme Court of Alabama, while recognizing that petitioner had a right under state law, 15 Ala. Code § 318, to be represented by counsel at the time of his arraignment, denied relief because there was no showing or effort to show that petitioner was “disadvantaged in any way by the absence of counsel when he interposed his plea of not guilty.” 271 Ala. 88, 93, 122 So. 2d 602, 607. The case is here on certiorari. 364 U. S. 931.
Arraignment under Alabama law is a critical stage in a criminal proceeding. It is then that the defense of insanity must be pleaded (15 Ala. Code § 423), or the opportunity is lost. Morrell v. State, 136 Ala. 44, 34 So. 208. Thereafter that plea may not be made except in the discretion of the trial judge, and his refusal to accept it is “not revisable” on appeal. Rohn v. State, 186 Ala. 5, 8, 65 So. 42, 43. Cf. Garrett v. State, 248 Ala. 612, 614-615, 29 So. 2d 8, 9. Pleas in abatement must also be made at the time of arraignment. 15 Ala. Code § 279. It is then that motions to quash based on systematic exclusion of one race from grand juries (Reeves v. State, 264 Ala. 476, 88 So. 2d 561), or on the ground that the grand jury was otherwise improperly drawn (Whitehead v. State, 206 Ala. 288, 90 So. 351), must be made.
Whatever may be the function and importance of arraignment in other jurisdictions, we have said enough to show that in Alabama it is a critical stage in a criminal proceeding. What happens there may affect the whole trial. Available defenses may be as irretrievably lost, if not then and there asserted, as they are when an accused represented by counsel waives a right for strategic purposes. Cf,. Canisio v. New York, 327 U. S. 82, 85-86. In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 69, the Court said that an accused in a capital case “requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.” The guiding hand of counsel is needed at the trial “lest the unwary concede that which only bewilderment or ignorance could justify or pay a penalty which is greater than the law of the State exacts for the offense which they in fact and in law committed.” Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U. S. 485, 489. But the same pitfalls or like ones face an accused in Alabama who is arraigned without having counsel at his side. When one pleads to a capital charge without benefit of counsel, we do not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted. Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U. S. 471, 475-476; House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42, 45-46; Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437, 442. In this case, as in those, the degree of prejudice can never be known. Only the presence of counsel could have enabled this accused to know all the defenses available to him and to plead intelligently.
Reversed.
Another count charged breaking and entering with intent to steal.
The minute entries indicated that petitioner had counsel at the arraignment.
Petitioner was first indicted for burglary and when arraigned had counsel present. Later, the present indictment, relating to the same incident, was returned. His counsel, who had been appointed, was advised that petitioner would be re-arraigned. But no lawyer appeared at this arraignment and we read the Alabama Supreme Court opinion to mean that the earlier appointment did not carry over.
Arraignment has differing consequences in the various jurisdictions. Under federal law an arraignment is a sine qua non to the trial itself — the preliminary stage where the accused is informed of the indictment and pleads to it, thereby formulating the issue to be tried. Crain v. United States, 162 U. S. 625, 644; Rules 10 and 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That view has led some States to hold that arraignment is the first step in a trial (at least in case of felonies) at which the accused is entitled to an attorney. People v. Kurant, 331 Ill. 470, 163 N. E. 411.
In other States arraignment is not “a part of the trial” but “a mere formal preliminary step to an answer or plea.” Ex parte Jeffcoat, 109 Fla. 207, 210, 146 So. 827, 828.
An arraignment normally, however, affords an opportunity of the accused to plead, as a condition precedent to a trial. Fowler v. State, 155 Tex. Cr. R. 35, 230 S. W. 2d 810. N. J. Rules of Practice, Rule 8:4-2.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We do not revisit our abortion precedents today, but rather address a question of remedy: If enforcing a statute that regulates access to abortion would be unconstitutional in medical emergencies, what is the appropriate judicial response? We hold that invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief.
I
A
In 2003, New Hampshire enacted the Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act. N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 132:24-132:28 (2005). The Act prohibits physicians from performing an abortion on a pregnant minor (or a woman for whom a guardian or conservator has been appointed) until 48 hours after written notice of the pending abortion is delivered to her parent or guardian. § 132:25(1). Notice may be delivered personally or by certified mail. §§ 132:25(11), (III). Violations of the Act are subject to criminal and civil penalties. § 132:27.
The Act allows for three circumstances in which a physician may perform an abortion without notifying the minor’s parent. First, notice is not required if “[t]he attending abortion provider certifies in the pregnant minor’s record that the abortion is necessary to prevent the minor’s death and there is insufficient time to provide the required notice/’ § 132:26(I)(a). Second, a person entitled to receive notice may -certify that he or she has already been notified. § 132:26(I)(b). Finally, a minor may petition a judge to authorize her physician to perform an abortion without parental notification. The judge must so authorize if he or she finds that the minor is mature and capable of giving informed consent, or that an abortion without notification is in the minor’s best interests. §132:26(11). These judicial bypass proceedings “shall be confidential and shall be given precedence over other pending matters so that the court may reach a decision promptly and without delay,” and access to the courts “shall be afforded [to the] pregnant minor 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.” §§ 132:26(II)(b), (c). The trial and appellate courts must each rule on bypass petitions within seven days. Ibid.
The Act does not explicitly permit a physician to perform an abortion in a medical emergency without parental notification.
B
Respondents are Dr. Wayne Goldner, an obstetrician and gynecologist who has a private practice in Manchester, and three clinics that offer reproductive health services. All provide abortions for pregnant minors, and each anticipates having to provide emergency abortions for minors in the future. Before the Act took effect, respondents brought suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that the Act is unconstitutional because it fails “to allow a physician to provide a prompt abortion to a minor whose health would be endangered” by delays inherent in the Act. App. 10 (Complaint, ¶ 24). Respondents also challenged the adequacy of the Act’s life exception and of the judicial bypass’ confidentiality provision.
The District Court declared the Act unconstitutional, see 28 U. S. C. § 2201(a), and permanently enjoined its enforcement. It held, first, that the Act was invalid for failure “on its face [to] comply with the constitutional requirement that laws restricting a woman’s access to abortion must provide a health exception.” Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng. v. Heed, 296 F. Supp. 2d 59, 65 (NH 2003). It also found that the Act’s judicial bypass would not operate expeditiously enough in medical emergencies. In the alternative, the District Court held the Act’s life exception unconstitutional because it requires physicians to certify with impossible precision that an abortion is “necessary” to avoid death, and fails to protect their good faith medical judgment.
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. Citing our decisions in Stenberg v. Carkart, 530 U. S. 914, 929-930 (2000), Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 879 (1992) (plurality opinion), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 164-165 (1973), it observed: “Complementing the general undue burden standard [for reviewing abortion regulations], the Supreme Court has also identified a specific and independent constitutional requirement that an abortion regulation must contain an exception for the preservation of the pregnant woman’s health.” Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng. v. Heed, 390 F. 3d 53, 58 (2004). It went on to conclude that the Act is unconstitutional because it does not contain an explicit health exception, and its judicial bypass, along with other provisions of state law, is no substitute. The Court of Appeals further found the Act unconstitutional because, in its view, the life exception forces physicians to gamble with their patients’ lives by prohibiting them from performing an abortion without notification until they are certain that death is imminent, and is intolerably vague. Because the district and appellate courts permanently enjoined the Act’s enforcement on the basis of the above infirmities, neither reached respondents’ objection to the judicial bypass’ confidentiality provision.
We granted certiorari, 544 U. S. 1048 (2005), to decide whether the courts below erred in invalidating the Act in its entirety because it lacks an exception for the preservation of pregnant minors’ health. We now vacate and remand for the Court of Appeals to reconsider its choice of remedy.
M H-1
As the case comes to us, three propositions — two legal and one factual — are established. First, States unquestionably have the right to require parental involvement when a minor considers terminating her pregnancy, because of their “strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of [their] young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely.” Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U. S. 417, 444-445 (1990) (opinion of Stevens, J.). Accordingly, we have long upheld state parental involvement statutes like the Act before us, and we cast no doubt on those holdings today. See, e. g., Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U. S. 292 (1997) (per curiam); Casey, supra, at 899 (joint opinion); Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U. S. 502, 510-519 (1990); Hodgson, 497 U. S., at 461 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment in part); id., at 497-501 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
.Second, New Hampshire does not dispute, and our precedents hold, that a State may not restrict access to abortions that are “'necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.’ ” Casey, 505 U. S., at 879 (plurality opinion) (quoting Roe, 410 U. S., at 164-165); see also Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U. S. 747, 768-769 (1986); Planned Parenthood Assn. of Kansas City, Mo., Inc. v. Ashcroft, 462 U. S. 476, 482-486 (1983) (opinion of Powell, J.); Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 79 (1976).
Third, New Hampshire has not taken real issue with the factual basis of this litigation: In some very small percentage of cases, pregnant minors, like adult women, need immediate abortions to avert serious and often irreversible damage to their health. See 296 F. Supp. 2d, at 65, n. 4.
New Hampshire has maintained that in most if not all cases, the Act’s judicial bypass and the State’s “competing harms” statutes should protect both physician and patient when a minor needs an immediate abortion. See N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §627:3(1) (1996) (for criminal liability, “[cjonduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm to ... another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged”); §627:1 (similar for civil liability). But the District Court and Court of Appeals found neither of these provisions to protect minors’ health reliably in all emergencies. 296 F. Supp. 2d, at 65-66; 390 F. 3d, at 61-62. And New Hampshire has conceded that, under our cases, it would be unconstitutional to apply the Act in a manner that subjects minors to significant health risks. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 2, 8, 11; Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, 14.
III
We turn to the question of remedy: When a statute restricting access to abortion may be applied in a manner that harms women’s health, what is the appropriate relief? Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem. We prefer, for example, to enjoin only the unconstitutional applications of a statute while leaving other applications in force, see United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 20-22 (1960), or to sever its problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact, United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 227-229 (2005).
Three interrelated principles inform our approach to remedies. First, 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.” Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U. S. 641, 652 (1984) (plurality opinion). It is axiomatic that a “statute may be invalid as applied to one state of facts and yet valid as applied to another.” Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282, 289 (1921). Accordingly, the “normal rule” is that “partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the required course,” such that a “statute may ... be declared invalid to the extent that it reaches too far, but otherwise left intact.” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U. S. 491, 504 (1985); see also Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985); United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 180-183 (1983).
Second, mindful that our constitutional mandate and institutional competence are limited, we restrain ourselves from “rewriting] state law to conform it to constitutional requirements” even as we strive to salvage it. Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., 484 U. S. 383, 397 (1988). Our ability to devise a judicial remedy that does not entail quintessentially legislative work often depends on how clearly we have already articulated the background constitutional rules at issue and how easily we can articulate the remedy. In United States v. Grace, supra, at 180-183, for example, we crafted a narrow remedy much like the one we contemplate today, striking down a statute banning expressive displays only as it applied to public sidewalks near the Supreme Court but not as it applied to the Supreme Court Building itself. We later explained that the remedy in Grace was a “relatively simple matter” because we had previously distinguished between sidewalks and buildings in our First Amendment jurisprudence. United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U. S. 454, 479, n. 26 (1995). But making distinctions in a murky constitutional context, or where line-drawing is inherently complex, may call for a “far more serious invasion of the legislative domain” than we ought to undertake. Ibid.
Third, the touchstone for any decision about remedy is legislative intent, for a court cannot “use its remedial powers to circumvent the intent of the legislature.” Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76, 94 (1979) (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286, 289-290 (1924) (opinion for the Court by Brandéis, J.). After finding an application or portion of a statute unconstitutional, we must next ask: Would the legislature have preferred what is left of its statute to no statute at all? See generally Booker, supra, at 227; Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U. S. 172, 191 (1999); Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U. S. 678, 684 (1987); Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Okla., 286 U. S. 210, 234. (1932); The Employers’ Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, 501 (1908); Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 80, 83-84 (1881); Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 97-98 (1879). All the while, we are wary of legislatures who would rely on our intervention, for “[i]t 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” to announce to whom the statute may be applied. United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 221 (1876). “This would, to some extent, substitute the judicial for the legislative department of the government.” Ibid.
In this case, the courts below chose the most blunt remedy — permanently enjoining the enforcement of New Hampshire’s parental notification law and thereby invalidating it entirely. That is understandable, for we, too, have previously invalidated an abortion statute in its entirety because of the same constitutional flaw. In Stenberg, we addressed a Nebraska law banning so-called “partial birth abortion” unless the procedure was necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life. We held Nebraska’s law unconstitutional because it lacked a health exception. 530 U. S., at 930 (lack of a health exception was an “independent reaso[n]” for finding the ban unconstitutional). But the parties in Stenberg did not ask for, and we did not contemplate, relief more finely drawn.
In the case that is before us, however, we agree with New Hampshire that the lower courts need not have invalidated the law wholesale. Respondents, too, recognize the possibility of a modest remedy: They pleaded for any relief “just and proper,” App. 13 (Complaint), and conceded at oral argument that carefully crafted injunctive relief may resolve this case, Tr. of Oral Arg. 38, 40. Only a few applications of New Hampshire’s parental notification statute would present a constitutional problem. So long as they are faithful to legislative intent, then, in this case the lower courts can issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute’s unconstitutional application.
There is some dispute as to whether New Hampshire’s legislature intended the statute to be susceptible to such a remedy. . New Hampshire notes that the Act contains a severability clause providing that “[i]f any provision of this subdivision or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions or applications of this subdivision which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applications.” § 132:28. Respondents, on the other hand, contend that New Hampshire legislators preferred no statute at all to a statute enjoined in the way we have described. Because this is an open question, we remand for the lower courts to determine legislative intent in the first instance.
> t — i
Either an injunction prohibiting unconstitutional applications or a holding that consistency with legislative intent requires invalidating the statute in toto should obviate any concern about the Act’s life exception. We therefore need not pass on the lower courts’ alternative holding. Finally, if the Act does survive in part on remand, the Court of Appeals should address respondents’ separate objection to the judicial bypass’ confidentiality provision. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Forty-four States, including New Hampshire, have parental involvement (that is, consent or notification) laws. Thirty-eight of those laws have explicit exceptions for health or medical emergencies. Ala Code §26-21-5 (1992); Alaska Stat. § 18.16.060 (2004); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §36-2152(G)(2) (West 2003); Ark. Code Ann. §§20-16-802(2), 20-16-805(1) (2005 Supp.); Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 123450 (West 1996); Colo. Rev. Stat. §12-37.5-103(5) (2004); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 24, §§ 1782(d), 1787 (1997); Fla Stat. Ann. §§390.01114(2)(d), (3)(b) (West Supp. 2006); Ga Code Ann. §15-11-116 (2005); Idaho Code § 18-609A(1)(a)(v) (Lexis Cum. Supp. 2005); Ill. Comp. Stat., eh. 750, §70/10 (West 2004); Ind. Code § 16-34-2-4 (West 2004); Iowa Code §135L.3 (2005); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-6705(j)(1)(B) (2002); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§311.720, 311.732 (West Supp. 2005); La. Stat. Ann. §40:1299.35.12 (West Supp. 2005); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 112, §12S (West 2004); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 722.902(b), 722.905 (West 2002); Miss. Code Ann. §41-41-57 (2005); Mont. Code Ann. §§50-20-203(5), 50-20-208 (2005); Neb. Rev. Stat. §71-6906(1) (2003); Nev. Rev. Stat. §442.255(1) (2003); N. J. Stat. Ann. §§9:17A-1.3, 9:17A-1.6 (West 2002); N. M. Stat. Ann. §30-5-1 (2004); N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §90-21.9 (Lexis 2003); N. D. Cent. Code Ann. §§14-02.1-03(1), 14-02.1-03.1(2) (Lexis 2004); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2919.121(D) (Lexis 2003); Okla. Stat., Tit. 63, §1-740.2(B) (West Cum. Supp. 2006); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§3203, 3206 (2002); R. I. Gen. Laws §23-4.7-4 (1996); S. C. Code Ann. §44-41-30(0(1) (2002); 2005 S. D. Laws p. 189; Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-10-305 (2005); Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 164.052(a)(19) (West Cum. Supp. 2005), Tex. S. B. 419, § 1.42(a)(19) (2005) (enrolled); Utah Code Ann. §§76-7-301(2), 76-7-305 (Lexis Supp. 2005); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76 (2004); W. Va. Code § 16-2F-5 (Lexis 2001); Wis. Stat. §48.375 (2003-2004). Two States give physicians sufficient discretion to perform an abortion to protect minors’ health. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 22, §1597-A (2004); Md. Health Code Ann. §20-103 (2005). Four, including New Hampshire, make no exception for minors’ health in an emergency. N. H. Stat. § 132:26 (2005); Minn. Stat. § 144.343 (2004); Mo. Rev. Stat. §188.028 (2000); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §35-6-118 (2003).
It is the sad reality, however, that young women sometimes lack a loving and supportive parent capable of aiding them “to exercise their rights wisely.” Hodgson, 497 U. S., at 444 (opinion of Stevens, J.); see id., at 450-451, and n. 36 (opinion of the Court) (holding unconstitutional a statute requiring notification of both parents, and observing that “the most common reason” young women did not notify a second parent was that the second parent “was a child- or spouse-batterer, and notification would have provoked further abuse” (citation omitted)).- See also Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Child Maltreatment 2003, p. 63 (2005) (parents were the perpetrators in 79.7% of cases of reported abuse or neglect).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Review was granted by this Court to determine whether the Attorney General was justified in refusing to suspend deportation of an alien under § 19 (c), as amended, 62 Stat. 1206, of the Immigration Act of 1917, 39 Stat. 874, 889, 8 U. S. C. §§ 101, 155 (c), on the sole ground that the alien was ineligible for naturalization. The alien’s eligibility for naturalization, the substantive question in this case, depends upon whether the alien was “residing” in the United States and therefore liable for military service under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, when he made application to be relieved from the liability. Section 3 (a) of that Act as amended, the applicable section, provides that “any person who makes such application shall thereafter be debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States.”
The grant of certiorari also covered a procedural question: whether the Attorney General’s refusal on the ground stated to grant suspension of deportation was subject to judicial review otherwise than by habeas corpus.
The allegations of the alien’s complaint have not been controverted. Kristensen, a Danish citizen, entered the United States on August 17, 1939, as a temporary visitor for sixty days, to attend the New York World’s Fair and visit relatives. The outbreak of World War II prevented his return to Denmark. Successive extensions of stay were applied for and granted, but eventually economic necessity compelled Kristensen to become employed and thereby violate his visitor’s status. The process of deportation on the ground of violation of his visitor’s status was begun in May 1940, stayed for the duration of World War II, and reopened in 1946. A warrant of deportation was issued in 1941 but was withdrawn on June 10, 1946, to permit the alien to submit an application for suspension of deportation under § 19 (c) of the Immigration Act, supra, which allows such suspension when deportation would result in serious economic detriment to the United States citizen wife of an alien. This relief was refused on the sole ground of Kristensen’s asserted ineligibility for citizenship resulting from his having filed with his Selective Service Board on March 30, 1942, after registration, an application for relief from service under § 3 (a) of the Selective Training and Service Act, supra. Eligibility is a statutory prerequisite to the Attorney General’s exercise of his discretion to suspend deportation in this case.
Respondent, not then nor thereafter in custody, sought a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General and other immigration and naturalization officials must, in passing upon his application for suspension of deportation, decide on the basis that he is eligible for naturalization in the United States. He also sought to enjoin the Attorney General and other officials from exercising their authority under § 19 (c) of the Immigration Act on the assumption of respondent’s ineligibility.
The District Court dismissed the complaint without opinion, apparently for failure to state a ground for relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed on the ground that, under the facts alleged, Kristensen could not have been subject to the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 at the time he made his claim for exemption, and therefore the claim was without effect and did not render him ineligible for naturalization. 86 U. S. App. D. C. 48, 179 F. 2d 796. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, applied only to aliens “residing in the United States” and “absent any showing of acts or declarations indicating an intention to remain at the time the form was filed, the immigration authorities erroneously construed 'residing in the United States’ when they held it applicable to an alien in this country under a temporary visitor’s visa whose deportation had been ordered and then stayed because of war.”
We granted certiorari because of the importance of the question in the administration of the immigration and naturalization laws. The principle of the decision below is in conflict with that applied in Benzian v. Godwin, 168 F. 2d 952. An important procedural question also exists in view of the Government’s insistence that habeas corpus is the only available judicial remedy for aliens in deportation proceedings. Before we consider these questions, however, we turn to a jurisdictional problem.
Federal Jurisdiction. — The Government properly presents for our consideration an issue of federal jurisdiction not heretofore raised. The quaere is whether this proceeding involves a justiciable question under Article III of the Constitution. It is said the Attorney General’s suspension of deportation is merely a recommendation to Congress, and that federal courts cannot intervene because at this point a court order does not finally control the deportation of the alien. This argument is founded on § 19 (c) of the Immigration Act which provides that, if deportation is suspended longer than six months, a detailed report must be made to Congress, and, if Congress fails to approve the suspension before the termination of the session next following the session in which the case is reported, the Attorney General must thereupon proceed with the deportation.
While such a jurisdictional point may be raised at any time, we do not think there is basis for the objection here. The statute gives the Attorney General the power to suspend deportation for a minimum of six months and until Congress acts or the time for action elapses. The Attorney General’s power is final for such deferment of deportation. That other forces may come into play later with authority to take other steps does not detract from that finality. The United States relies particularly on Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103. The congressional power here is quite distinct from the Presidential power concerning overseas licensing in the Chicago & Southern case. The license in question there was ineffective until the President acted. The delay here is effective despite subsequent congressional action. This litigation, whatever its ultimate effect, is aimed only at the delay. The judgment sought in this proceeding would be binding and conclusive on the parties if entered and the question is justiciable.
Declaratory Judgment. — The United States does not challenge finality for purpose of review. However, the Government does contend that the Immigration Act provision, § 19 (a), making the Attorney General’s decision on deportation “final” precludes judicial review except by habeas corpus of his refusal to grant suspension of deportation. The procedural question as thus narrowed is whether an administrative decision against a requested suspension of deportation under § 19 (c) of the Immigration Act can be challenged by an alien free from custody through a declaratory judgment or whether, to secure redress, he must await the traditional remedy of habeas corpus after his arrest for deportation.
The Immigration Act of 1917, 39 Stat. 889, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 165 (a), authorized the deportation of any alien found in the United States in violation of the immigration laws, and always provided that administrative decision as to deportation “shall be final.” The end of that administrative proceeding creates a situation which is subject to test on constitutional grounds through habeas corpus by one in custody. We do not find it necessary to consider the applicability of § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 243, to this proceeding. Where an official’s authority to act depends upon the status of the person affected, in this case eligibility for citizenship, that status, when in dispute, may be determined by a declaratory judgment proceeding after the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Under § 19 (c) of the Immigration Act the exercise of the Attorney General’s appropriate discretion in suspending deportation is prohibited in the case of aliens ineligible for citizenship. The alien is determined to have a proscribed status by this administrative ruling of ineligibility. Since the administrative determination is final, the alien can remove the bar to consideration of suspension only by a judicial determination of his eligibility for citizenship. This is an actual controversy between the alien and immigration officials over the legal right of the alien to be considered for suspension. As such a controversy over federal laws, it is within the jurisdiction of federal courts, 28 U. S. C. § 1331, and the terms of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201.
It was so held in Perkins v. Big, 307 U. S. 325, where a declaratory judgment action was brought against the Secretary of Labor, then the executive official in charge of deportation of aliens, the Secretary of State, and the Commissioner of Immigration, to settle citizenship status. The Department of Labor had notified Miss Elg, who was not in custody, that she was not a citizen and was illegally remaining in the United States, and the Department of State had refused her a passport “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The District Court sustained a motion to dismiss the proceeding against the Secretary of State because his function as to passports was discretionary, but declared against the contention of the Secretary of Labor and held that Miss Elg had not lost her American citizenship. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed both the dismissal of the Secretary of State from the proceeding and the holding that Miss Elg was a citizen, and also determined that the case was properly brought within the Declaratory Judgment Act. Perkins v. Elg, 69 App. D. C. 175, 99 F. 2d 408. The United States raised no question on its petition for certiorari as to the propriety of the declaratory judgment action. Miss Elg, however, obtained certiorari from the dismissal of the proceeding against the Secretary of State, and the United States defended the judgment of dismissal on the ground that the Declaratory Judgment Act did not add to federal court jurisdiction but merely gave an additional remedy. In the Government’s brief it was said judicial jurisdiction would be expanded without warrant “by permitting the court to substitute its discretion for that of the executive departments in a matter belonging to the proper jurisdiction of the latter.” We rejected that contention and reversed the Court of Appeals on this point, saying,
“The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg To be a natural born citizen of the United States,’ and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.” 307 U. S. 349-350.
So here a determination that Kristensen is not barred from citizenship by § 3 (a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 only declares that he has such status as entitles him to consideration under § 19 (c) of the Immigration Act. We think that the present proceeding is proper.
Eligibility for Naturalization. — Under § 3 (a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, Kristensen was liable for service if “residing” in the United States within the meaning of the Act. Section 3 (a) also provided that if he applied “to be relieved from such liability” as a subject of a neutral country he would be excused from service but would thereafter be debarred from our citizenship.
If Kristensen was not “residing” at the time of his application for relief, he could not then have had “such liability” for service. If there was no “liability” for service, the disqualification for citizenship under the penalty clause could not arise because the applicant had not made the “application” referred to in the statute as “such application.” “Such application” refers to an application to be relieved from “such liability.” As there was no “liability” for service, his act in applying for relief from a nonexistent duty could not create the bar against naturalization. By the terms of the statute, that bar only comes into existence when an alien resident liable for service asks to be relieved.
The question, then, is whether Kristensen was “residing,” within the meaning of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 and regulations issued thereunder, at the time of his application, March 30, 1942. As we conclude that he was not a resident under the Act at the time of his application for relief from military service, we do not decide whether Denmark was a neutral country. Nor need we determine whether the bar against citizenship has been removed by the termination of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940.
The phrase of § 3 (a), “every other male person residing in the United States,” when used as it is, in juxtaposition with “every male citizen,” falls short of saying that every person in the United States is subject to military service. But the Act did not define who was a “male person residing in the United States,” liable for training and service after December 20,1941. 55 Stat. 845. Such preeisiveness was left for administrative regulation. Section 10 (a) and (b), 54 Stat. 893, 894, authorized the President to prescribe rules and regulations for the Act with power of delegation. The President prescribed the first regulations on September 23, 1940, and authorized the Director to prescribe amendments. Exec. Order 8545, 3 CFR, 1943 Cum. Supp., 719, 722. Amendments promulgating the regulations here applicable were issued, effective February 7,1942, 7 Fed. Reg. 855. They are set out below. Under these regulations it would seem that Kristensen, who never declared an intention to become a citizen of the United States and who entered the United States in August 1939, was not classified as a resident neutral alien until May 16, 1942. Otherwise, there would have been no occasion for § 611.13 (b), which declares the male alien who remains in the United States after May 16, 1942, to be a resident. Until that date he was in the same category as the newly arrived nondeclarant alien who, under the regulations and the Act, did not become a resident for three months. The application for relief from service was made on March 30, 1942.
The regulations, quoted above, either made an alien in Kristensen’s situation a nonresident of the United States for the purpose of the Selective Training and Service Act, between February 7 and May 17, 1942, or they were nondeterminative of status in that period. In the absence of a determinative regulation, the meaning of the word “residing” in § 3 (a) requires examination. The meaning of that word, of course, depends upon the meaning of “residence.” “Residence” sometimes equals domicile, as in voting. Again, as in taxation, one who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a “resident.” § 29.211-2, Income Tax Regulations. The definition varies with the statute. Restatement, Conflict of Laws (1934), § 9, comment e. See Carroll v. United States, 133 F. 2d 690, 693. In a naturalization case where eligibility depended upon the required residence in the United States, it was held that an enforced service in the German army 1914^1918 and subsequent foreign residence until 1921 on account of lack of means and inability to obtain a passport did not break the continuity of American residence. The court there said,
“We shall not try to define what is the necessary attitude of mind to create or retain a residence under this statute, and how it differs from the choice of a 'home/ which is the test of domicile. Frankly it is doubtful whether courts have as yet come to any agreement on the question. But there is substantial unanimity that, however construed in a statute, residence involves some choice, again like domicile, and that presence elsewhere through constraint has no effect upon it.”
When we consider that § 3 (a) was obviously intended to require military service from all who sought the advantages of our life and the protection of our flag, we cannot conclude, without regulations so defining residence, that a sojourn within our borders made necessary by the conditions of the times was residence within the meaning of the statute.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the judgment of the Court.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from the holding of the Court that respondent was not “residing” in the United States within the meaning of § 3 (a) of the Act. See the opinion of Judge Frank in Benzian v. Godwin, 168 F. 2d 952.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“(c) In the case of any alien . . . who is deportable under any law of the United States and who has proved good moral character for the preceding five years, the Attorney General may ... (2) suspend deportation of such alien if he is not ineligible for naturalization or if ineligible, such ineligibility is solely by reason of his race, if he finds (a) that such deportation would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen or legally resident alien who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable alien; . . . . If the deportation of any alien is suspended under the provisions of this subsection for more than six months, a complete and detailed statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law in the case shall be reported to the Congress with the reasons for such suspension. These reports shall be submitted on the 1st and 15th day of each calendar month in which Congress is in session. If during the session of the Congress at which a case is reported, or prior to the close of the session of the Congress next following the session at which a ease is reported, the Congress passes a concurrent resolution stating in substance that it favors the suspension of such deportation, the Attorney General shall cancel deportation proceedings. If prior to the close of the session of the Congress next following the session at which a case is reported, the Congress does not pass such a concurrent resolution, the Attorney General shall thereupon deport such alien in the manner provided by law.”
Section 3 (a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 885, as amended, 55 Stat. 845, provides in part:
“Except as otherwise provided in this Act, every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States . . . shall be liable for training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States: Provided, That any citizen or subject of a neutral country shall be relieved from liability for training and service under this Act if, prior to his induction into the land or naval forces, he has made application to be relieved from such liability in the manner prescribed by and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the President, but any person who makes such application shall thereafter be debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States . . . .”
See note 1.
While respondent alleged that his application for deferment was filed because of erroneous advice received from a member of the local Selective Service Board, it sufficiently, though inartistically, appears from the complaint that its true gravamen is the ineffectiveness of the application for relief from service to bar the alien’s naturalization because he was not “residing” in the United States within the meaning of the Selective Training and Service Act at the time the application was filed. This construction was put upon the complaint by the Court of Appeals and has been adopted by the United States in its presentation here.
86 U. S. App. D. C. 48, 56, 179 F. 2d 796, 804.
Federal constitutional courts act only on cases and controversies and do not give advisory opinions. Rayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346; Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 113-14.
Cf. Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. 697, 702; United States v. Jefferson Electric Co., 291 U. S. 386, 400-401; Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S. S. Corp., supra.
See note 1.
King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225, 226; United States v. Corrick, 298 U. S. 435, 440.
We think the Attorney General’s refusal to suspend deportation for the reason of ineligibility for citizenship has administrative finality. Administrative remedies are exhausted. Compare Levers v. Anderson, 326 U. S. 219.
Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 43; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33. Cf. Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U. S. 128; Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114, 122.
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240; United States v. West Virginia, 295 U. S. 463, 475; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Quarles, 92 F. 2d 321, 324, were cited.
8 U. S. C. § 903 has since been enacted, providing in part:
“If any person who claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States is denied such right or privilege by any Department or agency, or executive official thereof, upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States, such person, regardless of whether he is within the United States or abroad, may institute an action against the head of such Department or agency in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia or in the district court of the United States for the district in which such person claims a permanent residence for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States.”
Cf. Benzian v. Godwin, 168 F. 2d 952.
See note 2.
See § 16 (b), 54 Stat. 897, as amended, 59 Stat. 166, 60 Stat. 181, 342; Benzian v. Godwin, 168 F. 2d 952, 956.
See note 2.
The original version of the Act required every male alien residing in the United States to register, but subjected only aliens who had declared their intention to become citizens to liability for service. 54 Stat. 885. The Attorney General construed the words “male alien residing in the United States,” the earlier phrase defining those subject to registration, to include “every alien . . . who lives or has a place of residence or abode in the United States, temporary or otherwise, or for whatever purpose taken or established, . . . .” 39 Op. Atty. Gen. 504, 505.
“§ 611.12 When a nondeclarant alien is residing in the United States. Every male alien who is now in or hereafter enters the United States who has not declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, unless he is in one of the categories specifically excepted by the provisions of § 611.13, is 'a male person residing in the United States’ within the meaning of section 2 and section 3 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended.
“§ 611.13 When a nondeclarant alien is not redding in the United States, (a) A male alien who is now in or hereafter enters the United States who has not declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States is not ‘a male person residing in the United States’ within the meaning of section 2 or section 3 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended:
“(6) If he has entered or hereafter enters the United States in a manner prescribed by its laws and does not remain in the United States after May 16, 1942, or for more than 3 months following the date of his entry, whichever is the later.
“(b) When a male alien who has not declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States has entered or hereafter enters the United States in a manner prescribed by its laws and remains in the United States after May 16, 1942, or for more than 3 months following the date of his entry, whichever is the later, he is 'a male person residing in the United States’ within the meaning of section 2 and section 3 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, unless he has filed an Alien’s Application for Determination of Residence (Form 302) in the manner provided in § 611.21 and such application is either (1) pending or (2) has resulted in a determination that he is not ‘a male person residing in the United States’ within the meaning of section 2 or section 3 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, in either of which events he shall not be considered as ‘a male person residing in the United States’ within the meaning of section 2 or section 3 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, during the period when such application is pending or during the period covered by the Alien’s Certificate of Nonresidence (Form 303) issued to him as a result of the determination that he is not ‘a male person residing in the United States’ within the meaning of section 2 or section 3 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended. (54 Stat. 885; 50 U. S. C., Sup. 301-318, inclusive; E. O. No. 8545, 5 F. R. 3779)”
Apparently the regulations intended to give aliens time to enable them to file the Alien’s Application for Determination of Residence, see 7 Fed. Reg. 2084, § 611.21 (b) (1), or to leave the country before their status as “residents,” resulting in liability for military service, was fixed.
Neuberger v. United States, 13 F. 2d 541, 542. Cf. Stadtmuller v. Miller, 11 F. 2d 732, 738.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 was convicted of unlawfully dispensing a number of dextro amphetamine sulfate tablets, a drug within the scope of 21 U. S. C. § 353 (b)(1)(B), without a prescription from a licensed physician, which resulted in misbranding and violation of 21 U. S. C. §331 (k). The Court of. Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting, 258 F. 2d 94. The case is here on a petition for-certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (1), which we granted because of doubts whether exposure of some of the jurors to newspaper arti-. cles about petitioner was so prejudicial in the setting of the case as to warrant the exercise of our supervisory power to order a new trial. 358 U. S. 892.
Petitioner never took the stand; nor did he offer any evidence. A government agent testified that he was introduced to petitioner as a salesman who had difficulty staying awake on long automobile trips and that on two occasions he obtained these tablets .'from petitioner. Petitioner asked the trial judge to rule there was entrapment as a matter of law.= The judge refused so to hold and submitted the issue of entrapment with appropriate instructions to the jury. Cf. Masciale v. United States, 356 U. S. 386. The Government asked to be allowed to prove that petitioner had previously practiced medicine without a license, as tending to refute the defense of entrapment.' The trial judge refused this offer saying, “It would be just like offering evidence that he picked pockets or was a petty thief or something of that sort which would have no bearing on the issue and would tend to raise a-collateral issue and I think would be prejudicial to the defendant.” -
Yet during .the trial two newspapers containing such information got before a substantial -number of jurors. One news account said:
“Marshall has a record of two previous felony convictions.
“In 1953, while serving a forgery sentence in the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Okla., Marshall testified before a state legislative committee studying new drug laws for Oklahoma.
“At that time, he told the committee that although he had only a high school education, he practiced medicine with a $25 diploma he received through the mails. He told in detail of the ease in which he wrote and passed prescriptions for dangerous drugs.”
The other news account said:
“The defendant was Howard R. (Tobey) Marshall, once identified before a committee of the Oklahoma Legislature as a man who acted as a physician and prescribed restricted drugs for Hank Williams before the country singer’s death in December, 1953.
“Marshall was arrested with his wife, Editjb Every Marshall, 56, in June, 1956. She was convicted on the drug charges in Federal District Court here in November and was sentenced to 60 days in jail.
. “Records show that Marshall once served a term in the Oklahoma penitentiary for forgery. There is no evidence he is a doctor, court attaches said.”
The trial judge on learning that these news accounts had reached the. jurors summoned them into his chamber one by one and inquired if they had seen the articles. Three had read the first of the two we have listed above and one had read both. Three others had scanned the first article and one of those had also seen the second. Each' of the seven told the trial judge that he would not be influenced by the news articles, that he could decide the case only on the evidence of record, and that he felt no .prejudice against petitioner as a result of the articles. The trial judge, stating he felt there was no prejudice to petitioner, denied the motion for mistrial.-
The trial judge has a large discretion in ruling on the issue of prejudice resulting from the reading by jurors of news articles concerning the trial. Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, 251. Generalizations beyond that statement are not profitable, because each case must turn on its special facts. We have here the exposure of jurors to information of a character, which the trial judge ruled was so prejudicial it could not be directly offered as evidence. The prejudice to the defendant is almost certain to be as great when that evidence reaches the jury, through news accounts as when it is a part of the prosecution’s evidence. Cf. Michelson v. United States, 335 U. S. 460, 475. It may indeed be greater for it is then not tempered by protective procedures.
In the exercise of our supervisory power to formulate and apply proper standards for enforcement of the crim-,inal law-in the federal courts. (Bruno v. United States, 308 U. S. 287; McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332) we think a new trial should be granted.-
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, No. 90-7226, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, No. 90-7225, and a petition for a writ of mandamus, No. 90-7296, all seeking relief from a single order of a lower court, which in turn denied petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis and barred petitioner from making further informa pauperis filings seeking certain extraordinary writs. We deny the petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 90-7226.
Petitioner has made 32 in forma pauperis filings in this Court since the beginning of the October 1988 Term, many of which challenge sanctions imposed by lower courts in response to petitioner’s frivolous filings. Petitioner’s method of seeking relief here — filing three petitions for relief from a single order of a lower court — could only be calculated to disrupt the orderly consideration of cases. Petitioner has abused the system, and we find it appropriate to deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis to petitioner in these two petitions for extraordinary relief, Nos. 90-7225 and 90-7296, and in all future petitions for extraordinary relief. See In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991); In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989).
If petitioner wishes to have one or both of these petitions considered on its merits, he must pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court before May 20, 1991. The Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions from petitioner for extraordinary writs unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33. Petitioner remains free under the present order to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ, if he qualifies under this Court’s Rule 39 and does not similarly abuse that privilege.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of the parties requesting the Court to decide the questions presented in the petition for writ of certiorari despite complete settlement of the underlying causes of action is denied. See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312 (1974).
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky with instructions to dismiss the cause as moot.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, III-D, and IV, which is for the Court except insofar as it might be inconsistent with the views expressed in Justice Scalia’s concurrence, and an opinion with respect to Part III-C in which Justice Kennedy joins.
Petitioner Adarand Constructors, Inc., claims that the Federal Government’s practice of giving general contractors on Government projects a financial incentive to hire subcontractors controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,” and in particular, the Government’s use of race-based presumptions in identifying such individuals, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court of Appeals rejected Adarand’s claim. We conclude, however, that courts should analyze cases of this kind under a different standard of review than the one the Court of Appeals applied. We therefore vacate the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
HH
In 1989, the Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD), which is part of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), awarded the prime contract for a highway construction project in Colorado to Mountain Gravel & Construction Company. Mountain Gravel then solicited bids from subcontractors for the guardrail portion of the contract. Adarand, a Colorado-based highway construction company specializing in guardrail work, submitted the low bid. Gonzales Construction Company also submitted a bid.
The prime contract’s terms provide that Mountain Gravel would receive additional compensation if it hired subcontractors certified as small businesses controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,” App. 24. Gonzales is certified as such a business; Adarand is not. Mountain Gravel awarded the subcontract to Gonzales, despite Ada-rand’s low bid, and Mountain Gravel’s Chief Estimator has submitted an affidavit stating that Mountain Gravel would have accepted Adarand’s bid, had it not been for the additional payment it received by hiring Gonzales instead. Id., at 28-31. Federal law requires that a subcontracting clause similar to the one used here must appear in most federal agency contracts, and it also requires the clause to state that “[t]he contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities, or any other individual found to be disadvantaged by the [Small Business] Administration pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small Business Act.” 15 U. S. C. §§ 637(d)(2), (3). Adarand claims that the presumption set forth in that statute discriminates on the basis of race in violation of the Federal Government’s Fifth Amendment obligation not to deny anyone equal protection of the laws.
These fairly straightforward facts implicate a complex scheme of federal statutes and regulations, to which we now turn. The Small Business Act (Act), 72 Stat. 384, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 631 et seq., declares it to be “the policy of the United States that small business concerns, [and] small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,... shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts let by any Federal agency.” § 8(d)(1), 15 U. S. C. § 637(d)(1). The Act defines “socially disadvantaged individuals” as “those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities,” § 8(a)(5), 15 U. S. C. § 637(a)(5), and it defines “economically disadvantaged individuals” as “those socially disadvantaged individuals whose ability to compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same business area who are not socially disadvantaged.” § 8(a)(6)(A), 15 U. S. C. § 637(a)(6)(A).
In furtherance of the policy stated in § 8(d)(1), the Act establishes “[t]he Government-wide goal for participation by small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” at “not less than 5 percent of the total value of all prime contract and subcontract awards for each fiscal year.” 15 U. S. C. § 644(g)(1). It also requires the head of each federal agency to set agency-specific goals for participation by businesses controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Ibid.
The- Small Business Administration (SBA) has implemented these statutory directives in a variety of ways, two of which are relevant here. One is the “8(a) program,” which is available to small businesses controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals as the SBA has defined those terms. The 8(a) program confers a wide range of benefits on participating businesses, see, e. g., 13 CFR §§ 124.303-124.311,124.403 (1994); 48 CFR subpt. 19.8 (1994), one of which is automatic eligibility for subcontractor compensation provisions of the kind at issue in this case, 15 U. S. C. § 637(d)(3)(C) (conferring presumptive eligibility on anyone “found to be disadvantaged... pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small Business Act”). To participate in the 8(a) program, a business must be “small,” as defined in 13 CFR § 124.102 (1994); and it must be 51% owned by individuals who qualify as “socially and economically disadvantaged,” §124.103. The SBA presumes that black, Hispanic, Asian Pacific, Subcontinent Asian, and Native Americans, as well as “members of other groups designated from time to time by SBA,” are “socially disadvantaged,” § 124.105(b)(1). It also allows any individual not a member of a listed group to prove social disadvantage “on the basis of clear and convincing evidence,” as described in § 124.105(c). Social disadvantage is not enough to establish eligibility, however; SBA also requires each 8(a) program participant to prove “economic disadvantage” according to the criteria set forth in § 124.106(a).
The other SBA program relevant to this case is the “8(d) subcontracting program,” which unlike the 8(a) program is limited to eligibility for subcontracting provisions like the one at issue here. In determining eligibility, the SBA presumes social disadvantage based on membership in certain minority groups, just as in the 8(a) program, and again appears to require an individualized, although “less restrictive,” showing of economic disadvantage, § 124.106(b). A different set of regulations, however, says that members of minority groups wishing to participate in the 8(d) subcontracting program are entitled to a race-based presumption of social and economic disadvantage. 48 CFR §§19.001, 19.703(a)(2) (1994). We are left with some uncertainty as to whether participation in the 8(d) subcontracting program requires an individualized showing of economic disadvantage. In any event, in both the 8(a) and the 8(d) programs, the presumptions of disadvantage are rebuttable if a third party comes forward with evidence suggesting that the participant is not, in fact, either economically or socially disadvantaged. 13 CFR §§ 124.111(c)-(d), 124.601-124.609 (1994).
The contract giving rise to the dispute in this case came about as a result of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 132 (STURAA), a DOT appropriations measure. Section 106(c)(1) of STURAA provides that “not less than 10 percent” of the appropriated funds “shall be expended with small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” 101 Stat. 145. STURAA adopts the Small Business Act’s definition of “socially and economically disadvantaged individual,” including the applicable race-based presumptions, and adds that “women shall be presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged individuals for purposes of this subsection.” § 106(c)(2)(B), 101 Stat. 146. STURAA also requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish “minimum uniform criteria for State governments to use in certifying whether a concern qualifies for purposes of this subsection.” § 106(c)(4), 101 Stat. 146. The Secretary has done so in 49 CFR pt. 23, subpt. D (1994). Those regulations say that the certifying authority should presume both social and economic disadvantage (i. e., eligibility to participate) if the applicant belongs to certain racial groups, or is a woman. 49 CFR §23.62 (1994); 49 CFR pt. 23, subpt. D, App. C (1994). As with the SBA programs, third parties may come forward with evidence in an effort to rebut the presumption of disadvantage for a particular business. 49 CFR §23.69 (1994).
The operative clause in the contract in this case reads as follows:
“Subcontracting. This subsection is supplemented to include a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Development and Subcontracting Provision as follows:
“Monetary compensation is offered for awarding subcontracts to small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals....
“A small business concern will be considered a DBE after it has been certified as such by the U. S. Small Business Administration or any State Highway Agency. Certification by other Government agencies, counties, or cities may be acceptable on an individual basis provided the Contracting Officer has determined the certifying agency has an acceptable and viable DBE certification program. If the Contractor requests payment under this provision, the Contractor shall furnish the engineer with acceptable evidence of the subcontractor(s) DBE certification and shall furnish one certified copy of the executed subcontract(s).
“The Contractor will be paid an amount computed as follows:
“1. If a subcontract is awarded to one DBE, 10 percent of the final amount of the approved DBE subcontract, not to exceed 1.5 percent of the original contract amount.
“2. If subcontracts are awarded to two or more DBEs, 10 percent of the final amount of the approved DBE subcontracts, not to exceed 2 percent of the original contract amount.” App. 24-26.
To benefit from this clause, Mountain Gravel had to hire a subcontractor who had been certified as a small disadvantaged business by the SBA, a state highway agency, or some other certifying authority acceptable to the contracting officer. Any of the three routes to such certification described above — SBA’s 8(a) or 8(d) program, or certification by a State under the DOT regulations — would meet that requirement. The record does not reveal how Gonzales obtained its certification as a small disadvantaged business.
After losing the guardrail subcontract to Gonzales, Ada-rand filed suit against various federal officials in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, claiming that the race-based presumptions involved in the use of subcontracting compensation clauses violate Adarand’s right to equal protection. The District Court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Skinner, 790 F. Supp. 240 (1992). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 16 F. 3d 1637 (1994). It understood our decision in Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448 (1980), to have adopted “a lenient standard, resembling intermediate scrutiny, in assessing” the constitutionality of federal race-based action. 16 F. 3d, at 1544. Applying that “lenient standard,” as further developed in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U. S. 647 (1990), the Court of Appeals upheld the use of subcontractor compensation clauses. 16 F. 3d, at 1547. We granted certiorari. 512 U. S. 1288 (1994).
II
Adarand, in addition to its general prayer for “such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and equitable,” specifically seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against any future use of subcontractor compensation clauses. App. 22-23 (complaint). Before reaching the merits of Adarand’s challenge, we must consider whether Adarand has standing to seek forward-looking relief. Adarand’s allegation that it has lost a contract in the past because of a subcontractor compensation clause of course entitles it to seek damages for the loss of that contract (we express no view, however, as to whether sovereign immunity would bar such relief on these facts). But as we explained in Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95 (1983), the fact of past injury, “while presumably affording [the plaintiff] standing to claim damages..., does nothing to establish a real and immediate threat that he would again” suffer similar injury in the future. Id., at 105.
If Adarand is to maintain its claim for forward-looking relief, our cases require it to allege that the use of subcontractor compensation clauses in the future constitutes “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992) (footnote, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Adarand’s claim that the Government’s use of subcontractor compensation clauses denies it equal protection of the laws of course alleges an invasion of a legally protected interest, and it does so in a manner that is “particularized” as to Adarand. We note that, contrary to respondents’ suggestion, see Brief for Respondents 29-30, Adarand need not demonstrate that it has been, or will be, the low bidder on a Government contract. The injury in cases of this kind is that a “discriminatory classification prevent[s] the plaintiff from competing on an equal footing.” Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, 508 U. S. 656, 667 (1993). The aggrieved party “need not allege that he would have obtained the benefit but for the barrier in order to establish standing.” Id., at 666.
It is less clear, however, that the future use of subcontractor compensation clauses will cause Adarand “imminent” injury. We said in Lujan that “[although ‘imminence’ is con-cededly a somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes — that the injury is ‘certainly impending.’” Lujan, supra, at 565, n. 2. We therefore must ask whether Adarand has made an adequate showing that sometime in the relatively near future it will bid on another Government contract that offers financial incentives to a prime contractor for hiring disadvantaged subcontractors.
We conclude that Adarand has satisfied this requirement. Adarand’s general manager said in a deposition that his company bids on every guardrail project in Colorado. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 5-A. According to documents produced in discovery, the CFLHD let 14 prime contracts in Colorado that included guardrail work between 1983 and 1990. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 90-C-1413, Exh. I, Attachment A (D. Colo.). Two of those contracts do not present the kind of injury Adarand alleges here. In one, the prime contractor did not subcontract out the guardrail work; in another, the prime contractor was itself a disadvantaged business, and in such cases the contract generally does not include a subcontractor compensation clause. Ibid.; see also id., Supplemental Exhibits, Deposition of Craig Actis 14 (testimony of CFLHD employee that 8(a) contracts do not include subcontractor compensation clauses). Thus, statistics from the years 1983 through 1990 indicate that the CFLHD lets on average IV2 contracts per year that could injure Adarand in the manner it alleges here. Nothing in the record suggests that the CFLHD has altered the frequency with which it lets contracts that include guardrail work. And the record indicates that Adarand often must compete for contracts against companies certified as small disadvantaged businesses. See id., Exh. F, Attachments 1-3. Because the evidence in this case indicates that the CFLHD is likely to let contracts involving guardrail work that contain a subcontractor compensation clause at least once per year in Colorado, that Adarand is very likely to bid on each such contract, and that Adarand often must compete for such contracts against small disadvantaged businesses, we are satisfied that Adarand has standing to bring this lawsuit.
Ill
Respondents urge that “[t]he Subcontracting Compensation Clause program is... a program based on disadvantage, not on race,” and thus that it is subject only to “the most relaxed judicial scrutiny.” Brief for Respondents 26. To the extent that the statutes and regulations involved in this case are race neutral, we agree. Respondents concede, however, that “the race-based rebuttable presumption used in some certification determinations under the Subcontracting Compensation Clause” is subject to some heightened level of scrutiny. Id., at 27. The parties disagree as to what that level should be. (We note, incidentally, that this case concerns only classifications based explicitly on race, and presents none of the additional difficulties posed by laws that, although facially race neutral, result in racially disproportionate impact and are motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose. See generally Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252 (1977); Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976).)
Adarand’s claim arises under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that “No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Although this Court has always understood that Clause to provide some measure of protection against arbitrary treatment by the Federal Government, it is not as explicit a guarantee of equal treatment as the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (emphasis added). Our cases have accorded varying degrees of significance to the difference in the language of those two Clauses. We think it necessary to revisit the issue here.
A
Through the 1940’s, this Court had routinely taken the view in non-raee-related cases that, “fujnlike the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth contains no equal protection clause and it provides no guaranty against discriminatory legislation by Congress.” Detroit Bank v. United States, 317 U. S. 329, 337 (1943); see also, e.g., Helvering v. Lerner Stores Corp., 314 U. S. 463, 468 (1941); LaBelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 392 (1921) (“Reference is made to cases decided under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment... ; but clearly they are not in point. The Fifth Amendment has no equal protection clause”). When the Court first faced a Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge to a federal racial classification, it adopted a similar approach, with most unfortunate results. In Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81 (1943), the Court considered a curfew applicable only to persons of Japanese ancestry. The Court observed — correctly—that “[distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,” and that “racial discrimina-tions are in most circumstances irrelevant and therefore prohibited.” Id., at 100. But it also cited Detroit Bank for the proposition that the Fifth Amendment “restrains only such discriminatory legislation by Congress as amounts to a denial of due process,” 320 U. S., at 100, and upheld the curfew because “circumstances within the knowledge of those charged with the responsibility for maintaining the national defense afforded a rational basis for the decision which they made.” Id., at 102.
Eighteen months later, the Court again approved wartime measures directed at persons of Japanese ancestry. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944), concerned an order that completely excluded such persons from particular areas. The Court did not address the view, expressed in cases like Hirabayashi and Detroit Bank, that the Federal Government’s obligation to provide equal protection differs significantly from that of the States. Instead, it began by noting that “all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect... [and] courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny.” 323 U. S., at 216. That promising dictum might be read to undermine the view that the Federal Government is under a lesser obligation to avoid injurious racial classifications than are the States. Cf. id., at 234-235 (Murphy, J., dissenting) (“[T]he order deprives all those within its scope of the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment”). But in spite of the “most rigid scrutiny” standard it had just set forth, the Court then inexplicably relied on “the principles we announced in the Hirabayashi case,” id., at 217, to conclude that, although “exclusion from the area in which one's home is located is a far greater deprivation than constant confinement to the home from 8 p. m. to 6 a. m.,” id., at 218, the racially discriminatory order was nonetheless within the Federal Government’s power.
In Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954), the Court for the first time explicitly questioned the existence of any difference between the obligations of the Federal Government and the States to avoid racial classifications. Bolling did note that “[t]he ‘equal protection of the laws’ is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than ‘due process of law,’” id., at 499. But Bolling then concluded that, “[i]n view of [the] decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government.” Id., at 500.
Bolling’s facts concerned school desegregation, but its reasoning was not so limited. The Court’s observations that “[djistinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious,” Hirabayashi, supra, at 100, and that “all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect,” Korematsu, supra, at 216, carry no less force in the context of federal action than in the context of action by the States— indeed, they first appeared in cases concerning action by the Federal Government. Bolling relied on those observations, 347 U. S., at 499, n. 3, and reiterated “‘that the Constitution of the United States, in its present form, forbids, so far as civil and political rights are concerned, discrimination by the General Government, or by the States, against any citizen because of his race/ ” id., at 499 (quoting Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565, 591 (1896)) (emphasis added). The Court’s application of that general principle to the case before it, and the resulting imposition on the Federal Government of an obligation equivalent to that of the States, followed as a matter of course.
Later cases in contexts other than school desegregation did not distinguish between the duties of the States and the Federal Government to avoid racial classifications. Consider, for example, the following passage from McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, a 1964 case that struck down a race-based state law:
“[W]e deal here with a classification based upon the race of the participants, which must be viewed in light of the historical fact that the central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate racial discrimination emanating from official sources in the States. This strong policy renders racial classifications ‘constitutionally suspect/ Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 499; and subject to the ‘most rigid scrutiny/ Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 216; and ‘in most circumstances irrelevant’ to any constitutionally acceptable legislative purpose, Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100.” Id., at 191-192.
McLaughlin's, reliance on cases involving federal action for the standards applicable to a case involving state legislation suggests that the Court understood the standards for federal and state racial classifications to be the same.
Cases decided after McLaughlin continued to treat the equal protection obligations imposed by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments as indistinguishable; one commentator observed that “[i]n case after case, fifth amendment equal protection problems are discussed on the assumption that fourteenth amendment precedents are controlling.” Karst, The Fifth Amendment’s Guarantee of Equal Protection, 55 N. C. L. Rev. 541, 554 (1977). Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967), which struck down a race-based state law, cited Korematsu for the proposition that “the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications... be subjected to the ‘most rigid scrutiny.’” 388 U. S., at 11. The various opinions in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973), which concerned sex discrimination by the Federal Government, took their equal protection standard of review from Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971), a case that invalidated sex discrimination by a State, without mentioning any possibility of a difference between the standards applicable to state and federal action. Frontiero, 411 U. S., at 682-684 (plurality opinion of Brennan, J.); id., at 691 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 692 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). Thus, in 1975, the Court stated explicitly that “[t]his Court’s approach to Fifth Amendment equal protection claims has always been precisely the same as to equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636, 638, n. 2; see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 93 (1976) (“Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment”); United States v. Paradise, 480 U. S. 149, 166, n. 16 (1987) (plurality opinion of Brennan, J.) (“[T]he reach of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment is coextensive with that of the Fourteenth”). We do not understand a few contrary suggestions appearing in cases in which we found special deference to the political branches of the Federal Government to be appropriate, e. g., Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U. S. 88, 100, 101-102, n. 21 (1976) (federal power over immigration), to detract from this general rule.
B
Most of the cases discussed above involved classifications burdening groups that have suffered discrimination in our society. In 1978, the Court confronted the question whether race-based governmental action designed to benefit such groups should also be subject to “the most rigid scrutiny.” Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, involved an equal protection challenge to a state-run medical school’s practice of reserving a number of spaces in its entering class for minority students. The petitioners argued that “strict scrutiny” should apply only to “classifications that disadvantage ‘discrete and insular minorities.’” Id., at 287-288 (opinion of Powell, J.) (citing United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938)). Bakke did not produce an opinion for the Court, but Justice Powell’s opinion announcing the Court’s judgment rejected the argument. In a passage joined by Justice White, Justice Powell wrote that “[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.” 438 U. S., at 289-290. He concluded that “[r]acial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial examination.” Id., at 291. On the other hand, four Justices in Bakke would have applied a less stringent standard of review to racial classifications “designed to further remedial purposes,” see id., at 359 (Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). And four Justices thought the case should be decided on statutory grounds. Id., at 411-412, 421 (Stevens, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Stewart and Rehnquist, JJ., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
Two years after Bakke, the Court faced another challenge to remedial race-based action, this time involving action undertaken by the Federal Government. In Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448 (1980), the Court upheld Congress’ inclusion of a 10% set-aside for minority-owned businesses in the Public Works Employment Act of 1977. As in Bakke, there was no opinion for the Court. Chief Justice Burger, in an opinion joined by Justices White and Powell, observed that “[a]ny preference based on racial or ethnic criteria must necessarily receive a most searching examination to make sure that it does not conflict with constitutional guarantees.” 448 U. S., at 491. That opinion, however, “d[id] not adopt, either expressly or implicitly, the formulas of analysis articulated in such cases as [Bakke] ” Id., at 492. It employed instead a two-part test which asked, first, “whether the objectives of th[e] legislation are within the power of Congress,” and second, “whether the limited use of racial and ethnic criteria, in the context presented, is a constitutionally permissible means for achieving the congressional objectives.” Id., at 473. It then upheld the program under that test, adding at the end of the opinion that the program also “would survive judicial review under either ‘test’ articulated in the several Bakke opinions.” Id., at 492. Justice Powell wrote separately to express his view that the plurality opinion had essentially applied “strict scrutiny” as described in his Bakke opinion — i. e., it had determined that the set-aside was “a necessary means of advancing a compelling governmental interest” — and had done so correctly. 448 U. S., at 496 (concurring opinion). Justice Stewart (joined by then-Justice Rehnquist) dissented, arguing that the Constitution required the Federal Government to meet the same strict standard as the States when enacting racial classifications, id., at 523, and n. 1, and that the program before the Court failed that standard. Justice Stevens also dissented, arguing that “[rjacial classifications are simply too pernicious to permit any but the most exact connection between justification and classification,” id., at 537, and that the program before the Court could not be characterized “as a ‘narrowly tailored’ remedial measure.” Id., at 541. Justice Marshall (joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun) concurred in the judgment, reiterating the view of four Justices in Bakke that any race-based governmental action designed to “remed[y] the present effects of past racial discrimination” should be upheld if it was “substantially related” to the achievement of an “important governmental objective”— i. e., such action should be subjected only to what we now call “intermediate scrutiny.” 448 U. S., at 518-519.
In Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267 (1986), the Court considered a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to another form of remedial racial classification. The issue in Wygant was whether a school board could adopt race-based preferences in determining which teachers to lay off. Justice Powell’s plurality opinion observed that “the level of scrutiny does not change merely because the challenged classification operates against a group that historically has not been subject to governmental discrimination,” id., at 273, and stated the two-part inquiry as “whether the layoff provision is supported by a compelling state purpose and whether the means chosen to accomplish that purpose are narrowly tailored.” Id., at 274. In other words, “racial classifications of any sort must be subjected to ‘strict scrutiny.’” Id., at 285 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). The plurality then concluded that the school board’s interest in “providing minority role models for its minority students, as an attempt to alleviate the effects of societal discrimination,” id., at 274, was not a compelling interest that could justify the use of a racial classification. It added that “[sjocietal discrimination, without more, is too amorphous a basis for imposing a racially classified remedy,” id., at 276, and insisted instead that “a public employer... must ensure that, before it embarks on an affirmative-action program, it has convincing evidence that remedial action is warranted. That is, it must have sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that there has been prior discrimination,” id., at 277. Justice White concurred only in the judgment, although he agreed that the school board’s asserted interests could not, “singly or together, justify this racially discriminatory layoff policy.” Id., at 295. Four Justices dissented, three of whom again argued for intermediate scrutiny of remedial race-based government action. Id., at 301-302 (Marshall, J., joined by Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting).
The Court’s failure to produce a majority opinion in Bakke, Fullilove, and Wygant left unresolved the proper analysis for remedial race-based governmental action. See United States v. Paradise, 480 U. S., at 166 (plurality opinion of Brennan, J.) (“[Although this Court has consistently held that some elevated level of scrutiny is required when a racial or ethnic distinction is made for remedial purposes, it has yet to reach consensus on the appropriate constitutional analysis”); Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U. S. 421, 480 (1986) (plurality opinion of Brennan, J.). Lower courts found this lack of guidance unsettling. See, e. g., Kromnick v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 739 F. 2d 894, 901 (CA3 1984) (“The absence of an Opinion of the Court in either Bakke or Fullilove and the concomitant failure of the Court to articulate an analytic framework supporting the judgments makes the position of the lower federal courts considering the constitutionality of affirmative action programs somewhat vulnerable”), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1107 (1985); Williams v. New Orleans, 729 F. 2d 1554, 1567 (CA5 1984) (en banc) (Hig-ginbotham, J., concurring specially); South Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla., 723 F. 2d 846, 851 (CA11), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 871 (1984).
The Court
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Chief Justice Burgee
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is what standard of proof is required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital.
I
On seven occasions between 1969 and 1975, appellant was committed temporarily, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Arts. 5547-31 to 5547-39 (Vernon 1958 and Supp. 1978-1979), to various Texas state mental hospitals and was committed for indefinite periods, Arts. 5547-40 to 5547-57, to Austin State Hospital on three different occasions. On December 18, 1975, when appellant was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of “assault by threat” against his mother, the county and state mental health authorities therefore were well aware of his history of mental and emotional difficulties.
Appellant’s mother filed a petition for his indefinite commitment in accordance with Texas law. The county psychiatric examiner interviewed appellant while in custody and after the interview issued a Certificate of Medical Examination for Mental Illness. In the certificate, the examiner stated his opinion that appellant was “mentally ill and require [d] hospitalization in a mental hospital.” Art. 5547-42 (Vernon 1958).
Appellant retained counsel and a trial was held before a jury to determine in accord with the statute:
“(1) whether the proposed patient is mentally ill, and if so
“(2) whether he requires hospitalization in a mental hospital for his own welfare and protection or the protection of others, and if so
“(3) whether he is mentally incompetent.” Art. 5547-51 (Vernon 1958).
The trial on these issues extended over six days.
The State offered evidence that appellant suffered from serious delusions, that he often had threatened to injure both of his parents and others, that he had been involved in several assaultive episodes while hospitalized and that he had caused substantial property damage both at his own apartment and at his parents’ home. From these undisputed facts, two psychiatrists, who qualified as experts, expressed opinions that appellant suffered from psychotic schizophrenia and that he had paranoid tendencies. They also expressed medical opinions that appellant was probably dangerous both to himself and to others. They explained that appellant required hospitalization in a closed area to treat his condition because in the past he had refused to attend outpatient treatment programs and had escaped several times from mental hospitals.
Appellant did not contest the factual assertions made by the State’s witnesses; indeed, he conceded that he suffered from a mental illness. What appellant attempted to show was that there was no substantial basis for concluding that he was probably dangerous to himself or others.
The trial judge submitted the case to the jury with the instructions in the form of two questions:
“1. Based on clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence, is Frank O’Neal Addington mentally ill?
“2. Based on clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence, does Frank O’Neal Addington require hospitalization in a mental hospital for his own welfare and protection or the protection of others?”
Appellant objected to these instructions on several grounds, including the trial court’s refusal to employ the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof.
The jury found that appellant was mentally ill and that he required hospitalization for his own or others’ welfare. The trial court then entered an order committing appellant as a patient to Austin State Hospital for an indefinite period.
Appellant appealed that order to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, arguing, among other things, that the standards for commitment violated his substantive due process rights and that any standard of proof for commitment less than that required for criminal convictions, i. e., beyond a reasonable doubt, violated his procedural due process rights. The Court of Civil Appeals agreed with appellant on the standard-of-proof issue and reversed the judgment of the trial court. Because of its treatment of the standard of proof, that court did not consider any of the other issues raised in the appeal.
On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals’ decision. 557 S. W. 2d 511. In so holding the Supreme Court relied primarily upon its previous decision in State v. Turner, 556 S. W. 2d 563 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 929 (1978).
In Turner, the Texas Supreme Court held that a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof in a civil commitment proceeding satisfied due process. The court declined to adopt the criminal law standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” primarily because it questioned whether the State could prove by that exacting standard that a particular person would or would not be dangerous in the future. It also distinguished a civil commitment from a criminal conviction by noting that under Texas law the mentally ill patient has the right to treatment, periodic review of his condition, and immediate release when no longer deemed to be a danger to himself or others. Finally, the Turner court rejected the “clear and convincing” evidence standard because under Texas rules of procedure juries could be instructed only under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt or a preponderance standard of proof.
Reaffirming Turner, the Texas Supreme Court in this case concluded that the trial court’s instruction to the jury, although not in conformity with the legal requirements, had benefited appellant, and hence the error was harmless. Accordingly, the court reinstated the judgment of the trial court.
We noted probable jurisdiction. 435 U. S. 967. After oral argument it became clear that no challenge to the constitutionality of any Texas statute was presented. Under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2) no appeal is authorized; accordingly, construing the papers filed as a petition for a writ of certiorari, we now grant the petition.
II
The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to “instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.” In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). The standard serves to allocate the risk of error between the litigants and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision.
Generally speaking, the evolution of this area of the law has produced across a continuum three standards or levels of proof for different types of cases. At one end of the spectrum is the typical civil case involving a monetary dispute between private parties. Since society has a minimal concern with the outcome of such private suits, plaintiff’s burden of proof is a mere preponderance of the evidence. The litigants thus share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.
In a criminal case, on the other hand, the interests of the defendant are of such magnitude that historically and without any explicit constitutional requirement they have been protected by standards of proof designed to exclude as nearly as possible the likelihood of an erroneous judgment. In the administration of criminal justice, our society imposes almost the entire risk of error upon itself. This is accomplished by requiring under the Due Process Clause that the state prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, supra.
The intermediate standard, which usually employs some combination of the words "clear,” "cogent,” “unequivocal” and “convincing,” is less commonly used, but nonetheless “is no stranger to the civil law.” Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 285 (1966). See also C. McCormick, Evidence § 320 (1954); 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2498 (3d ed. 1940). One typical use of the standard is in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or some other quasi-criminal wrongdoing by the defendant. The interests at stake in those cases are deemed to be more substantial than mere loss of money and some jurisdictions accordingly reduce the risk to the defendant of having his reputation tarnished erroneously by increasing the plaintiff’s burden of proof. Similarly, this Court has used the “clear, unequivocal and convincing” standard of proof to protect particularly important individual interests in various civil cases. See, e. g.; Woodby v. INS, supra, at 285 (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U. S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization) ; Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization).
Candor suggests that, to a degree, efforts to analyze what lay jurors understand concerning the differences among these three tests or the nuances of a judge’s instructions on the law may well be largely an academic exercise; there are no directly relevant empirical studies. Indeed, the ultimate truth as to how the standards of proof affect decisionmaking may well be unknowable, given that factfinding is a process shared by countless thousands of individuals throughout the country. We probably can assume no more than that the difference between a preponderance of the evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt probably is better understood than either of them in relation to the intermediate standard of clear and convincing evidence. Nonetheless, even if the particular standard-of-proof catchwords do not always make a great difference in a particular case, adopting a “standard of proof is more than an empty semantic exercise.” Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F. 2d 1153, 1166 (CA4 1971) (Sobeloff, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert, dismissed sub nom. Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court, 407 U. S. 355 (1972). In cases involving individual rights, whether criminal or civil, “[t]he standard of proof [at a minimum] reflects the value society places on individual liberty.” 436 F. 2d, at 1166.
Ill
In considering what standard should govern in a civil commitment proceeding, we must assess both the extent of the individual’s interest in not being involuntarily confined indefinitely and the state’s interest in committing the emotionally disturbed under a particular standard of proof. Moreover, we must be mindful that the function of legal process is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 (1976); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 525-526 (1958).
A
This Court repeatedly has recognized that civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection. See, e. g., Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715 (1972); Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U. S. 504 (1972); In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967); Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605 (1967). Moreover, it is indisputable that involuntary commitment to a mental hospital after a finding of probable dangerousness to self or others can engender adverse social consequences to the individual. Whether we label this phenomena “stigma” or choose to call it something else is less important than that we recognize that it can occur and that it can have a very significant impact on the individual.
The state has a legitimate interest under its parens patriae powers in providing care to its citizens who are unable because of emotional disorders to care for themselves; the state also has authority under its police power to protect the community from the dangerous tendencies of some who are mentally ill. Under the Texas Mental Health Code, however, the State has no interest in confining individuals involuntarily if they are not mentally ill or if they do not pose some danger to themselves or others. Since the preponderance standard creates the risk of increasing the number of individuals erroneously committed, it is at least unclear to what extent, if any, the state’s interests are furthered by using a preponderance standard in such commitment proceedings.
The expanding concern of society with problems of mental disorders is reflected in the fact that in recent years many states have enacted statutes designed to protect the rights of the mentally ill. However, only one state by statute permits involuntary commitment by a mere preponderance of the evidence, Miss. Code Ann. § 41-21-75 (1978 Supp.), and Texas is the only state where a court has concluded that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard satisfies due process. We attribute this not to any lack of concern in those states, but rather to a belief that the varying standards tend to produce comparable results. As we noted earlier, however, standards of proof are important for their symbolic meaning as well as for their practical effect.
At one time or another every person exhibits some abnormal behavior which might be perceived by some as symptomatic of a mental or emotional disorder, but which is in fact within a range of conduct that is generally acceptable. Obviously, such behavior is no basis for compelled treatment and surely none for confinement. However, there is the possible risk that a factfinder might decide to commit an individual based solely on a few isolated instances of unusual conduct. Loss of liberty calls for a showing that the individual suffers from something more serious than is demonstrated by idiosyncratic behavior. Increasing the burden of proof is one way to impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision and thereby perhaps to reduce the chances that inappropriate commitments will be ordered.
The individual should not be asked to share equally with society the risk of error when the possible injury to the individual is significantly greater than any possible harm to the state. We conclude that the individual’s interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence.
B
Appellant urges the Court to hold that due process requires use of the criminal law’s standard of proof — “beyond a reasonable doubt.” He argues that the rationale of the Winship holding that the criminal law standard of proof was required in a delinquency proceeding applies with equal force to a civil commitment proceeding.
In Winship, against the background of a gradual assimilation of juvenile proceedings into traditional criminal prosecutions, we declined to allow the state’s “civil labels and good intentions” to “obviate the need for criminal due process safeguards in juvenile courts.” 397 U. S., at 365-366. The Court saw no controlling difference in loss of liberty and stigma between a conviction for an adult and a delinquency adjudication for a juvenile. Winship recognized that the basic issue— whether the individual in fact committed a criminal act — was the same in both proceedings. There being no meaningful distinctions between the two proceedings, we required the state to prove the juvenile’s act and intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are significant reasons why different standards of proof are called for in civil commitment proceedings as opposed to criminal prosecutions. In a civil commitment state power is not exercised in a punitive sense. Unlike the delinquency proceeding in Winship, a civil commitment proceeding can in no sense be equated to a criminal prosecution. Cf. Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S., at 284-285.
In addition, the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard historically has been reserved for criminal cases. This unique standard of proof, not prescribed or defined in the Constitution, is regarded as a critical part of the “moral force of the criminal law,” In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 364, and we should hesitate to apply it too broadly or casually in noncriminal cases. Cf. ibid.
The heavy standard applied in criminal cases manifests our concern that the risk of error to the individual must be minimized even at the risk that some who are guilty might go free. Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197, 208 (1977). The full force of that idea does not apply to a civil commitment. It may be true that an erroneous commitment is sometimes as undesirable as an erroneous conviction, 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1400 (Chadboum rev. 1974). However, even though an erroneous confinement should be avoided in the first instance, the layers of professional review and observation of the patient’s condition, and the concern of family and friends generally will provide continuous opportunities for an erroneous commitment to be corrected. Moreover, it is not true that the release of a genuinely mentally ill person is no worse for the individual than the failure to convict the guilty. One who is suffering from a debilitating mental illness and in need of treatment is neither wholly at liberty nor free of stigma. See Chodoff, The Case for Involuntary Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill, 133 Am. J. Psychiatry 496, 498 (1976); Schwartz, Myers, & Astrachan, Psychiatric Labeling and the Rehabilitation of the Mental Patient, 31 Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 329, 334 (1974). It cannot be said, therefore, that it is much better for a mentally ill person to “go free” than for a mentally normal person to be committed.
Finally, the initial inquiry in a civil commitment proceeding is very different from the central issue in either a delinquency proceeding or a criminal prosecution. In the latter cases the basic issue is a straightforward factual question — did the accused commit the act alleged? There may be factual issues to resolve in a commitment proceeding, but the factual aspects represent only the beginning of the inquiry. Whether the individual is mentally ill and dangerous to either himself or others and is in need of confined therapy turns on the meaning of the facts which must be interpreted by expert psychiatrists and psychologists. Given the lack of certainty and the fallibility of psychiatric diagnosis, there is a serious question as to whether a state could ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual is both mentally ill and likely to be dangerous. See O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563, 584 (1975) (concurring opinion); Blocker v. United States, 110 U. S. App. D. C. 41, 48-49, 288 F. 2d 853, 860-861 (1961) (opinion concurring in result). See also Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F. 2d, at 1165 (Sobeloff, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Note, Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill: Theories and Procedures, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1288, 1291 (1966); Note, Due Process and the Development of “Criminal” Safeguards in Civil Commitment Adjudications, 42 Ford. L. Rev. 611, 624 (1974).
The subtleties and nuances of psychiatric diagnosis render certainties virtually beyond reach in most situations. The reasonable-doubt standard of criminal law functions in its realm because there the standard is addressed to specific, knowable facts. Psychiatric diagnosis, in contrast, is to a large extent based on medical “impressions” drawn from subjective analysis and filtered through the experience of the diagnostician. This process often makes it very difficult for the expert physician to offer definite conclusions about any particular patient. Within the medical discipline, the traditional standard for “factfinding” is a “reasonable medical certainty.” If a trained psychiatrist has difficulty with the categorical “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, the untrained lay juror — or indeed even a trained judge — who is required to rely upon expert opinion could be forced by the criminal law standard of proof to reject commitment for many patients desperately in need of institutionalized psychiatric care. See ibid. Such “freedom” for a mentally ill person would be purchased at a high price.
That practical considerations may limit a constitutionally based burden of proof is demonstrated by the reasonable-doubt standard, which is a compromise between what is possible to prove and what protects the rights of the individual. If the state was required to guarantee error-free convictions, it would be required to prove guilt beyond all doubt. However, “[d]ue process does not require that every conceivable step be taken, at whatever cost, to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person.” Patterson v. New York, supra, at 208. Nor should the state be required to employ a standard of proof that may completely undercut its efforts to further the legitimate interests of both the state and the patient that are served by civil commitments.
That some states have chosen — either legislatively or judicially — to adopt the criminal law standard gives no assurance that the more stringent standard of proof is needed or is even adaptable to the needs of all states. The essence of federalism is that states must be free to develop a variety of solutions to problems and not be forced into a common, uniform mold. As the substantive standards for civil commitment may vary from state to state, procedures must be allowed to vary so long as they meet the constitutional minimum. See Monahan & Wexler, A Definite Maybe: Proof and Probability in Civil Commitment, 2 Law & Human Behavior 37, 41-42 (1978); Share, The Standard of Proof in Involuntary Civil Commitment Proceedings, 1977 Detroit College L. Rev. 209, 210. We conclude that it is unnecessary to require states to apply the strict, criminal standard.
C
Having concluded that the preponderance standard falls short of meeting the demands of due process and that the reasonable-doubt standard is not required, we turn to a middle level of burden of proof that strikes a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the legitimate concerns of the state. We note that 20 states, most by statute, employ the standard of “clear and convincing” evidence; 3 states use “clear, cogent, and convincing” evidence; and 2 states require “clear, unequivocal and convincing” evidence.
In Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276 (1966), dealing with deportation, and Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S., at 125, 159, dealing with denaturalization, the Court held that “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence was the appropriate standard of proof. The term “unequivocal,” taken by itself, means proof that admits of no doubt, a burden approximating, if not exceeding, that used in criminal cases. The issues in Schneiderman and Woodby were basically factual and therefore susceptible of objective proof and the consequences to the individual were unusually drastic — loss of citizenship and expulsion from the United States.
We have concluded that the reasonable-doubt standard is inappropriate in civil commitment proceedings because, given the uncertainties of psychiatric diagnosis, it may impose a burden the state cannot meet and thereby erect an unreasonable barrier to needed medical treatment. Similarly, we conclude that use of the term “unequivocal” is not constitutionally required, although the states are free to use that standard. To meet due process demands, the standard has to inform the factfinder that the proof must be greater than the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applicable to other categories of civil cases.
We noted earlier that the trial court employed the standard of “clear, unequivocal and convincing” evidence in appellant’s commitment hearing before a jury. That instruction was constitutionally adequate. However, determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than the “clear and convincing” standard which we hold is required to meet due process guarantees is a matter of state law which we leave to the Texas Supreme Court. Accordingly, we remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84 (1978); Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235 (1958); May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528 (1953). As in those cases, we continue to refer to the parties as appellant and appellee. See Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 90 n. 4.
Compare Morano, A Reexamination of the Development of the Reasonable Doubt Rule, 55 B. U. L. Rev. 507 (1975) (reasonable doubt represented a less strict standard than previous common-law rules), with May, Some Rules of Evidence, 10 Am. L. Rev. 642 (1875) (reasonable doubt constituted a stricter rule than previous ones). See generally Underwood, The Thumb on the Scales of Justice: Burdens of Persuasion in Criminal Cases, 86 Yale L. J. 1299 (1977).
There have been some efforts to evaluate the effect of varying standards of proof on jury factfinding, see, e. g., L. S. E. Jury Project, Juries and the Rules of Evidence, 1973 Crim. L. Rev. 208, but we have found no study comparing all three standards of proof to determine how juries, real or mock, apply them.
The State of Texas confines only for the purpose of providing care designed to treat the individual. As the Texas Supreme Court said in State v. Turner, 556 S. W. 2d 563, 566 (1977):
“The involuntary mental patient is entitled to treatment, to periodic and recurrent review of his mental condition, and to release at such time as he no longer presents a danger to himself or others.”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 334-60 (b) (4) (I) (Supp. 1978); Idaho Code § 66-329 (i) (Supp. 1978); Kan. Stat. Ann. §59-2917 (1976); Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 38-1305 (7) (Supp. 1977); Okla. Stat., Tit. 43A, § 54.1 (C) (Supp. 1978); Ore. Rev. Stat. §426.130 (1977); Utah Code Ann. §64r-7-36 (6) (1953); Wis. Stat. § 51.20 (14) (e) (Supp. 1978-1979); Superintendent of Worcester State Hospital v. Hagberg, 374 Mass. 271, 372 N. E. 2d 242 (1978); Proctor v. Butler, 117 N. H. 927, 380 A. 2d 673 (1977); In re Hodges, 325 A. 2d 605 (D. C. 1974); Lausche v. Commissioner of Public Welfare, 302 Minn. 65, 225 N. W. 2d 366 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 993 (1975). See also In re J. W., 44 N. J. Super. 216, 130 A. 2d 64 (App. Div.), cert. denied, 24 N. J. 465, 132 A. 2d 558 (1957); Denton v. Commonwealth, 383 S. W. 2d 681 (Ky. App. 1964) (dicta).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-540 (1974); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 27-10-111 (1) (Supp. 1976); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17-178 (c) (1979); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 16, §5010 (2) (Supp. 1978); Ga. Code §88-501 (u) (1978); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 911/2, §3-808 (Supp. 1977); Iowa Code §229.12 (1979); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28:55E (West Supp. 1979); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 34, § 2334 (5) (A) (1) (1978); Mich. Stat. Ann. §14.800 (465) (1976); Neb. Rev. Stat. §83-1035 (1976); N. M. Stat. Ann. §43-1-11C (1978); N. D. Cent. Code § 25-03.1-19 (1978); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5122.15 (B) (Supp. 1978); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 50, § 7304 (f) (Purdon Supp. 1978-1979); S. C. Code § 44-17-580 (Supp. 1978); S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 27A-9-18 (1977); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §7616 (b) (Supp. 1978); Md. Dept, of Health & Mental Hygiene Reg. 10.21.03G (1973); In re Beverly, 342 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1977).
N. C. Gen. Stat. § 122-58.7 (i) (Supp. 1977); Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.310 (1976); State ex rel. Hawks v. Lasaro, 157 W. Va. 417, 202 S. E. 2d 109 (1974).
Ala. Code § 22-52-10 (a) (Supp. 1978); Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-604 (d) (Supp. 1978).
See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2494 (1961).
We noted earlier the court’s holding on harmless error. See supra, at 422.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
' This case raises two issues under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c.
h — H
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973 et seq., contains two major provisions governing discrimination in election practices. Section 2 addresses existing election procedures. It prohibits procedures that “resul[t] in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . . .” § 1973(a). Section 5 governs changes in voting procedures. In order to prevent changes that have a discriminatory purpose or effect, § 5 requires covered jurisdictions, such as Louisiana, to obtain pre-clearance by one of two methods before implementing new voting practices. § 1973c. Through judicial preclearance, a covered jurisdiction may obtain from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a declaratory judgment that the voting change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” Ibid. Through administrative preclearance, the jurisdiction may submit the change to the Attorney General of the United States. If the Attorney General “has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission,” the State may enforce the change. Ibid.
Appellants are black registered voters and a voting rights organization in Louisiana. They filed this suit in 1986 under §§2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, challenging the validity of Louisiana’s multimember, at-large electoral scheme for certain appellate, district, and family court judges. Under § 2, appellants alleged that Louisiana’s electoral scheme diluted minority voting strength. In an amended complaint filed in July 1987, appellants also alleged that Louisiana violated § 5 by failing to submit for preclearance a number of statutory and constitutional voting changes, many of them adopted in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. The § 2 portion of the case was assigned to a single District Court Judge; the § 5 allegations were heard by a three-judge District Court, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c; 28 U. S. C. §2284.
In response to the appellants’ §5 allegations, Louisiana submitted all of the unprecleared voting changes for administrative preclearance. In September 1988 and May 1989, the Attorney General granted preclearance for some of the changes, but objected to others. On June 18 and 20, 1990, Louisiana asked the Attorney General to reconsider his denial of preclearance for these seats, and proceeded with plans to hold elections for them in the fall of 1990. On July 23, 1990, appellants filed a motion asking the three-judge District Court to enjoin the elections for the unprecleared seats.
On July 6, 1990, the District Court presiding over the § 2 case enjoined the State from holding elections in 11 judicial districts which it determined violated § 2. Some of these judicial districts were also at issue in the § 5 portion of the case. On September 28, 1990, the three-judge District Court presiding over the §5 case denied appellants’ motion to enjoin the State from holding elections for the seats not blocked by the § 2 injunction. The three-judge panel, however, did enjoin the winning candidates from taking office pending its further orders.
Also on September 28, 1990, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that judges are not representatives for purposes of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. League of United Latin American Citizens Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 914 F. 2d 620 (1990), cert. granted, 498 U. S. 1061 (1991). Based on this precedent, the District Court Judge presiding over the § 2 aspect of the case dissolved the §2 injunction on October 2 and ordered that elections for the 11 districts be held on November 6 and December 8, 1990. On the same day, the three-judge District Court presiding over the §5 case refused to enjoin the elections for the unprecleared seats, but it again enjoined the winning candidates from taking office pending its further orders. As of October 2, 1990, then, Louisiana had scheduled elections for all of the judgeships to which the Attorney General had interposed objections.
In an October 22 order and an October 31 opinion, the three-judge District Court made its final pronouncement on the status of the unprecleared judgeships. The court divided the unprecleared electoral changes into two categories. Category one involved at-large judgeships in districts where, for the most part, the State had obtained administrative pre-clearance for later created judgeships. The three-judge District Court held that, despite his current objections, the Attorney General had precleared the earlier judgeships when he precleared the later, or related, voting changes. For example, the First Judicial District Court in Caddo Parish has a number of judgeships, called Divisions, subject to § 5. Louisiana submitted and obtained approval for Divisions E (created in 1966, precleared in 1986), G (created and precleared in 1976), H (created and precleared in 1978), and I (created and precleared in 1982). Division F was not submitted for approval when it was created in 1973; rather, it was submitted and objected to in 1988. The three-judge District Court held, however, that when the Attorney General precleared Divisions G, H, and I, he also precleared Division F. The court reasoned that because the legislation creating Divisions G, H, and I added to the number of prior judgeships in Caddo Parish, including Division F, approval of the legislation constituted approval of Division F. 751 F. Supp. 586, 592, and n. 35 (MD La. 1990).
Category two under the court’s ruling involved judgeships subject to valid objections by the Attorney General. Yet despite its holding that these unprecleared judgeships violated § 5, the court refused to enjoin the elections. It found “the potential harm to all of the citizens of Louisiana [from such an injunction] outweigh[ed] the potential harm, if any, of allowing the elections to continue.” Id., at 595. It allowed the election to proceed under the following conditions. The winning candidates could take office if, within 90 days, Louisiana filed a judicial preclearance action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or persuaded the Attorney General to withdraw his objections. The winners of the election could remain in office pending judicial preclearance and could retain office for the remainder of their terms if the State obtained judicial preclearance. If the State failed to obtain judicial preclearance, the installed candidates could remain in office only 150 days after final judgment by the District Court.
On October 29, 1990, appellants filed an emergency application in this Court to enjoin the November 6 and December 8 elections pending appeal. On November 2, we granted the application in part and enjoined the elections for the judge-ships that the District Court conceded were uncleared. Clark v. Roemer, 498 U. S. 953, modified, 498 U. S. 954 (1990). We did not overturn the District Court’s refusal to enjoin elections for the judgeships that it considered pre-cleared by implication. Ibid.
On January 18, 1991, we noted probable jurisdiction. 498 U. S. 1060. The next day, the State sought judicial pre-clearance for the electoral changes that the three-judge District Court found to be uncleared. That action is still pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
II
The case presents two discrete issues under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. First, we must decide whether the District Court erred by not enjoining elections held for judgeships to which the Attorney General interposed valid § 5 objections. Second, we must determine whether the State’s failure to preclear certain earlier voting changes under §5 was cured by the Attorney General’s preclearance of later, or related, voting changes.
A
The District Court held that the Attorney General had interposed valid objections to some judgeships. Nonetheless, it permitted elections for those seats to go forward and allowed the winners to take office pending resolution of Louisiana’s judicial preclearance request. This ruling was error.
Section 5 requires States to obtain either judicial or administrative preclearance before implementing a voting change. A voting change in a covered jurisdiction “will not be effective as la[w] until and unless cleared" pursuant to one of these two methods. Connor v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656 (1975) (per curiam). See also United States v. Board of Supervisors of Warren County, 429 U. S. 642, 645 (1977) (“No new voting practice or procedure may be enforced unless the State or political subdivision has succeeded in its declaratory judgment action or the Attorney General has declined to object”). Failure to obtain either judicial or administrative preclearance “renders the change unenforceable.” Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U. S. 255, 269 (1982). If voting changes subject to § 5 have not been precleared, § 5 plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction prohibiting the State from implementing the changes. Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 572 (1969).
The District Court ignored these principles altogether. It presented a number of reasons for not enjoining the election, none of which we find persuasive. The court cited the short time between election day and the most recent request for injunction, the fact that qualifying and absentee voting had begun, and the time and expense of the candidates. But the parties, the District Court, and the candidates had been on notice of the alleged § 5 violations since appellants filed their July 1987 amended complaint. When Louisiana asked the Attorney General for reconsideration of its original preclearance decision in June 1990, it became apparent that the State intended to hold elections for the unprecleared seats in the fall of the same year. Less than a month later, and more than two months before the scheduled October 6, 1990, election, appellants filed a motion to enjoin elections for the unprecleared seats. Appellants displayed no lack of diligence in challenging elections for the unprecleared seats, and every participant in the process knew for over three years that the challenged seats were unprecleared, in violation of §5.
The other reasons for the District Court’s decision lack merit as well. The District Court maintained that the applicability of § 5 to judges was uncertain until our summary affirmance in Brooks v. Georgia State Bd. of Elections, 775 F. Supp. 1470, aff’d, 498 U. S. 916 (1990). But in Haith v. Martin, 618 F. Supp. 410 (EDNC 1985), aff’d, 477 U. S. 901 (1986), we issued a summary affirmance of a decision holding that §5 applied to judges. Nor did the District Court’s vague concerns about voter confusion and low voter turnout in a special election for the unprecleared seats justify its refusal to enjoin the illegal elections. Voters may be more confused and inclined to avoid the polls when an election is held in conceded violation of federal law. Finally, the District Court’s stated purpose to avoid possible challenges to criminal and civil judgments does not justify allowing the invalid elections to take place. To the contrary, this concern counsels in favor of enjoining the illegal elections, thus averting a federal challenge to state judgments.
The three-judge District Court, 751F. Supp., at 595, maintained that its decision to give provisional effect to elections conducted in violation of § 5 “closely parallelled]” a number of our decisions, including Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971), NAACP v. Hampton County Election Comm’n, 470 U. S. 166 (1985), Berry v. Doles, 438 U. S. 190 (1978), and Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526 (1973). The cases are inapposite. Perkins stated that “[i]n certain circumstances ... it might be appropriate to enter an order affording local officials an opportunity to seek federal approval and ordering a new election only if local officials fail to do so or if the required federal approval is not forthcoming.” 400 U. S., at 396-397. But in Perkins, as in Hampton County, Berry, and Georgia, the elections in question had been held already; the only issue was whether to remove the elected individuals pending preclearance. Here the District Court did not face the ex post question whether to set aside illegal elections; rather, it faced the ex ante question whether to allow illegal elections to be held at all. On these premises, §5’s prohibition against implementation of unprecleared changes required the District Court to enjoin the election. This is especially true because, unlike the circumstance in Perkins, Hampton County, Berry, or Georgia, the Attorney General interposed objections before the election.
We need not decide today whether there are cases in which a district court may deny a § 5 plaintiff’s motion for injunction and allow an election for an unprecleared seat to go forward. An extreme circumstance might be present if a seat’s unprecleared status is not drawn to the attention of the State until the eve of the election and there are equitable principles that justify allowing the election to proceed. No such exigency exists here. The State of Louisiana failed to preclear these judgeships as required by § 5. It received official notice of the defect in July 1987, and yet three years later it had still failed to file for judicial preclearance, the “basic mechanism” for preclearance, United States v. Sheffield Bd. of Comm’rs, 435 U. S. 110, 136 (1978). It scheduled elections for the unprecleared seats in the fall of 1990 even after the Attorney General had interposed objections under §5. In short, by the fall 1990 election, Louisiana had with consistency ignored the mandate of § 5. The District Court should have enjoined the elections.
B
The District Court held also that the Attorney General’s preclearance of voting change legislation in some districts operated to preclear earlier voting changes in those districts, even though the Attorney General now objects to the earlier changes. This ruling conflicts with our decision in McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U. S. 236 (1984), and subverts the efficacy of administrative preclearance under § 5.
McCain involved a 1966 South Carolina statute establishing a three-member county council elected at large by all county voters and requiring candidates to reside in, and run from, one of three residency districts. The State failed to preclear the 1966 statute. In 1971, the State amended the statute to increase the number of residency districts and county council members from , three to five, and submitted the new Act for preclearance. Based on a request by the Attorney General for additional information, South Carolina also submitted a copy of the 1966 Act. The Attorney General declined to interpose any objection “to the change in question.” Id., at 241. In a later §5 challenge to the 1966 changes, a District Court held, that the Attorney General’s request for additional information indicated that he considered and approved all aspects of the electoral scheme subject to the 1971 amendments, including the changes effected by the 1966 Act. In the alternative, the District Court held that since the 1971 amendment retained or incorporated changes effected by the 1966 Act, the lack of objection to the 1971 submission constituted approval of the 1966 Act.
We reversed both holdings. We made clear that the submission of legislation for administrative preclearance under §5 defines the scope of the preclearance request. Under normal circumstances, a submission pertains only to identified changes in that legislation. Id., at 251, 257. We established also that any ambiguity in the scope of a preclearance request must be resolved against the submitting authority. Id., at 257. Applying these standards, we held that the three-judge District Court’s finding that the Attorney General had considered and approved the changes made by the 1966 Act in the course of approving the 1971 amendment was clearly erroneous, because the information submitted was limited to election changes effected by the 1971 amendments.
We held further that the District Court erred as a matter of law in determining that approval of the 1971 submission was also an approval of the changes in the 1966 statute. We explained that “the preclearance procedures mandated by § 5 . . . focus entirely on changes in election practices,” id., at 251, and that “submission of a particular change does not encompass all prior changes — precleared or not — that have been made since the Act’s effective date . . . ,” id., at 255, n. 26.
“When a jurisdiction adopts legislation that makes clearly defined changes in its election practices, sending that legislation to the Attorney General merely with a general request for preclearance pursuant to § 5 constitutes a submission of the changes made by the enactment and cannot be deemed a submission of changes made by previous legislation which themselves were independently subject to §5 preclearance.” Id., at 256.
The three-judge District Court in the instant case reasoned as follows in ruling that submission and approval of the later electoral changes constituted submission and approval of the earlier changes:
“[W]e find that there was express approval by the Attorney General for those judicial positions set forth in Part I of our October 22,1990, order. The language of the various acts submitted to the Attorney General, as well as the letters submitted by the State of Louisiana seeking preclearance, support this conclusion. Thus, the change submitted to the Attorney General is not only the Amendment, but the entire act as passed by the legislature. When the Attorney General approves the new act, he not only approves the amended portion but necessarily approves the older, reenacted part, which forms part of the new act. Thus, when an act provides for a certain number of judicial positions, approval of that act must include all of the judicial positions necessary to reach that number.” 751 F. Supp., at 592-593 (footnotes omitted).
And in a footnote, the court explained that the submission of the later Acts covered the earlier Acts as well because “in most cases the letter of submission clearly and expressly states that the number of judges in a particular district is being increased from one number to another.”' Id., at 592-593, n. 38. On this basis alone, the District Court distinguished McCain. 751 F. Supp., at 592-593, n. 38.
The District Court’s explanation for its holding replicates the precise factual and legal errors we identified in McCain. Its ruling that preclearance “not only approves the amended portion of the new act but necessarily approves the older, reenacted part, which forms part of the new act” is inconsistent with McCain. McCain establishes a presumption that the Attorney General will review only the current changes in election practices effected by the submitted legislation, not prior unprecleared changes reenacted in the amended legislation. A submission’s description of the change from one number of judges to another in a particular judicial district does not, by itself, constitute a submission to the Attorney General of the prior voting changes incorporated in the newly amended statute. “A request for preclearance of certain identified changes in election practices which fails to identify other practices as new ones thus cannot be considered an adequate submission of the latter practices.” 465 U. S., at 256-257. Of course, a State may include earlier unpre-cleared changes as a specific submission along with its pre-clearance request for contemporary legislation. But it must identify with specificity each change that it wishes the Attorney General to consider.
The requirement that the State identify each change is necessary if the Attorney General is to perform his preclearance duties under §5. The Attorney General has substantial responsibilities under § 5. The Government represents to us that the Attorney General reviews an average of 17,000 electoral changes each year, and that within the 60-day preclearance period, he must for each change analyze demographics, voting patterns, and other local conditions to make the statutory judgment concerning the presence of a discriminatory purpose or effect. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22, n. 18. Congress recognized that the Attorney General could not, in addition to these duties, also monitor and identify each voting change in each jurisdiction subject to §5. “[B]ecause of the acknowledged and anticipated inability of the Justice Department — given limited resources — to investigate independently all changes with respect to voting enacted by States and subdivisions covered by the Act,” 465 U. S., at 247, Congress required each jurisdiction subject to § 5, as a condition to implementation of a voting change subject to the Act, to identify, submit, and receive approval for all such changes. The District Court’s holding upsets this ordering of responsibilities under §5, for it would add to the Attorney General’s already redoubtable obligations the additional duty to research each submission to ensure that all earlier un-submitted changes had been brought to light. Such a rule would diminish covered jurisdictions’ responsibilities for self-monitoring under §5 and would create incentives for them to forgo the submission process altogether. We reaffirm McCain in rejecting this vision of § 5.
In light of its legal errors, the District Court’s finding that the Attorney General “expressly approved” the prior uncleared changes cannot stand. Neither the initial submission nor the Attorney General’s ruling upon it can be deemed to include the earlier unprecleared seats. Louisiana’s submissions of contemporary legislation to the Attorney General failed as a matter of law to put him on notice that the prior unsubmitted changes were included. None of the submissions informed the Attorney General that prior voting changes were uncleared and were being transmitted along with the new changes. In most instances, Louisiana submitted only the legislation containing the new voting change. The record contains five submission letters, but these communications do not give requisite notice. Two were mere cover letters that added nothing to the submitted legislation. The other three letters note changes in the number of judges in a district, but as we have explained, this alone does not constitute a submission of the prior uncleared changes. In light of these legal errors and the presumption that “any ambiguity in the scope of the preclearance request” must be construed against the submitting jurisdiction, id., at 257, “we are left with the definite and firm conviction,” id., at 258, that the court erred in finding that the Attorney General gave express approval to the earlier changes.
Appellants request that we set aside the elections held for these seats and remove the judges from office. This is not a proper matter for us to consider in the first instance. “[A] local district court is in a better position than this Court to fashion relief, because the district court ‘is more familiar with the nuances of the local situation’ and has the opportunity to hear evidence.” Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U. S., at 270, quoting Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S., at 397. In fashioning its decree granting relief, the District Court should adopt a remedy that in all the circumstances of the case implements the mandate of § 5 in the most equitable and practicable manner and with least offense to its provisions.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
New York Edue. Law §414 (McKinney 1988 and Supp. 1993) authorizes local school boards to adopt reasonable regulations for the use of school property for 10 specified purposes when the property is not in use for school purposes. Among the permitted uses is the holding of “social, civic and recreational meetings and entertainments, and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community; but such meetings, entertainment and uses shall be non-exclusive and shall be open to the general public.” § 414(c). The list of permitted uses does not include meetings for religious purposes, and a New York appellate court in Trietley v. Board of Ed. of Buffalo, 409 N. Y. S. 2d 912, 915 (App. Div. 1978), ruled that local boards could not allow student bible clubs to meet on school property because “[r]eligious purposes are not included in the enumerated purposes for which a school may be used under section 414.” In Deeper Life Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Sobol, 948 F. 2d 79, 88-84 (1991), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit accepted Trietley as an authoritative interpretation of state law. Furthermore, the Attorney General of New York supports Trietley as an appropriate approach to deciding this case.
Pursuant to §414’s empowerment of local school districts, the Board of Center Moriches Union Free School District (District) has issued rules and regulations with respect to the use of school property when not in use for school purposes. The rules allow only 2 of the 10 purposes authorized by §414: social, civic, or recreational uses (Rule 10) and use by political organizations if secured in compliance with §414 (Rule 8). Rule 7, however, consistent with the judicial interpretation of state law, provides that “[t]he school premises shall not be used by any group for religious purposes.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a.
The issue in this case is whether, against this background of state law, it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, to deny a church access to school premises to exhibit for public viewing and for assertedly religious purposes, a film series dealing with family and child-rearing issues faced by parents today.
I
Petitioners (Church) are Lamb’s Chapel, an evangelical church in the community of Center Moriches, and its pastor John Steigerwald. Twice the Church applied to the District for permission to use school facilities to show a six-part film series containing lectures by Doctor James Dobson. A brochure provided on request of the District identified Dr. Dob-son as a licensed psychologist, former associate clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, best-selling author, and radio commentator. The brochure stated that the film series would discuss Dr. Dobson’s views on the undermining influences of the media that could only be counterbalanced by returning to traditional, Christian family values instilled at an early stage. The brochure went on to describe the contents of each of the six parts of the series. The District denied the first application, saying that “[t]his film does appear to be church related and therefore your request must be refused.” App. 84. The second application for permission to use school premises for showing the film series, which described it as a “Family oriented movie — from a Christian perspective,” id., at 91, was denied using identical language.
The Church brought suit in the District Court, challenging the denial as a violation of the Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clauses, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As to each cause of action, the Church alleged that the actions were undertaken under color of state law, in violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents, rejecting all the Church’s claims. With respect to the free-speech claim under the First Amendment, the District Court characterized the District’s facilities as a “limited public forum.” The court noted that the enumerated purposes for which §414 allowed access to school facilities did not include religious worship or instruction, that Rule 7 explicitly proscribes using school facilities for religious purposes, and that the Church had conceded that its showing of the film series would be for religious purposes. 770 F. Supp. 91, 92, 98-99 (EDNY 1991). The District Court stated that once a limited public forum is opened to a particular type of speech, selectively denying access to other activities of the same genre is forbidden. Id., at 99. Noting that the District had not opened its facilities to organizations similar to Lamb’s Chapel for religious purposes, the District Court held that the denial in this case was viewpoint neutral and, hence, not a violation of the Freedom of Speech Clause. Ibid. The District Court also rejected the assertion by the Church that denying its application demonstrated a hostility to religion and advancement of nonreligion not justified under the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. 736 F. Supp. 1247, 1253 (1990).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court “in all respects.” 959 F. 2d 381, 389 (CA2 1992). It held that the school property, when not in use for school purposes, was neither a traditional nor a designated public forum; rather, it was a limited public forum open only for designated purposes, a classification that “allows it to remain non-public except as to specified uses.” Id., at 386. The court observed that exclusions in such a forum need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral, ibid., and ruled that denying access to the Church for the purpose of showing its film did not violate this standard. Because the holding below was questionable under our decisions, we granted the petition for certiorari, 506 U. S. 813 (1992), which in principal part challenged the holding below as contrary to the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
II
There is no question that the District, like the private owner of property, may legally preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is dedicated. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 800 (1985); Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 46 (1983); Postal Service v. Council of Green- burgh Civic Assns., 453 U. S. 114, 129-130 (1981); Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 836 (1976); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39, 47 (1966). It is also common ground that the District need not have permitted after-hours use of its property for any of the uses permitted by N. Y. Educ. Law §414. The District, however, did open its property for 2 of the 10 uses permitted by § 414. The Church argued below that because under Rule 10 of the rules issued by the District, school property could be used for “social, civic, and recreational” purposes, the District had opened its property for such a ivide variety of communicative purposes that restrictions on communicative uses of the property were subject to the same constitutional limitations as restrictions in traditional public forums such as parks and sidewalks. Hence, its view was that subject matter or speaker exclusions on District property were required to be justified by a compelling state interest and to be narrowly drawn to achieve that end. See Perry, supra, at 45; Cornelius, supra, at 800. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected this submission, which is also presented to this Court. The argument has considerable force, for the District’s property is heavily used by a wide variety of private organizations, including some that presented a “close question,” which the Court of Appeals resolved in the District’s favor, as to whether the District had in fact already opened its property for religious uses. 959 F. 2d, at 387. We need not rule on this issue, however, for even if the courts below were correct in this respect — and we shall assume for present purposes that they were — the judgment below must be reversed.
With respect to public property that is not a designated public forum open for indiscriminate public use for communicative purposes, we have said that “[cjontrol over access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral.” Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 806, citing Perry Education Assn., supra, at 49. The Court of Appeals appeared to recognize that the total ban on using District property for religious purposes could survive First Amendment challenge only if excluding this category of speech was reasonable and viewpoint neutral. The court’s conclusion in this ease was that Rule 7 met this test. We cannot agree with this holding, for Rule 7 was unconstitutionally applied in this ease.
The Court of Appeals thought that the application of Rule 7 in this ease was viewpoint neutral because it had been, and would be, applied in the same way to all uses of school property for religious purposes. That all religions, and all uses for religious purposes are treated alike under Rule 7, however, does not answer the critical question whether it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint to permit school property to be used for the presentation of all views about family issues and child rearing except those dealing with the subject matter from a religious standpoint.
There is no suggestion from the courts below or from the District or the State that a lecture or film about child rearing and family values would not be a use for social or civic purposes otherwise permitted by Rule 10. That subject matter is not one that the District has placed off limits to any and all speakers. Nor is there any indication in the record before us that the application to exhibit the particular film series involved here was, or would have been, denied for any reason other than the fact that the presentation would have been from a religious perspective. In our view, denial on that basis was plainly invalid under our holding in Cornelius, supra, at 806, that
“[although a speaker may be excluded from a nonpublic forum if he wishes to address a topic not encompassed within the purpose of the forum ... or if he is not a member of the class of speakers for whose especial benefit the forum was created ..., the government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject.”
The film series involved here no doubt dealt with a subject otherwise permissible under Rule 10, and its exhibition was denied solely because the series dealt with the subject from a religious standpoint. The principle that has emerged from our cases “is that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others.” City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 804 (1984). That principle applies in the circumstances of this case; as Judge Posner said for the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to discriminate “against a particular point of view ... would ... flunk the test... [of] Cornelius, provided that the defendants have no defense based on the establishment clause.” May v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp., 787 F. 2d 1105, 1114 (1986).
The District, as a respondent, would save its judgment below on the ground that to permit its property to be used for religious purposes would be an establishment of religion forbidden by the First Amendment. This Court suggested in Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 271 (1981), that the interest of the State in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation “may be [a] compelling” one justifying an abridgment of free speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment; but the Court went on to hold that permitting use of university property for religious purposes under the open access policy involved there would not be incompatible with the Court’s Establishment Clause eases.
We have no more trouble than did the Widmar Court in disposing of the claimed defense on the ground that the posited fears of an Establishment Clause violation are unfounded. The showing of this film series would not have been during school hours, would not have been sponsored by the school, and would have been open to the public, not just to church members. The District property had repeatedly been used by a wide variety of private organizations. Under these circumstances, as in Widmar, there would have been no realistic danger that the community would think that the District was endorsing religion or any particular creed, and any benefit to religion or to the Church would have been no more than incidental. As in Widmar, supra, at 271-272, permitting District property to be used to exhibit the film series involved in this case would not have been an establishment of religion under the three-part test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971): The challenged governmental action has a secular purpose, dóes not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.
The District also submits that it justifiably denied use of its property to a “radical” church for the purpose of proselytizing, since to do so would lead to threats of public unrest and even violence. Brief for Respondent Center Moriches Union Free School District et al. 4-5, 11-12, 24. There is nothing in the record to support such a justification, which in any event would be difficult to defend as a reason to deny the presentation of a religious point of view about a subject the District otherwise opens to discussion on District property.
We note that the New York State Attorney General, a respondent here, does not rely on either the Establishment Clause or possible danger to the public peace in supporting the judgment below. Rather, he submits that the exclusion is justified because the purpose of the access rules is to promote the interests of the public in general rather than sectarian or other private interests. In light of the variety of the uses of District property that have been permitted under Rule 10, this approach has its difficulties. This is particularly so since Rule 10 states that District property may be used for social, civic, or recreational use “only if it can be non-exclusive and open to all residents of the school district that form á homogeneous group deemed relevant to the event.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a. At least arguably, the Rule does not require that permitted uses need be open to the public at large. However that may be, this was not the basis of the judgment that we are reviewing. The Court of Appeals, as we understand it, ruled that because the District had the power to permit or exclude certain subject matters, it was entitled to deny use for any religious purpose, including the purpose in this case. The Attorney General also defends this as a permissible subject-matter exclusion rather than a denial based on viewpoint, a submission that we have already rejected.
The Attorney General also argues that there is no express finding below that the Church’s application would have been granted absent the religious connection. This fact is beside the point for the purposes of this opinion, which is concerned with the validity of the stated reason for denying the Church’s application, namely, that the film series sought to be shown “appeared to be church related.”
For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Section 414(e) authorizes the use of school property “[flor polling places for holding primaries and elections and for the registration of voters and for holding political meetings. But no meetings sponsored by political organizations shall be permitted unless authorized by a vote of a district meeting, held as provided by law, or, in cities by the board of education thereof”
Shortly before the first of these requests, the Church had applied for permission to use school rooms for its Sunday morning services and for Sunday School. The hours specified were 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the time period one year beginning in the next month. 959 F. 2d 381, 383 (CA2 1992). Within a few days the District wrote petitioners that the application “requesting use of the high school for your Sunday services” was denied, citing both N. Y. Educ. Law §414 and the District’s Rule 7 barring uses for religious purposes. The Church did not challenge this denial in the courts and the validity of this denial is not before us.
“Turn Your Heart Toward Home is available now in a series of six discussion-provoking films:
“1) A FATHER LOOKS BACK emphasizes how swiftly time passes and appeals to all parents to ‘turn their hearts toward home’ during the all-important child-rearing years. (60 minutes.)
“2) POWER IN PARENTING: THE YOUNG CHILD begins by exploring the inherent nature of power, and offers many practical helps for facing the battlegrounds in child-rearing — bedtime, mealtime and other confrontations so familiar to parents. Dr. Dobson also takes a look at areas of conflict in marriage and other adult relationships. (60 minutes.)
“3) POWER IN PARENTING: THE ADOLESCENT discusses father/ daughter and mother/son relationships, and the importance of allowing children to grow to develop as individuals. Dr. Dobson also encourages parents to free themselves of undeserved guilt when their teenagers choose to rebel. (45 minutes.)
“4) THE FAMILY UNDER FIRE views the family in the context of today’s society, where a “civil war of values” is being waged. Dr. Dobson urges parents to look at the effects of governmental interference, abortion and pornography, and to get involved. To preserve what they care about most — their own families! (52 minutes.)
Note: This film contains explicit information regarding the pornography industry. Not recommended for young audiences.
“5) OVERCOMING A PAINFUL CHILDHOOD includes Shirley Dobson’s intimate memories of a difficult childhood with her alcoholic father. Mrs. Dobson recalls the influences which brought her to a loving God who saw her personal circumstances and heard her cries for help. (U0 minutes.)
“6) THE HERITAGE presents Dr. Dobson's powerful closing remarks. Here he speaks clearly and convincingly of our traditional values which, if properly employed and defended, can assure happy, healthy, strengthened homes and family relationships in the years to come. (60 minutes.)”' App. 87-88.
The petition also presses the claim by the Church, rejected by both courts below, that the rejection of its application to exhibit its film series violated the Establishment Clause because it and Rule 7’s categorical refusal to permit District property to be used for religious purposes demonstrate hostility to religion. Because we reverse on another ground, we need not decide what merit this submission might have.
In support of its case in the District Court, the Church presented the following sampling of the uses that had been permitted under Rule 10 in 1987 and 1988:
“A New Age religious group known as the “Mind Center’
Southern Harmonize Gospel Singers
Salvation Army Youth Band
Hampton Council of Churches’ Billy Taylor Concert
Center Moriches Co-op Nursery School’s Quilting Bee
Manorville Humane Society’s Chinese Auction
Moriches Bay Power Squadron Unkechaug Dance Group
Paul Gibson’s Baseball Clinic
Moriches Bay Civic Association
Moriches Chamber of Commerce’s Town Fair Day
Center Moriches Drama Club
Center Moriches Music Award Associations’ ‘Amahl & the Night Visitors’
Saint John’s Track and Field Program
Girl Scouts of Suffolk [C]ounty
Cub Scouts Pack 23
Boy Scout Troop #414.” 770 F. Supp. 91, 93, n. 4 (EDNY 1991).
The Church claimed that the first three uses listed above demonstrated that Rule 10 actually permitted the District property to be used for religious purposes as well as a great assortment of other uses. The first item listed is particularly interesting and relevant to the issue before us. The District Court referred to this item as “a lecture series by the Mind Center, purportedly a New Age religious group.” Id., at 93. The Court of Appeals described it as follows:
“The lecture series, ‘Psychology and The Unknown,’ by Jerry Huck, was sponsored by the Center Moriches Free Public Library. The library’s newsletter characterized Mr. Huck as a psychotherapist who would discuss such topics as parapsychology, transpersonal psychology, physics and metaphysics in his 4-night series of lectures. Mr. Huek testified that he lectured principally on parapsychology, which he defined by ‘reference to the human unconscious, the mind, the unconscious emotional system or the body system.’ When asked whether his lecture involved matters of both a spiritual and a scientific ñatee, Mr. Huck responded: ‘It was all science. Anything I speak on based on parapsychology, analytic, quantum physicists [sic].’ Although some incidental reference to religious matters apparently was made in the lectures, Mr. Huck himself characterized such matters as ‘a fascinating sideline’ and ‘not the purpose of the [lecture].’” 959 F. 2d, at 388.
Although the Court of Appeals apparently held that Rule 7 was reasonable as well as viewpoint neutral, the court uttered not a word in support of its reasonableness holding. If Rule 7 were to be held unreasonable, it could be held facially invalid, that is, it might be held that the rule could in no circumstances be applied to religious speech or religious communicative conduct. In view of our disposition of this case, we need not pursue this issue.
While we are somewhat diverted by Justice Scalia’s evening at the cinema, post, at 398-399, we return to the reality that there is a proper way to inter an established decision and Lemon, however frightening it might be to some, has not been overruled. This case, like Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U. S. 327 (1987), presents no occasion to do so. Justice Scalia apparently was less haunted by the ghosts of the living when he joined the opinion of the Court in that case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice & alia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves an Illinois bank holding company’s challenge to certain Florida banking statutes that are alleged to violate the Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 3. We conclude that the case has been rendered moot by 1987 amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act.
I
Under § 3(d) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHCA), 70 Stat. 134, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1842(d), a bank holding company with its principal banking operations in one State may not establish or acquire a bank in another State unless the latter State’s statutes specifically authorize it to do so. The BHCA thus effectively permits States to prevent out-of-state holding companies from owning in-state banks. That license for state discrimination applies, however, only if the proposed banking subsidiary is a “bank” as defined in §2(c) of the BHCA, 70 Stat. 133, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1841(c). Until 1987, a banking institution qualified as a “bank” for purposes of the BHCA only if it both accepted demand deposits and engaged in the business of commercial lending. As amended by the Competitive Equality Amendments of 1987, 101 Stat. 554, the BHCA definition was expanded to include all banks whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). See 12 U. S. C. § 1841(c)(1)(A).
On June 29, 1981, appellee Continental Bank Corporation, a bank holding company with its principal place of business in Illinois, filed an application with the Florida Department of Banking and Finance to establish and operate an “industrial savings bank” (ISB) in Florida. According to the application, “ ‘[a]ll deposit relationships’ ” would be insured “ ‘to the maximum extent allowed by the [FDIC].”’ Juris. Statement 1-2.
Appellant Lewis, Comptroller of the State of Florida and head of the Department of Banking and Finance, refused to process the application on the ground that two Florida statutes, Fla. Stat. §658.29(1) (Supp. 1980) and Fla. Stat. §664.03 (14) (Supp. 1980), prohibited out-of-state bank holding companies from operating ISBs in Florida. Continental thereupon filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, claiming that the statutes violated the Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, and praying for declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the Florida statutes unconstitutionally discriminated against nonresidents, and ordered Lewis to process Continental’s application.
In June 1984, after the District Court had entered judgment, the State of Florida amended its statutes to prohibit the chartering of any new ISBs in the State, whether by resident or nonresident enterprises. Fla. Stat. §664.02(1) (Supp. 1984). Lewis then moved to amend or alter the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the new nondiscriminatory ban had rendered the validity of the challenged statutes moot. The District Court denied the motion, reasoning that the new statute, even if constitutional, did not moot the case because the State’s unconstitutional behavior was “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” App. 66a. Meanwhile, Continental had moved for an award of attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988, arguing that Lewis’ enforcement of the statutes had deprived it of its constitutional rights in violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The District Court denied that motion without explanation.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the merits issue, though resting its determination that the case was not moot on the different ground that the supervening ban on new ISBs was unconstitutional, since it had the purpose and effect of denying nonresident holding companies access to Florida deposits. The Court of Appeals did not resolve Continental’s claim for attorney’s fees, but remanded the case to the District Court for an explanation of why that claim had been denied. Continental Illinois Corp. v. Lewis, 827 F. 2d 1517 (1987).
In August 1987, shortly before the Court of Appeals issued its opinion, there was again a change in the law, this time at the federal level. As part of the Competitive Equality Amendments of 1987, 101 Stat. 554, Congress expanded the BHCA definition of “bank.” The new definition, codified at 12 U. S. C. § 1841(c)(1)(A), includes any “insured bank as defined by section 3(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act,” which in turn defines “insured bank” as “any bank . . . the deposits of which are insured” by the FDIC. 12 U. S. C. § 1813(h). After this amendment to the BHCA, Lewis filed a petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeals, arguing that the new legislation mooted the controversy because the ISB that Continental proposed to establish would have FDIC-insured deposits and therefore would be a “bank” within the coverage of the BHCA. Such coverage, Lewis argued, would mean that Florida’s refusal to permit Continental to establish an ISB, even if discriminatory against interstate commerce, would be authorized by federal law and hence immune from challenge under the Commerce Clause.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition for rehearing in a brief opinion, saying that it did “not agree that the amendments necessarily would make Continental’s operation of an ISB in Florida a ‘banking’ activity in every instance,” and that it could not “now guess what the parties will do or not do as a result of the enactment of the August 10, 1987 [BHCA] amendments.” 838 F. 2d 457, 458 (CA11 1988). In addition, the court awarded Continental attorney’s fees for the appeal, without explaining the basis for the award, and remanded to the District Court for a calculation of a proper award for the appeal as well as a determination whether an award was appropriate for work done in the District Court.
Lewis appealed to this Court, invoking our jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1254(2) (1982 ed.), now repealed, 102 Stat. 662, 664. We noted probable jurisdiction. 490 U. S. 1097 (1989).
II
Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193, 199 (1988); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U. S. 395, 401 (1975). To 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, Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750-751 (1984); Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 471-473 (1982). Article III denies federal courts the power “to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them,” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244, 246 (1971), and confines them to resolving “‘real and substantial controversies] admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.’” Ibid. (quoting Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 241 (1937)). This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate. To sustain our jurisdiction in the present case, it is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when suit was filed, or when review was obtained in the Court of Appeals. Deakins, supra, at 199; Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459, n. 10 (1974). The parties must continue to have a “ ‘personal stake in the outcome’ ” of the lawsuit, Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 101 (1983) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962)).
On the record before us, the only evidence of Continental’s stake in the outcome was its application to establish and operate an ISB. That application, however, pertained to an FDIC-insured institution, specifying that “all deposit relationships” would be insured “to the maximum extent allowed” by the FDIC. Thus, the stake represented by that application was eliminated by the 1987 amendments to the BHCA, which make it clear that no matter how the Commerce Clause issues in this suit are resolved the application can constitutionally be denied. Continental concedes that, under the amended BHCA, an FDIC-insured ISB is a “bank” within the BHCA definition; that Florida is thus authorized by Congress to exclude insured ISBs owned by nonresident holding companies; and that such exclusion (by virtue of its congressional authorization) does not violate the Commerce Clause.
Continental has argued in this Court that the quoted language of the application meant that the ISB would have insurance if insurance was available, and none if none wTas available. We think not. “Insured by the FDIC to the maximum extent allowed” is quite different from “insured by the FDIC if possible,” or “insured by the FDIC to the maximum extent allowed, if any.” It envisions FDIC insurance, but instead of specifying a fixed dollar amount of that insurance (the permissible level of which has varied over the years, see, e. g., 94 Stat. 147) specifies the maximum amount allowable from time to time. The application thus constitutes no evidence that Continental had an intent to establish an ««insured bank. Nor can it be said that the difference between an insured bank and an uninsured bank is inconsequential, so that an expressed intention to open the one displays as well an intention to open the other. Particularly at a time when prospective depositors have been reading news of widespread bank failures, FDIC insurance may well be seen as essential to viability.
Continental contends that it still has a claim for relief because its complaint sought not only the specific relief of ordering Lewis to process the original application, but also a declaration that the Florida statutes were unconstitutional and an injunction against their enforcement in the future. The BHCA amendment, it argues, does not render that requested relief nugatory insofar as it applies to uninsured banks. That may well be so, but the Article III question is not whether the requested relief would be nugatory as to the world at large, but whether Continental has a stake in that relief. Even in order to pursue the declaratory and injunctive claims, in other words, Continental must establish that it has a “specific live grievance” against the application of the statutes to uninsured ISBs, Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 110 (1969), and not just an “‘abstract disagreement]’” over the constitutionality of such application, Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., 473 U. S. 568, 580 (1985) (quoting Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 148 (1967)). As we have discussed, nothing in the record establishes that. Continental informs us that under Florida law it remains free to amend its application so as to seek an uninsured rather than an insured ISB. Perhaps so. But it could also be said that every bank in the country is free to file an application seeking an uninsured Florida ISB. In the one case as in the other, the mere power to seek is not an indication of the intent to do so, and thus does not establish a particularized, concrete stake that would be affected by our judgment. Continental’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Florida statutes’ application to an uninsured bank that it has neither applied for nor expressed any intent to apply for amounts to a request for advice as to “what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts,” Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S., at 241, or with respect to “‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’ ” Thomas, supra, at 580-581, quoting 13A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3532 (1984).
Continental sought to supplement the record in this Court, after argument, by filing the affidavit of an officer of one of its subsidiaries, averring Continental’s interest in opening an uninsured Florida ISB, and explaining its failure to file an updated application for such a bank. In the circumstances of the present case, we are not disposed to accept such an affidavit as dispositive, without providing petitioner the opportunity of rebuttal. At the time Continental’s challenge to denial of its application for an insured ISB was mooted by the amendments to the BHCA, this litigation had been in progress for almost seven years. An order vacating the judgment on grounds of mootness would deprive Continental of its claim for attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988 (assuming, arguendo, it would have such a claim), because such fees are available only to a party that “prevails” by winning the relief it seeks, see Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U. S. 1 (1988); Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U. S. 755 (1987). This interest in attorney’s fees is, of course, insufficient to create an Article III case or controversy where none exists on the merits of the underlying claim, see Diamond v. Charles, 476 U. S. 54, 70-71 (1986). Where on the face of the record it appears that the only concrete interest in the controversy has terminated, reasonable caution is needed to be sure that mooted litigation is not pressed forward, and unnecessary judicial pronouncements on even constitutional issues obtained, solely in order to obtain reimbursement of sunk costs. Reasonable caution includes, we think, not accepting as conclusive the ex parte affidavit of the party seeking fees, without providing the other party the opportunity to adduce controverting facts that show the alleged dispute to be “abstract, feigned, or hypothetical.” Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 57 (1968). In any event, whenever possible (and it is possible where the decision under review is that of a federal court) the evaluation of such factual contentions bearing upon Article III jurisdiction should not be made by this Court in the first instance. We therefore decline to accept Continental’s supplementation of the record in this Court.
Finally, Continental urges that its suit remains justiciable even if it has no concrete interest in application of the statutes to uninsured banks, because its dispute with Florida is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” This contention is twice wrong. We have permitted suits for prospective relief to go forward despite abatement of the underlying injury only in the “exceptional situations,” Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S., at 109, where the following two circumstances were simultaneously present: “'(1) the challenged action [is] 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.’” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U. S. 478, 482 (1982) (per curiam) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147, 149 (1975)). Neither of these requirements is satisfied here. Since Florida’s allegedly unconstitutional action is no longer unconstitutional with respect to insured ISBs, there is no “reasonable expectation” that Continental will suffer the same wrong again — unless, of course, it intends to establish an uninsured ISB, which does not appear on this record. Cf. California Coastal Common v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U. S. 572, 578 (1987); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside County, 478 U. S. 1, 6 (1986). Nor is the State’s refusal to issue a bank charter the sort of action which, by reason of the inherently short duration of the opportunity for remedy, is likely forever to “evad[e] review.” See, e. g., Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Maintenance of Way Employes, 481 U. S. 429, 436, n. 4 (1987) (injunction on secondary picketing in railroad labor dispute); Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539, 546-547 (1976) (protective order on press coverage of criminal trial). If Continental applies for and is denied a charter for an uninsured bank in Florida, there will be ample time to obtain judicial review of the denial.
Ill
Our ordinary practice in disposing of a case that has become moot on appeal is to vacate the judgment with directions to dismiss. See, e. g., Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S., at 204; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39-40 (1950). However, in instances where the mootness is attributable to a change in the legal framework governing the case, and where the plaintiff may have some residual claim under the new framework that was understandably not asserted previously, our practice is to vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings in which the parties may, if necessary, amend their pleadings or develop the record more fully. See Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Inc., 404 U. S. 412, 415 (1972). That is essentially the situation here. The need for Continental to set forth its interest in an uninsured ISB could not have been apparent to anyone until the BHCA amendments were passed. This did not occur until the case had already been argued and submitted in the Court of Appeals. Had Florida’s petition for rehearing on the basis of the amendments been granted, Continental could properly be criticized for not supplementing the record at that point. In fact, however, the petition was denied, and we do not think Continental was negligently sleeping on its rights not to take the extraordinary step of seeking to supplement the record at the appellate level merely because the motion was pending.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for the Court of Appeals to consider (or to remand for the District Court to consider) such material as may be submitted by both parties in supplementation of the record, bearing upon Continental’s concrete interest in the grant of an application for an uninsured Florida ISB. Since the judgment below is vacated on the basis of an event that mooted the controversy-before the Court of Appeals’ judgment issued, Continental was not, at that stage, a “prevailing party” as it must be to recover fees under § 1988, see Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U. S., at 3-4. Whether Continental can be deemed a “prevailing party” in the District Court, even though its judgment was mooted after being rendered but before the losing party could challenge its validity on appeal, is a question of some difficulty, see, e. g., Palmer v. Chicago, 806 F. 2d 1316, 1321 (CA7 1986), that has been addressed by neither court below. We decline to resolve that, as well as the related question whether §1988 fees are available in a Commerce Clause challenge.
The judgment is vacated, and the cause is remanded for such proceedings as are appropriate and consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Brennan join.
Petitioner was injured in 1950 while serving as a second baker on respondent’s passenger ship Brazil. Among his duties, he was required to fill orders of the ship’s waiters for ice cream. On the day of the accident, he had received an order from a ship’s waiter for 12 portions of ice cream. When he got half way down in the two-and-one-half-gallon ice-cream container from which he was filling these orders, the ice cream was so hard that it could not be removed with the hemispherical scoop with which he had been furnished. Petitioner undertook to remove the ice cream with a sharp butcher knife kept nearby, grasping the handle and chipping at the hard ice cream. The knife struck a spot in the ice cream which was so hard that his hand slipped down onto the blade of the knife, resulting in the loss of two fingers of his right hand.
Petitioner brought this suit under the Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, to recover for his injuries, which were alleged to be the result of respondent’s negligence. At the close of petitioner’s case, respondent’s motion for a directed verdict was denied. Respondent offered no evidence. After the jury returned a verdict of $17,500 for the petitioner, respondent moved to set aside the verdict. This motion was also denied and judgment entered for the petitioner in accordance with the jury verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that it was “not within the realm of reasonable foreseeability” that petitioner would use the knife to chip the frozen ice cream. 228 F. 2d 891, 892. We granted certiorari. 351 U. S. 936.
We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to take to the jury the question whether respondent was negligent in failing to furnish petitioner with an adequate tool with which to perform his task.
Petitioner testified that the hard ice cream could have been loosened safely with an ice chipper. He had used such an instrument for that purpose on other ships. He was not, however, furnished such an instrument. There was evidence that the scoop with which he had been furnished was totally inadequate to remove ice cream of the consistency of that which he had to serve. And, there was evidence that its extremely hard consistency was produced by the failure of another member of the crew to transfer it from the deep freeze to a tempering chest in sufficient time to allow all of it to become disposable by means of the scoop when the time came for it to be served. There was no showing that any device was close at hand which would have safely performed the task. Finally, there was evidence that petitioner had been instructed to give the waiters prompt service.
Respondent urges that it was not reasonably foreseeable that petitioner would utilize the knife to loosen the ice cream. But the jury, which plays a pre-eminent role in these Jones Act cases (Jacob v. New York City, 315 U. S. 752; Schulz v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 350 U. S. 523), could conclude that petitioner had been furnished no safe tool to perform his task. It was not necessary that respondent be in a position to foresee the exact chain of circumstances which actually led to the accident. The jury was instructed that it might consider whether respondent could have anticipated that a knife would be used to get out the ice cream. On this record, fair-minded men could conclude that respondent should have foreseen that petitioner might be tempted to use a knife to perform his task with dispatch, since no adequate implement was furnished him. See Schulz v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 350 U. S. 523, 526. Since the standard of liability under the Jones Act is that established by Congress under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, what we said in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., ante, p. 500, decided this day, is relevant here:
“Under this statute the test of a jury case is simply whether the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought.”
Because the jury could have so concluded, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent’s motion for a directed verdict should have been granted. “Courts should not assume that in determining these questions of negligence juries will fall short of a fair performance of their constitutional function.” Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U. S. 53, 62.
Reversed.
MR. Justice Burton concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Reed would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Sotomayor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether 42 U. S. C. § 233(a), as added, 84 Stat. 1870, precludes an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), against U. S. Public Health Service (PHS) personnel for constitutional violations arising out of their official duties. When federal employees are sued for damages for harms caused in the course of their employment, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680, generally authorizes substitution of the United States as the defendant. Section 233(a) makes the FTCA remedy against the United States “exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding” for any personal injury caused by a PHS officer or employee performing a medical or related function “while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” Based on the plain language of § 233(a), we conclude that PHS officers and employees are not personally subject to Bivens actions for harms arising out of such conduct.
I
Francisco Castaneda was detained by U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the San Diego Correctional Facility (SDCF) beginning in March 2006. According to the complaint later filed in the District Court, when Castaneda arrived at SDCF he had on his penis an irregular, raised lesion that measured roughly two centimeters square. Castaneda promptly brought his condition to the attention of medical personnel working for the Division of Immigration Health Services, reporting that the lesion was growing in size and becoming more painful and that it frequently bled and emitted a discharge. Petitioner Dr. Esther Hui, a civilian PHS employee, was the physician responsible for Castaneda’s medical care during his detention at SDCF. Petitioner Commander Stephen Gonsalves, a commissioned PHS officer, was a health services administrator at SDCF during the relevant period.
Between March 2006 and January 2007, Castaneda persistently sought treatment for his condition. As his disease progressed, the lesion became increasingly painful and interfered with his urination, defecation, and sleep. In December 2006, Castaneda additionally reported a lump in his groin. A PHS physician’s assistant and three outside specialists repeatedly advised that Castaneda needed a biopsy to ascertain whether he had cancer. Petitioners denied requests for a biopsy and other recommended procedures as “elective.” App. 244, 249-251. Instead, Castaneda was treated with ibuprofen and antibiotics and was given an additional ration of boxer shorts.
After a fourth specialist recommended a biopsy in January 2007, the procedure was finally authorized. Instead of providing treatment, however, ICE released Castaneda from custody on February 5. A week later, biopsy results confirmed that Castaneda was suffering from penile cancer. The next day, Castaneda had his penis amputated, and he began chemotherapy after tests confirmed that the cancer had metastasized to his groin. The treatment was unsuccessful, and Castaneda died in February 2008.
Three months before his death, Castaneda filed suit against petitioners in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. As relevant, Castaneda raised medical negligence claims against the United States under the FTCA and Bivens claims against petitioners for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. After Castaneda’s death, respondents — Castaneda’s sister, Yanira Castaneda, and his daughter, Vanessa Castaneda (by and through her mother, Lucia Pelayo)— amended the complaint to substitute themselves as plaintiffs. Yanira and Vanessa Castaneda are respectively the representative of and heir to Castaneda’s estate.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the claims against them, contending that § 233(a) gives them absolute immunity from Bivens actions by making a suit against the United States under the FTCA the exclusive remedy for harms caused by PHS personnel in the course of their medical or related duties. The District Court denied the motion, concluding that §233(a)’s text and history evidence a congressional intent to preserve Bivens actions. Castaneda v. United States, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1288-1295 (2008). Petitioners filed an interlocutory appeal.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment that § 233(a) does not preclude respondents’ Bivens claims. Castaneda v. United States, 546 F. 3d 682 (2008). The court cited Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14 (1980), for the proposition that a Bivens remedy is unavailable only when an alternative remedy is both expressly declared to be a substitute and can be viewed as equally effective, or when special factors militate against direct recovery. Looking to the statute’s text and history, the court noted that § 233(a) does not mention the Constitution or recovery thereunder and found it significant that §233 was enacted prior to this Court’s decision in Bivens. Drawing further support for its view from the statute’s legislative history and from subsequent congressional enactments, the Court of Appeals concluded that § 233(a) does not expressly make the remedy under the FTCA a substitute for relief under Bivens.
For essentially the reasons given in Carlson, 446 U. S., at 20-23, the Court of Appeals also determined that the FTCA remedy is not equally effective as a Bivens remedy. Unlike the remedy under the FTCA, the court reasoned, a Bivens remedy is awarded against individual defendants and may include punitive damages. Additionally, Bivens cases may be tried before a jury, and liability is governed by uniform federal rules rather than the law of the State in which the violation occurred. After further concluding that no special factors militate against finding a remedy available in these circumstances, the court held that respondents’ Bivens action could proceed.
As the Ninth Circuit recognized, its holding conflicts with the Second Circuit’s decision in Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F. 3d 99 (2000), which construed § 233(a) to foreclose Bivens actions against PHS personnel. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 557 U. S. 966 (2009).
II
A
Our inquiry in this case begins and ends with the text of § 233(a). See Harris Trust and Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 530 U. S. 238, 254 (2000). The statute provides in pertinent part that
“[t]he remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of title 28 . . . for damage for personal injury, including death, resulting from the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions, including the conduct of clinical studies or investigation, by any commissioned officer or employee of the Public Health Service while acting within the scope of his office or employment, shall be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of the same subject-matter against the officer or employee (or his estate) whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” § 233(a) (emphasis added),
Section 283(a) grants absolute immunity to PHS officers and employees for actions arising out of the performance of medical or related functions within the scope of their employment by barring all actions against them for such conduct. By its terms, § 233(a) limits recovery for such conduct to suits against the United States. The breadth of the words “exclusive” and “any” supports this reading, as does the provision’s inclusive reference to all civil proceedings arising out of “the same subject-matter.” We have previously cited § 233(a) to support the contention that “Congress follows the practice of explicitly stating when it means to make FTCA an exclusive remedy.” Carlson, 446 U. S., at 20. The meaning of § 233(a) has become no less explicit since we last made that observation.
Our reading of § 233(a)’s text is not undermined by the fact that the provision preceded our decision in Bivens. Contrary to the view of the Court of Appeals, that a Bivens remedy had not yet been recognized when § 233(a) was enacted does not support the conclusion that Congress, in making the remedy provided by the FTCA “exclusive of any other civil action,” did not mean what it said. Language that broad easily accommodates both known and unknown causes of action.
The later enacted Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (Westfall Act), 102 Stat. 4563, further supports this understanding of § 233(a). The Westfall Act amended the FTCA to make its remedy against the United States the exclusive remedy for most claims against Government employees arising out of their official conduct. In providing this official immunity, Congress used essentially the same language as it did in § 233(a), stating that the remedy against the United States is “exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding,” § 2679(b)(1). Notably, Congress also provided an exception for constitutional violations. Pursuant to § 2679(b)(2), the immunity granted by § 2679(b)(1) “does not extend or apply to a civil action against an employee of the Government . . . brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States.” § 2679(b)(2)(A). The Westfall Act’s explicit exception for Bivens claims is powerful evidence that Congress did not understand the exclusivity provided by § 2679(b)(1) — or the substantially similar § 233(a) — to imply such an exception. Given Congress’ awareness of pre-existing immunity provisions like §233 when it enacted the Westfall Act, see United States v. Smith, 499 U. S. 160, 173 (1991), it is telling that Congress declined to enact a similar exception to the immunity provided by § 233(a).
B
In advocating a contrary reading of § 233(a), respondents rely heavily on our opinion in Carlson, as did the Court of Appeals. Carlson, however, is inapposite to the issue in this ease. There are two separate inquiries involved in determining whether a Bivens action may proceed against a federal agent: whether the agent is amenable to suit, and whether a damages remedy is available for a particular constitutional violation absent authorization by Congress. See United States v. Stanley, 483 U. S. 669, 684 (1987) (“[T]he availability of a damages action under the Constitution for particular injuries , . . is a question logically distinct from immunity to such an action on the part of particular defendants”). Even in circumstances in which a Bivens remedy is generally available, an action under Bivens will be defeated if the defendant is immune from suit. See, e. g., 403 U. S., at 397-398 (remanding for determination of respondents’ immunity after implying a cause of action under the Fourth Amendment).
Because petitioners in Carlson invoked no official immunity, the Court did not address that question. Instead, it considered whether a remedy was available under the Eighth Amendment for alleged violations of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause notwithstanding that a federal remedy was also available under the FTCA. 446 U. S., at 16-17. Many of our subsequent Bivens decisions likewise addressed only the existence of an implied cause of action for an alleged constitutional violation. See, e. g., Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U. S. 537, 549 (2007) (declining “to devise a new Bivens damages action for retaliating against the exercise of ownership rights”); Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367, 368 (1983) (declining to “authorize a new nonstatutory damages remedy for federal employees whose First Amendment rights are violated by their superiors”).
This case presents the separate question whether petitioners are immune from suit for the alleged violations. To determine a defendant’s amenability to suit, we consider whether he or she may claim the benefits of official immunity for the alleged misconduct. Because petitioners invoke only the immunity provided by § 233(a), the question in this case is answered solely by reference to whether that provision gives petitioners the immunity they claim.
As noted, the text of § 233(a) plainly indicates that it precludes a Bivens action against petitioners for the harm alleged in this case. Respondents offer three arguments in support of their claim that it does not. None persuades us that § 233(a) means something other than what it says.
Respondents first contend that § 233(a) incorporates the entirety of the FTCA, as amended by the Westfall Act, through its reference to § 1346(b). Section 1346(b) in turn refers to “the provisions of chapter 171,” which constitute the FTCA, including the Westfall Act’s exception for claims “brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States,” § 2679(b)(2)(A). Through this series of cross-references, respondents would read that exception for Bivens actions into § 233(a).
Section 233(a) is not susceptible of this reading. As petitioners observe, that provision refers only to “[t]he remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672.” § 233(a) (emphasis added). Thus, only those portions of chapter 171 that establish the FTCA remedy are incorporated by §233(a)’s reference to § 1346. Section 2679(b) is not such a provision. Section 233(a)’s reference to §2672 — which is codified in chapter 171 — also belies respondents’ theory. If § 233(a)’s reference to § 1346(b) served to incorporate all the provisions of chapter 171, the separate reference to §2672 would be superfluous.
Respondents next argue that the Westfall Act’s Bivens exception, § 2679(b)(2)(A), directly preserves a Bivens action against PHS officers and employees. That § 2679(b)(2)(A) by its terms applies only to the specific immunity set forth in “[paragraph (1)” belies respondents’ claim. Moreover, if § 233(a) forecloses a Bivens action against PHS personnel, respondents’ reading of § 2679(b)(2)(A) would effect an implied repeal of that more specific provision. Although we noted in Smith that 12679(b) applies to all federal employees, see 499 U. S., at 173, we had no occasion to consider whether the Bivens exception in § 2679(b)(2)(A) impliedly repealed pre-existing immunity provisions to the extent of any inconsistency. “As we have emphasized, repeals by implication are not favored and will not be presumed unless the intention of the legislature to repeal is clear and manifest.” Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 556 U. S. 163, 175 (2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Respondents have pointed to nothing in § 2679(b)’s text or drafting history that suggests that Congress intended to repeal the more comprehensive immunity provided by § 233(a).
Finally, respondents contend that other features of §233 show that subsection (a) does not make the remedy under the FTCA exclusive of all other actions against PHS personnel. Respondents first note § 233’s lack of a procedure for “scope certification” in federal-court actions. Under the FTCA, “certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose” transforms an action against an individual federal employee into one against the United States. § 2679(d)(1). Because § 233 does not provide a similar mechanism for scope certification in federal-court actions, respondents contend that PHS defendants seeking to invoke the immunity provided by § 233(a) must rely on the FTCA’s scope certification procedure, set forth in § 2679(d). Section 2679(d), respondents note, is in turn subject to the “limitations and exceptions” applicable to actions under the FTCA — including the exception for Bivens actions provided by § 2679(b)(2). See § 2679(d)(4).
We agree with petitioners that there is no reason to think that scope certification by the Attorney General is a prerequisite to immunity under § 233(a). To be sure, that immunity is contingent upon the alleged misconduct having occurred in the course of the PHS defendant’s duties, but a defendant may make that proof pursuant to the ordinary rules of evidence and procedure. As petitioners observe, proof of scope is in most § 233(a) cases established by a declaration affirming that the defendant was a PHS official during the relevant time period. See Reply Brief for Petitioner Hui 6-7, and n. 1. Thus, while scope certification may provide a convenient mechanism for establishing that the alleged misconduct occurred within the scope of the employee’s duties, the procedure authorized by § 2679(d) is not necessary to effect substitution of the United States. Finally, that the FTCA’s scope certification procedure was enacted almost two decades after § 233(a) confirms that Congress did not intend to make that procedure the exclusive means for PHS personnel to invoke the official immunity provided by § 233(a).
Respondents’ argument based on § 233(f) is similarly unavailing. That subsection authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “hold harmless or provide liability insurance” for a PHS officer or employee for personal injuries caused by conduct occurring “within the scope of his office or employment... if such employee is assigned to a foreign country ... and if the circumstances are such as are likely to preclude the remedies of third persons against the United States described in section 2679(b).” Noting that the FTCA precludes recovery against the United States for “[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country,” §2680(k), respondents urge that §233(f)’s authorization of insurance or indemnification in those circumstances anticipates that an injured party without a remedy under the FTCA may sue a PHS official directly. Accordingly, respondents contend, § 233(a) cannot be read to make the remedy under the FTCA truly exclusive. Even if that reading of § 233(f) were correct, it would not benefit respondents because an FTCA remedy is unquestionably available for the misconduct alleged in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, respondents' arguments do not undermine our conclusion that the immunity provided by § 233(a) precludes Bivens actions against individual PHS officers or employees for harms arising out of conduct described in that section.
* * *
In construing § 233(a) in petitioners’ favor, we are mindful of the confines of our judicial role. Respondents’ amici caution that providing special immunity for PHS personnel is contrary to the public interest. Respondents likewise contend that allowing Bivens claims against PHS personnel is necessary to ensure an adequate standard of care in federal detention facilities, and they further urge that permitting such actions would not endanger PHS’ institutional interests as it would simply place PHS personnel in the same position as other federal employees who perform similar functions. See Brief for Respondents 52-55, 60-61. We are required, however, to read the statute according to its text. Because § 233(a) plainly precludes a Bivens action against petitioners for the harms alleged in this case, we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Because this case comes to us on petitioners’ motion to dismiss, we assume the truth of respondents’ factual allegations. See Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Comm., 555 U. S. 246, 249 (2009).
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 397 (1971), this Court recognized an implied cause of action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights. We subsequently found such a remedy available for violations of an individual’s rights under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14, 17-19 (1980); Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228, 230 (1979).
Although it does not bear directly on the question presented in this case, we note that while petitioners’ appeal was pending the Government filed a formal notice admitting liability with respect to respondents’ claims for medical negligence under the FTCA. App. 329.
The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal because district court orders denying absolute immunity constitute “final decisions” for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 1291. See 546 F. 3d, at 687 (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 524-527 (1985)); see also Osborn v. Haley, 549 U. S. 225, 238-239 (2007).
Prior to the Westfall Act amendments, the FTCA authorized substitution of the United States as a defendant in suits against federal employees for harms arising out of conduct undertaken in the scope of their employment, see 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b) (1982 ed.), but it made that remedy “exclusive” only for harms resulting from a federal employee’s operation of a motor vehicle, § 2679(b).
We express no opinion as to whether a Bivens remedy is otherwise available in these circumstances, as the question is not presented in this case.
Section 1346(b) provides in pertinent part that, “[sjubject to the provisions of chapter 171 of [Title 28], the district courts ... shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages ... for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.”
Section 2672 authorizes agency heads and their designees to “consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle any claim for money damages against the United States for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the agency while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
Section 233(c) indudes such a provision for state-court actions, authorizing removal to federal court “[u]pon a certification by the Attorney General that the defendant was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose,” but unlike § 2679(d) it does not prescribe a particular mechanism for substituting the United States in federal-court actions.
As respondents note, the Westfall Act substantially limited the effect of § 233(f). See Brief for Respondents 32 (citing United States v. Smith, 499 U. S. 160, 166-167 (1991)). But because the Act does not weaken any inference about the meaning of § 233(a) that might be drawn from § 233(f), the changes effected by the Act are not relevant to the instant inquiry.
See Brief for American Civil Liberties Union as Amicus Curiae 25-28; Brief for National Experts on Health Services for Detained Persons as Amici Curiae 17-24; Brief for National Immigrant Justice Center as Amicus Curiae 20-21; Brief for Rep. John Conyers, Jr., et al. as Amici Curiae 25-31.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action presents the question whether, in a suit brought under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention governing international air transportation, Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, Oct. 12,1929,49 Stat. 3000, T. S. No. 876 (1934) (reprinted in note following 49 U. S. C. App. § 1502 (1988 ed.)), a plaintiff may recover damages for loss of society resulting from the death of a relative in a plane crash on the high seas.
I
On September 1, 1983, Korean Air Lines Flight KE007, en route from Anchorage, Alaska, to Seoul, South Korea, strayed into air space of the Soviet Union and was shot down over the Sea of Japan. All 269 persons on board were killed, including Muriel Kole. Petitioners Marjorie Zicherman and Muriel Mahalek, Kole’s sister and mother, respectively, sued respondent Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. (KAL), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Petitioners’ final amended complaint contained three counts, entitled, respectively, “Warsaw Convention,” “Death on the High Seas Act,” and “Conscious Pain and Suffering.” At issue here is only the Warsaw Convention count, in which petitioners sought “judgment against KAL for their pecuniary damages, for their grief and mental anguish, for the loss of the decedent’s society and companionship, and for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering.” App. 29.
Along with other federal-court actions arising out of the KAL crash, petitioners’ case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for consolidated proceedings on common issues of liability. There, a jury found that the destruction of Flight KE007 was proximately caused by “willful misconduct” of the flight crew, thus lifting the Warsaw Convention’s $75,000 cap on damages. See Warsaw Convention, Art. 25, 49 Stat. 3020; Order of Civil Aeronautics Board Approving Increases in Liability Limitations of Warsaw Convention and Hague Protocol, reprinted in note following 49 U. S. C. App. § 1502 (1988 ed.). The jury awarded $50 million in punitive damages against KAL. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the finding of “willful misconduct,” but vacated the punitive damages award, holding that the Warsaw Convention does not permit the recovery of punitive damages. In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 932 F. 2d 1475, 1479-1481, 1484-1490, cert. denied, 502 U. S. 994 (1991). The individual cases were then remanded by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the original transferor courts for trial of compensatory damages issues.
At petitioners’ damages trial in the Southern District of New York, KAL moved for determination that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), 41 Stat. 537, 46 U. S. C. App. § 761 et seq. (1988 ed.), prescribed the proper claimants and the recoverable damages, and that it did not permit damages for loss of society. The District Court denied the motion and held, inter alia, that petitioners could recover for loss of “love, affection, and companionship.” In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 807 F. Supp. 1073, 1086-1088 (1992). The jury awarded loss-of-society damages in the amount of $70,000 to Zicherman and $28,000 to Mahalek.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit set aside this award. Applying its prior decisions in In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988, 928 F. 2d 1267, 1278-1279 (Lockerbie I), cert. denied sub nom. Rein v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 502 U. S. 920 (1991), and In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988, 37 F. 3d 804 (1994) (Lockerbie II), cert. denied sub nom. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Pagnucco, 513 U. S. 1126 (1995), it held that general maritime law supplied the substantive law of compensatory damages to be applied in an action under the Warsaw Convention. 43 F. 3d 18, 21-22 (1994). Then, following its decision in Lockerbie II, it held that, under general maritime law, a plaintiff is entitled to recover loss-of-society damages, but only if he was a dependent of the decedent at the time of death. 43 F. 3d, at 22. The court concluded that as a matter of law Mahalek had not established that status, and therefore vacated her award; it remanded to the District Court for determination of whether Zicherman was a dependent of Kole. Ibid.
In their petition for certiorari, petitioners contended that under general maritime law dependency is not a requirement for recovering loss-of-society damages. In a cross-petition, KAL contended that the Warsaw Convention does not allow loss-of-society damages in this case, regardless of dependency. We granted certiorari. 514 U. S. 1062 (1995).
II
Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, as set forth in the official American translation of the governing French text, provides as follows:
“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 (emphasis added).
The first and principal question before us is whether loss of society of a relative is made recoverable by this provision.
It is obvious that the English word “damage” or “harm”— or in the official text of the Convention, the French word “dommage” — can be applied to an extremely wide range of phenomena, from the medical expenses incurred as a result of Kole’s injuries (for which every legal system would provide tort compensation) to the mental distress of some stranger who reads about Kole’s death in the paper (for which no legal system would provide tort compensation). It cannot seriously be maintained that Article 17 uses the term in this broadest sense, thus exploding tort liability beyond what any legal system in the world allows, to the farthest reaches of what could be denominated “harm.” We therefore reject petitioners’ initial proposal that we simply look to English dictionary definitions of “damage” and apply that term’s “plain meaning.” Brief for Petitioners 7-9.
There are only two thinkable alternatives to that. First, what petitioners ultimately suggest: that “dommage” means what French law, in 1929, recognized as legally cognizable harm, which petitioners assert included not only “dommage materiel” (pecuniary harm of various sorts) but also “dom-mage moral” (nonpecuniary harm of various sorts, including loss of society). In support of that approach, petitioners point out that in a prior case involving Article 17 we were guided by French legal usage: Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 892 (1985) (interpreting the term “accident”). See also Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U. S. 530 (1991) (interpreting the Article 17 term “lesion corporelle”). What is at issue here, however, is not simply whether we will be guided by French legal usage vel non. Because, as earlier discussed, the dictionary meaning of the term “dommage” embraces harms that no legal system would compensate, it must be acknowledged that the term is to be understood in its distinctively legal sense — that is, to mean only legally cognizable harm. The nicer question, and the critical one here, is whether the word “dommage” establishes as the content of the concept “legally cognizable harm” what French law accepted as such in 1929. No case of ours provides precedent for the adoption of French law in such detail. In Floyd, we looked to French law to determine whether “Usion corporelle” indeed meant (as it had been translated) “bodily injury” — not to determine the subsequent question (equivalent to the question at issue here) whether “bodily injury” encompassed psychic injury. See id., at 536-540. And in Saks, once we had determined that in French legal terminology the word “accident” referred to an unforeseen event, we did not further inquire whether French courts would consider the event at issue in the case unforeseen; we made that judgment for ourselves. See 470 U. S., at 405-407.
It is particularly implausible that “the shared expectations of the contracting parties,” id., at 399, were that their mere use of the French language would effect adoption of the precise rule applied in France as to what constitutes legally cognizable harm. Those involved in the negotiation and adoption of the Convention could not have been ignorant of the fact that the law on this point varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and even from statute to statute, within a single jurisdiction. Just as we found it “unlikely” in Floyd that Convention signatories would have understood the general term “lésion corporelle” to confer a cause of action available under French law but unrecognized in many other nations, see 499 U. S., at 540, so also in the present case we find it unlikely that they would have understood Article 17’s use of the general term “dommage” to require compensation for elements of harm recognized in France but unrecognized elsewhere, or to forbid compensation for elements of harm unrecognized in France but recognized elsewhere. Many signatory nations, including Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, and Sweden, did not, even many years after the Warsaw Convention, recognize a cause of action for nonpecuniary harm resulting from wrongful death. See 11 International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law: Torts, ch. 9, pp. 15-18 (A. Tunc ed. 1972); Floyd, supra, at 544-545, n. 10.
The other alternative, and the only one we think realistic, is to believe that “dommage” means (as it does in French legal usage) “legally cognizable harm,” but that Article 17 leaves it to adjudicating courts to specify what harm is cognizable. That is not an unusual disposition. Even within our domestic law, many statutes that provide generally for “damages,” or for reimbursement of “injury,” leave it to the courts to decide what sorts of harms are compensable. See, e. g., Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U. S. 19, 32 (1990) (Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. App. § 688 (1988 ed.), which provides “action for damages” to “[a]ny seaman who shall suffer personal injury,” permits compensation only for pecuniary loss); Michigan Central R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 71 (1913) (Employers’ Liability Act of Apr. 22, 1908, which makes employer “liable in damages . . . for . . . injury or death,” permits compensation only for pecuniary loss); Broan Mfg. v. Associated Distributors, Inc., 923 F. 2d 1232, 1235-1236 (CA6 1991) (Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1117(a), which provides for recovery of “any damages sustained,” permits compensation for future lost profits); Phelps v. White, 645 So. 2d 698, 703 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994) (specifying elements of compensation allowable under La. Civ. Code Ann. §2315.2 (West Supp. 1995), providing for recovery of “damages . . . sustained as a result” of wrongful death); Department of Ed. v. Blevins, 707 S. W. 2d 782, 783 (Ky. 1986) (Kentucky Rev. Stat. Ann. §411.130 (Michie 1992), which provides that “damages may be recovered” for wrongful death, does not permit compensation for emotional distress).
That this is the proper interpretation is confirmed by another provision of the Convention. Article 17 is expressly limited by Article 24, which as translated provides:
“(1) In the cases covered by articles 18 and 19 any action for damages, however founded, can only be brought subject to the conditions and limits set out in this convention.
“(2) In the cases covered by article 17 the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall also apply, without prejudice to the questions as to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit and what are their respective rights.” 49 Stat. 3020 (emphasis added).
The most natural reading of this Article is that, in an action brought under Article 17, the law of the Convention does not affect the substantive questions of who may bring suit and what they may be compensated for. Those questions are to be answered by the domestic law selected by the courts of the contracting states. Petitioners contend that, because Article 24 refers to the parties’ “respective rights,” this provision defers to domestic law only on the “procedural” issues of who has standing to sue and how the proceeds of a damages award under Article 17 should be divided among eligible claimants. It does not seem to us that the question of who is entitled to a damages award is procedural; and in any event limiting Article 24 to procedural issues would render it superfluous, since Article 28(2) provides that “[questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the court to which the case is submitted.” 49 Stat. 3021. More importantly, petitioners’ reading of Article 24(2) would produce a strange regime in which 1929 French law (embodied in the Convention) determines what harms arising out of international air accidents must be indemnified, while current domestic law determines who is entitled to the indemnity and how it is to be divided among claimants. When presented with an equally plausible reading of Article 24 that leads to a more comprehensible result — that the Convention left to domestic law the questions of who may recover and what compensatory damages are available to them — we decline to embrace a reading that would produce the mélange of French and domestic law proposed by petitioners.
Because a treaty ratified by the United States is not only the law of this land, see U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, but also an agreement among sovereign powers, we have traditionally considered as aids to its interpretation the negotiating and drafting history (travaux préparatoires) and the postratifi-cation understanding of the contracting parties. Both of these sources confirm that the compensable injury is to be determined by domestic law. In the drafting history, the only statements we know of that directly discuss the point were made by the Comité International Technique d’Experts Juridiques Aériens (CITEJA), which did the preparatory work for the two Conferences (1925 in Paris, 1929 in Warsaw) that produced the Warsaw Convention. In its report of May 15,1928, the Committee stated:
“It was asked whether it would not be possible, in this respect, to determine the category of damages subject to reparations.
“Although this question seemed very interesting, it was not possible to find a satisfactory solution before knowing exactly the legislation of the various countries. It was understood that the question would be studied later on, when the issue of knowing which are the persons, who according to the various national laws, have the right to take action against the carrier, will have been elucidated.” Report of the Third Session of CITEJA by Henry de Vos, reprinted in International Technical Committee of Legal Experts on Air Questions 106 (May 1928).
To the same effect is the following passage from the CITEJA Report accompanying the 1929 draft:
“The question was asked of knowing if one could determine who the persons upon whom the action devolves in the case of death are, and what are the damages subject to reparation. It was not possible to find a satisfactory solution to this double problem, and the CITEJA esteemed that this question of private international law should be regulated independently [sic] from the present Convention.” Report of the Third Session of CITEJA by Henry de Vos (Sept. 25, 1928), reprinted in Second International Conference on Private Aeronautical Law Minutes, Warsaw 1929, p. 255 (R. Horner & D. Legrez transí. 1975).
Both these statements make clear that the questions of who may recover, and what compensatory damages they may receive, were regarded as intertwined; and that both were unresolved by the Convention and left to “private international law” — i. e., to the area of jurisprudence we call “conflict of laws,” dealing with the application of varying domestic laws to disputes that have an interstate or international component.
We are unpersuaded by petitioners’ reliance on the comment of French delegate Georges Ripert, asserting, as one basis for rejecting application of domestic law to the issue of carriers’ vicarious liability, that it would be “the first time that application of national law is required.” Id., at 66. Reply Brief for Petitioners 2-3. Not only does this remark not have the authority of submissions by the drafting committee, but it is a generalization rather than a statement focused specifically upon the issue here: what law governs the “category of damages subject to reparations.” And the generalization is demonstrably wrong to boot, since it is incontrovertible that Article 24 of the Convention requires the application of national law to some issues.
The postratification conduct of the contracting parties displays the same understanding that the damages recoverable — so long as they consist of compensation for harm incurred (dommage survenu) — are to be determined by domestic law. Some countries, including England, Germany and the Netherlands, have adopted domestic legislation to govern the types of damages recoverable in a Convention case. See Haanappel, The right to sue in death cases under the Warsaw Convention, 6 Air Law 66, 72, 74 (1981); E. Giemulla, R. Schmid, & P. Ehlers, Warsaw Convention 39, n. 5 (1992); German Law Concerning Air Navigation (Luft VG) of Jan. 10, 1959, Arts. 35-36, 38, reprinted in 1 Senate Committee on Commerce, Air Laws and Treaties of the World, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 766-768 (Comm. Print 1965); R. Mankiewicz, The Liability Regime of the International Air Carrier ¶ 187, pp. 160-161 (1981). Canada has adopted legislation setting forth who may bring suit under Article 24(2), but has left the question of what types of damages are recoverable to provincial law. Haanappel, supra, at 70-71. The Court of Appeals of Quebec has rejected the argument that Article 17 permits damages unrecoverable under domestic Quebec law. Dame Surprenant v. Air Canada, [1973] C. A. 107, 117-118, 126-127 (opinion of Deschénes, J.). But see Preston v. Hunting Air Transport Ltd., [1956] 1 Q. B. 454, 461-462 (granting damages under Convention, but without considering Article 24). Finally, the expert commentators are virtually unanimous that the type of harm com-pensable is to be determined by domestic law. See, e. g., H. Drion, Limitation of Liabilities in International Air Law ¶ 111, pp. 125-126 (1954); Giemulla, Schmid, & Ehlers, supra, at 33; D. Goedhuis, National Airlegislations and the Warsaw Convention 269 (1937); Mankiewicz, supra, ¶ 187, at 160-161; G. Miller, Liability in International Air Transport: The Warsaw System in Municipal Courts 125 (1977); see also Cha, The Air Carrier’s Liability to Passengers in International Law, 7 Air L. Rev. 25, 56-57 (1936).
Ill
Having concluded that compensable harm is to be determined by domestic law, the next question to which we would logically turn is that of which sovereign’s domestic law. That is the “private international law” issue alluded to in the last-quoted excerpt from the CITEJA Report. Choice of law is, of course, determined by the forum jurisdiction, see E. Scoles & P. Hay, Conflict of Laws § 3.56 (1982), and would normally be a question confronting us here. We have been spared that inquiry, however, because both parties agree that if the issue of compensable harm is (as we have determined) unresolved by the Convention itself, it is governed in the present case by the law of the United States.
That leaves a final question unresolved: Which particular law of the United States provides the governing rule? The Second Circuit, moved by the need to “maintain a uniform law under the Warsaw Convention,” held that general maritime law governs causes of action under the Convention, whether the accident out of which they arise occurs on land or on the high seas. 43 F. 3d, at 21-22. We think not. As we have discussed, the Convention itself contains no rule of law governing the present question; nor does it empower us to develop some common-law rule — under cover of general admiralty law or otherwise — that will supersede the normal federal disposition. Congress may choose to enact special provisions applicable to Warsaw Convention cases, as some countries have done. See supra, at 227-228. Absent such legislation, however, Articles 17 and 24(2) provide nothing more than a pass-through, authorizing us to apply the law that would govern in absence of the Warsaw Convention. There is little doubt what that law is in this case.
Section 761 of DOHSA provides:
“Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas beyond a marine league from the shore of any State, or the District of Columbia, or the Territories or dependencies of the United States, the personal representative of the decedent may maintain a suit for damages in the district courts of the United States, in admiralty, for the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s wife, husband, parent, child, or dependent relative against the vessel, person, or corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued.” 46 U. S. C. App. §761 (1988 ed.).
The death that occurred here falls within the literal terms of this provision, and it is well established that those literal terms apply to airplane crashes. See Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. Cleveland, 409 U. S. 249, 263-264 (1972). Section 762 of DOHSA provides that the recovery in a suit under § 761 “shall be a fair and just compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained by the persons for whose benefit the suit is brought.” 46 U. S. C. App. § 762. Thus, petitioners cannot recover loss-of-society damages under DOHSA. Moreover, where DOHSA applies, neither state law, see Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U. S. 207, 232-233 (1986), nor general maritime law, see Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U. S. 618, 625-626 (1978), can provide a basis for recovery of loss-of-society damages.
Petitioners argue that DOHSA should not apply to this cause of action because of the concern expressed by the Second Circuit: that “a uniform law should govern Warsaw Convention cases.” 43 F. 3d, at 21. They urge that, if we must look to domestic law, we should craft a federal rule of damages that will be applicable in all suits brought under the Convention. Undoubtedly it was a primary function of the Warsaw Convention to foster uniformity in the law of international air travel, see Floyd, 499 U. S., at 552, but as our discussion above has made clear, this is not an area in which the imposition of uniformity was found feasible. See supra, at 226-227. The Convention neither adopted any uniform rule of its own nor authorized national courts to pursue uniformity in derogation of otherwise applicable law. Petitioners argue, in effect, that the Convention contains an implicit authorization for national courts to create uniformity between overland and oversea accidents governed by their respective domestic laws, even though it leaves the vast discrepancies among the various domestic laws untouched. That is most unlikely.
Finally, petitioners contend that DOHSA cannot supply the substantive law of damages, because this would result in an unintended “double cap.” They argue that the Warsaw Convention’s $75,000 per passenger limit on liability (except in cases of willful misconduct), when combined with a DOHSA rule prohibiting compensation for nonpecuniary harm, will not sufficiently deter willful misconduct. We are unpersuaded. The Convention unquestionably envisions the application of domestic law; it is the function of Congress, and not of this Court, to decide that domestic law, alone or in combination with the Convention, provides inadequate deterrence.
* * *
We conclude that Articles 17 and 24(2) of the Warsaw Convention permit compensation only for legally cognizable harm, but leave the specification of what harm is legally cognizable to the domestic law applicable under the forum’s choice-of-law rules. Where, as here, an airplane crash occurs on the high seas, DOHSA supplies the substantive United States law. Because DOHSA permits only pecuniary damages, petitioners are not entitled to recover for loss of society. We therefore need not reach the question whether, under general maritime law, dependency is a prerequisite for loss-of-society damages.
Accordingly, that portion of the Second Circuit judgment permitting Zicherman to recover loss-of-society damages if she can establish her dependency on the decedent is reversed, and that portion of the judgment vacating the award of loss-of-society damages to Mahalek is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The jury also awarded petitioners $161,000 in survivors’ grief, $16,000 to Zicherman for loss of support and inheritance and $100,000 to Zicherman for the decedent’s pain and suffering. The Second Circuit has set aside the award of grief damages and has remanded for further proceedings on the award for loss of support and inheritance. None of these awards is at issue here.
The French text of Article 17 reads:
“Le transporteur est responsable du dommage survenu en cas de mort, de blessure ou de toute autre lésion corporelle subie par un voyageur lorsque l’aecident qui a causé le dommage s’est produit á bord de l’aéronef ou au cours de toutes opérations d’embarquement et de débarquement.” 49 Stat. 3005.
The governing French text of Article 24 provides:
“(1) Dans les cas prévus aux articles 18 et 19 toute action en responsabi-lité, á quelque titre que ce soit, ne peut étre exercée que dans les conditions et limites prévues par la présente Convention.
“(2) Dans les cas prévus á l’article 17, s’appliquent également les dispositions de l’alinéa précédent, sans préjudice de la détermination des person-nes qui ont le droit d’agir et de leurs droits respectifs.” 49 Stat. 3006.
We need not consider whether § 761 of DOHSA calls into question the District Court’s determination that the decedent’s mother is a proper party to this suit, or its grant of a jury trial, see Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U. S. 354, 371, n. 28 (1959), and whether § 762 contradicts the District Court’s allowance of pain and suffering damages, see Offshore Logistics, Inc., 477 U. S., at 215, n. 1. KAL challenged none of these rulings in its petition for 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: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Murphy,
announced by Mr. Justice Rutledge.
The principal question for decision is whether the circumstances justified the finding of an unfair labor practice. A union organizer was refused the use of a company-owned meeting hall, and the union complained to the Board. After the usual proceedings, the Board found an unfair labor practice had been committed, 70 N. L. R. B. 614. The Court of Appeals refused to enforce the Board’s order, 165 F. 2d 609, and the case is here on certiorari. A subsidiary problem is the breadth of the order we are asked to enforce.
First. We are asked to overrule the Board’s finding that it is an unfair labor practice to discriminate against a union by denying it the only available meeting hall in a company town when the Board finds that the “sole purpose” of the discriminatory denial is “to impede, prevent, and discourage self-organization and collective bargaining by the [company’s] employees within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.”
North Belmont, North Carolina, is the home of the four respondents’ mills. Interlocking directorates and family ties make the four equal one for our purposes. Each of the mills owns a large number of houses in North Belmont which are rented to employees. At a central location are a school, a theatre, and a building housing a post office, all owned or controlled by the mill owners. In sum, North Belmont is a company town.
In December, 1944, Harris, a union organizer, appeared in North Belmont and began the first organization drive since the textile strike ten years earlier. He decided to begin with employees of respondent Stowe. A meeting hall was needed for the activity, and the post office building was the only choice open to the organizer — he was refused permission to use the school building, and was told that the theatre could be used only for motion pictures. Most of the post office building was erected by respondents for the Patriotic Order Sons of America, a “patriotic secret order to which any male citizen of the United States of good moral character” can belong. Many of respondents’ employees are members; respondents check off monthly dues.
The Order’s president, Baxter Black, told Harris that the proposed meeting might be held in the hall on the payment of a janitor’s fee. Harris emphasized that he was willing to pay for the use of the hall. It is clear he was not asking special favors. Circulars were printed announcing the time and place of the meeting. Thereupon D. P. Stowe, for the four employer-owners, rescinded the permission granted — because Harris was a textile organizer. While the building seems to have been erected on the understanding that only the Patriotic Order might use it, that condition was never enforced until Harris’ union affiliation reached the ears of the owners. Until then the Order had handled its own affairs; Black had been sure that his permission was the final word on the matter.
The Board found that the refusal “to permit use of the hall . . . under the circumstances, constituted unlawful disparity of treatment and discrimination against the Union.” The union’s complaint also charged that several employees had been discharged because of union activity, and again the Board found for the union. The Court of Appeals enforced the reinstatement order, but refused enforcement of the order relating to the use of the hall. On the latter determination we granted certiorari to resolve an asserted conflict with prior decisions of this Court.
Company rules in Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board and Labor Board v. Le Tourneau Company of Georgia, 324 U. S. 793, forbade union solicitation on company property. Under the circumstances the Board found that these rules offended the Act, and we upheld the Board. Stowe tells us that its case is far removed from the principles established in those decisions: the Board is now invading private property unconnected with the plant, for a private purpose, in the very teeth of the Fifth Amendment. “From Magna Charta on down,” we are warned, “the individual has been guaranteed against disseisin of his property.” A privately owned hall is different from the parking lot involved in Le Tourneau’s case.
In the sense suggested by Stowe, the Board finding goes further than those upheld previously by this Court. But in a larger sense it does not. We mention nothing new when we notice that union organization in a company town must depend, even more than usual, on a hands-off attitude on the part of management. And it is clear that one of management’s chief weapons, in attempting to stifle organization, is the denial of a place to meet. We cannot equate a company-dominated North Carolina mill town with the vast metropolitan centers where a number of halls are available within easy reach of prospective union members. We would be ignoring the obvious were we to hold that a common meeting place in a company town is not an important part of the company’s business. The question is of course one of degree. But isolated plants must draw labor, and an element in that drawing power is a community hall of some kind. In the background of discrimination found by the Board in this case, we cannot say that its conclusion should be upset. As we will point out below, the Board may weigh the employer’s expressed motive in determining the effect on employees of management’s otherwise equivocal act.
Stowe contends that its denial of facilities to the union was in accord with § 8 (2) of the Act, prohibiting employer interference with the formation or administration of a labor organization. One Board member agreed, citing a number of cases in which the Board had made a grant of company facilities the basis for unfair practice findings. But Stowe would have the cases hold more than they do. In each of them, granting such facilities to the union was only one facet in a pattern of domination found by the Board. The opinion of the Board in this case states that the “mere granting of a meeting place to a union by an employer under the conditions present here would not ... in and of itself constitute unlawful assistance to that union . . .• .” We have said that the Wagner Act “left to the Board the work of applying the Act’s general prohibitory language in the light of the infinite combinations of events which might be charged as violative of its terms.” Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board, supra, 324 U. S. at 798. Sections 8(1) and 8 (2) of the Act would seem to run into each other in the situation before us, were we to forget that the Board is the agency which weighs the relevance of factual data. Presumptions such as those employed in the Peyton Packing Company case, 49 N. L. R. B. 828, at 843-844, may be important in cases like this one. While the Wagner Act does not ask punishment for evil intent, repeated acts of discrimination may establish a natural tendency to view justifications of other labor practices with some skepticism. Calculating a cumulative effect on employees is not a job for this Court. We cannot say that the Board was wrong as a matter of law in view of the setting. •
The philosophy expressed in the Fifth Amendment does not affect the view we take. The Wagner Act was adopted pursuant to the commerce clause, and certainly can authorize the Board to stop an unfair labor practice as important as the one we are considering. Respondents are unquestionably engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. It is not “ ‘every interference with property rights that is within the Fifth Amendment .... Inconvenience, or even some dislocation of property rights, may be necessary in order to safeguard the right to collective bargaining.’ ” 324 U. S. at 802.
Accordingly, we think the Court of Appeals should have upheld the Board’s unfair practice charge.
Second. Stowe’s final contention, that the Board’s order is too broad, is more serious. Stowe is ordered to “cease and desist from . . . refusing to permit the use of the Patriotic Order Sons of America hall by its employees or employees of [the other respondents] or by Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, for the purpose of self-organization or collective bargaining.” There are none of the usual qualifications on the face of the order;* one construction would permit unions to use the hall at all times, whatever the legitimate activity of the Patriotic Order.
We are asked to read the decree in its background, and reject what is called a strained construction. Implicit in the order, we are told, is the word “reasonable.” Perhaps this is true. The words of even a judicial decree must be read in their setting. But violation of the order brings the swift retribution of contempt, without the normal safeguards of a full-dress proceeding. Some notice of the prior proceeding must be taken in a contempt action — the very word “reasonable” invites a glance at what has gone before. But too great dependence on the former action places defendants under a restraint that makes the order itself a useless formality. Again the question is of degree.
In this case, however, the Board did not find that the very denial of the hall was an unfair labor practice. It found that the refusal by these respondents was unreasonable because the hall had been given freely to others, and because no other halls were available for organization. Now the Board asks us to enforce an order that simply does not mean what it says. We must require explicit language making it clear that the mere denial of facilities will not subject respondents to punishment for contempt. What the Board found, and all we are considering here, is discrimination. The decree should be modified to order respondents to refrain from any activity which would cause a union’s application to be treated on a different basis than those of others similarly situated.
We therefore direct the Court of Appeals to remand the case to the Board for amendment of its order to conform to the Board’s findings and this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Under the Wagner Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U. S. C. §§ 151, 158 (1).
The Board found that “A. C. Lineberger is president of the respondents Perfection, Acme, and Linford; J. Harold Lineberger is vice president of the respondents Perfection and Linford, and secretary-treasurer of the respondent Acme; D. P. Stowe is vice president of the respondent Acme and secretary-treasurer of the respondent Perfection. The officers of the respondent Stowe are C. T. Stowe, president; C. P. Stowe, vice president; and R. L. Stowe, secretary-treasurer, all of whom are cousins of D. P. Stowe.”
Stowe’s petition was denied, 334 U. S. 831; the reinstatement order is not being reviewed in this Court.
See Lahne, The Cotton Mill Worker (New York, 1944), pp. 50-51.
See MacDonald, Southern Mill Hills (New York, 1928), p. 34; Blanshard, Labor in Southern Cotton Mills (New York, 1927), p. 64.
See notes 4 and 5.
Respondents do not contest the Board finding that antiunion bias was the cause for their refusal of the hall. And four employees were discharged for union activity. See 165 F. 2d 609, 614. Even in the Republic and Le Tourneau cases no such discrimination was shown. 324 U. S. at 797, 801.
See, for example, Berkshire Knitting Mills v. Labor Board, 139 F. 2d 134 (company union given use of hall denied to outside union); Labor Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 94 F. 2d 138 (company union given preference over Board-certified bargaining representative); Labor Board v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., 109 F. 2d 128 (recognition of inside union without ascertaining employees’ wishes — inside union given use of company rooms); Labor Board v. Lane Cotton Mills, 111 F. 2d 814 (refusal to bargain with certified union coupled with use of recreation room by company union). And see Cudahy Packing Co. v. Labor Board, 118 F. 2d 295; Matter of Standard Oil of California, 61 N. L. R. B. 1251; Matter of Virginia Electric & Power Co., 44 N. L. R. B. 404, enforced 319 U. S. 533.
Cited and quoted with approval in the Republic case at 803, 804.
We pointed out that neither the Republic nor Le Tourneau cases “is like a mining or lumber camp where the employees pass their rest as well as their work time on the employer’s premises, so that union organization must proceed upon the employer’s premises or be seriously handicapped.” 324 U. S. at 799.
Compare Labor Board v. Lake Superior Lumber Corp., 167 F. 2d 147, 150, where the Board recognized that the employer might impose “lawful and reasonable conditions.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this case are the limits imposed by federal law upon state court habeas corpus proceedings challenging an extradition warrant.
I
Richard and Judith Smolin were divorced in California in 1978. Sole custody of their two children, Jennifer and Jamie, was awarded to Judith Smolin, subject to reasonable visitation rights for Richard. Until November 1979, all the parties remained in San Bernardino County, California, and Richard apparently paid his child support and exercised his visitation rights without serious incident. In August 1979, however, Judith married James Pope, and in November, Mr. Pope’s work required that the family relocate to Oregon. When the Popes moved without informing Richard, the battle over the custody of the minor children began in earnest.
It is unnecessary to recite in detail all that ensued. Richard alleged, and the California courts later found, that the Popes deliberately attempted to defeat Richard’s visitation rights and to preclude him from forming a meaningful relationship with his children in the course of their succeeding re-locations from Oregon to Texas to Louisiana. On February 13, 1981, the Popes obtained a decree from a Texas court granting full faith and credit to the original California order awarding sole custody to Judith. Richard was served but did not appear in the Texas proceeding. Before the Texas decree was issued, however, Richard sought and obtained in California Superior Court modification of the underlying California decree, awarding joint custody to Richard and Judith. Though properly served, the Popes did not appear in these California proceedings; and, though served with the modification order, the Popes neither complied with its terms, nor notified the Texas court of its existence. On January 9, 1981, Richard instituted an action in California Superior Court to find Judith in contempt and to again modify the custody decree to give him sole custody. In February 1981, sole custody was granted to Richard by the California court, subject to reasonable visitation rights for Judith.
This order also was ignored by the Popes, apparently acting on the advice of counsel that the California courts no longer had jurisdiction over the matter. Richard did not in fact obtain physical custody for over two years. When he finally located the Popes in Louisiana, they began an adoption proceeding, later described by the California courts as “verging on the fraudulent,” to sever Richard’s legal tie to Jennifer and Jamie. App. 51. After securing a California warrant to obtain custody of the children on February 27, 1984, Richard and his father, Gerard Smolin, resorted to self-help. On March 9, 1984, they picked up Jennifer and Jamie as they were waiting for their school bus in Slidell, Louisiana, and brought them back to California. On April 11, 1984, the Popes submitted to the jurisdiction of the California Superior Court and instituted an action to modify the 1981 order granting Richard sole custody. 41 Cal. 3d 758, 764, n. 4, 716 P. 2d 991, 994, n. 4 (1986). Those proceedings are apparently still pending before the California courts.
Meanwhile, the Popes raised the stakes by instituting a criminal action against Richard and Gerard Smolin in Louisiana. On April 30, 1984, after the Popes instituted modification proceedings in California, Judith Pope swore out an affidavit charging Richard and Gerard Smolin with kidnaping Jennifer and Jamie from her custody and asserting that they had acted “without authority to remove children from [her] custody.” App. B to Pet. for Cert. 6. On the basis of this affidavit, the Assistant District Attorney for the 22d Judicial District of Louisiana, William Alford, Jr., filed an information charging Richard and Gerard Smolin each with two counts of violating La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:45 (West 1986), the Louisiana kidnaping statute. On June 14, 1984, the Governor of Louisiana formally notified the Governor of California that Richard and Gerard Smolin were charged with “simple kidnaping” in Louisiana and demanded that they be delivered up for trial. 41 Cal. 3d, at 763, 716 P. 2d, at 993-994.
In early August 1984, the Smolins petitioned in the California Superior Court for a writ of habeas corpus to block the anticipated extradition warrants. On August 17, 1984, the anticipated warrants issued and on August 24, 1984, the Superior Court orally granted a writ of habeas corpus after taking judicial notice of the various custody orders that had been issued. The court concluded “that the findings in the family law case adequately demonstrate that, in fact, the process initiated by Mrs. Pope in Louisiana and her declarations and affidavits were totally insufficient to establish any basis for rights of either herself personally or for the State ... of Louisiana.” App. C to Pet. for Cert. 5. California then sought a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal on the ground that the Superior Court had abused its discretion in blocking extradition. The Court of Appeal reluctantly issued the writ:
“Although we abhor Judy’s apparent willingness to take advantage of our federal system to further this custody battle, and are sympathetic to [the Smolins’] position, we must conclude that their arguments are irrelevant to the only issue a court in the asylum state may properly address: are the documents on their face in order.” App. B to Pet. for Cert. 16.
A divided California Supreme Court reversed. The majority interpreted the Superior Court’s finding to be that the Smolins were not substantially charged with a crime. It found that the California custody decrees were properly considered by the Superior Court, and that its conclusion that the Smolins were not substantially charged was correct. Under the full faith and credit provisions of the federal Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, 28 U. S. C. § 1738A, the majority determined that those decrees conclusively established that Richard Smolin was the lawful custodian of the children at the time that they were taken from Louisiana to California. Finally, the court found that, under Louisiana law, the lawful custodian cannot be guilty of kidnaping children in his custody. State v. Elliott, 171 La. 306, 311, 131 So. 28, 30 (1930). We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 982 (1986), to consider whether the Extradition Clause, Art. IV, §2, cl. 2, and the Extradition Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3182, prevent the California Supreme Court from refusing to permit extradition on these grounds.
HH I — I
The Federal Constitution places certain limits on the sovereign powers of the States, limits that are an essential part of the Framers’ conception of national identity and Union. One such limit is found in Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, the Extradition Clause:
“A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.”
The obvious objective of the Extradition Clause is that no State should become a safe haven for the fugitives from a sister State’s criminal justice system. As this Court noted in its first opportunity to construe the Extradition Clause:
“[T]he statesmen who framed the Constitution were fully sensible, that from the complex character of the Government, it must fail unless the States mutually supported each other and the General Government; and that nothing would be more likely to disturb its peace, and end in discord, than permitting an offender against the laws of a State, by passing over a mathematical line which divides it from another, to defy its process, and stand ready, under the protection of the State, to repeat the offence as soon as another opportunity offered.” Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 100 (1861).
The Extradition Clause, however, does not specifically establish a procedure by which interstate extradition is to take place, and, accordingly, has never been considered to be self-executing. See, e. g., Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran, 188 U. S. 691, 708-709 (1903); Kentucky v. Dennison, supra, at 104. Early in our history, the lack of an established procedure led to a bitter dispute between the States of Virginia and Pennsylvania. J. Scott, Law of Interstate Rendition 5-7 (1917). In 1791, Pennsylvania demanded the extradition of three men charged with kidnaping a free black man and selling him into slavery. Virginia refused to comply with Pennsylvania’s demand. The controversy was finally submitted to President Washington who, relying upon the advice of Attorney General Randolph, 9 National State Papers of the United States 1789-1817, pt. II, pp. 144-145 (E. Carzo ed. 1985), personally appeared before the Congress to obtain the enactment of a law to regulate the extradition process. Congress responded by enacting the Extradition Act of 1793, which provides in its current form:
“Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded .with having committed treason, felony or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear.” 18 U. S. C. §3182.
This Court has held the Extradition Act of 1793 to be a proper exercise of Congress’ powers under the Extradition Clause and Art. IV, § 1, to “prescribe the manner in which acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Kentucky v. Dennison, supra, at 105; Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 618-622 (1842). By the express terms of federal law, therefore, the asylum State is bound to deliver up to the demanding State’s agent a fugitive against whom a properly certified indictment or affidavit charging a crime is lodged.
The language, history, and subsequent construction of the Extradition Act make clear that Congress intended extradition to be a summary procedure. As we have repeatedly held, extradition proceedings are “to be kept within narrow bounds”; they are “emphatically” not the appropriate time or place for entertaining defenses or determining the guilt or innocence of the charged party. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U. S. 128, 135 (1917); see also, e. g., Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282, 288 (1978); Drew v. Thaw, 235 U. S. 432, 440 (1914); Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 405 (1908); In re Strauss, 197 U. S. 324, 332-333 (1905). Those inquiries are left to the prosecutorial authorities and courts of the demanding State, whose duty it is to justly enforce the demanding State’s criminal law — subject, of course, to the limitations imposed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, supra, at 135; Drew v. Thaw, supra, at 440. The courts of asylum States may do no more than ascertain whether the requisites of the Extradition Act have been met. As the Court held in Michigan v. Doran, supra, the Act leaves only four issues open for consideration before the fugitive is delivered up:
“(a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether .the petitioner is a fugitive.” 439 U. S., at 289.
The parties argue at length about the propriety of the California courts taking judicial notice of their prior child custody decrees in this extradition proceeding. But even if taking judicial notice of the decrees is otherwise proper, the question remains whether the decrees noticed were relevant to one of these four inquiries. The Smolins do not dispute that the extradition documents are in order, that they are the persons named in the documents and that they meet the technical definition of a “fugitive.” Their sole contention is that, in light of the earlier California custody decrees and the federal Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, 28 U. S. C. § 1738A, they have not been properly charged with a violation of Louisiana’s kidnaping statute, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:45 (West 1986).
Section 14:45A(4) prohibits the
“intentional taking, enticing or decoying away and removing from the state, by any parent, of his or her child, from the custody of any person to whom custody has been awarded by any court of competent jurisdiction of any state, without the consent of the legal custodian, with intent to defeat the jurisdiction of the said court over the custody of the child.”
A properly certified Louisiana information charges the Smo-lins with violating this statute by kidnaping Jennifer and Jamie Smolin. The information is based on the sworn affidavit of Judith Pope which asserts:
“‘On March 9,1984, at approximately 7:20 a. m., Richard Smolin and Gerard Smolin, kidnapped Jennifer Smolin, aged 10, and James C. Smolin, aged 9, from the affiant’s custody while said children were at a bus stop in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
“The affiant has custody of the said children by virtue of a Texas court order dated February 5, 1981, a copy of said order attached hereto and made part hereof. The information regarding the actual kidnapping was told to the affiant by witnesses Mason Galatas and Cheryl Galatas of 2028 Mallard Street, Slidell, Louisiana, and Jimmie Huessler of 2015 Dridle Street, Slidell, Louisiana. Richard Smolin and Gerard Smolin were without authority to remove children from affiant’s custody.’” App. B to Pet. for Cert. 5-6.
The information is in proper form, and the Smolins do not dispute that the affidavit, and documents incorporated by reference therein, set forth facts that clearly satisfy each element of the crime of kidnaping as it is defined in La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:45A(4) (West 1986). If we accept as true every fact alleged, the Smolins are properly charged with kidnaping under Louisiana law. In our view, this ends the inquiry into the issue whether or not a crime is charged for purposes of the Extradition Act.
The Smolins argue, however, that more than a formal charge is required, citing the following language from Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 95 (1885):
“It must appear, therefore, to the governor of the State to whom such a demand is presented, before he can lawfully comply with it, first, that the person demanded is substantially charged with a crime against the laws of the State from whose justice he is alleged to have fled, by an indictment or an affidavit, certified as authentic by the governor of the State making the demand. . . .
“[This] is a question of law, and is always open upon the face of the papers to judicial inquiry, on an application for a discharge under a writ of habeas corpus.”
The Smolins claim that this language in Roberts spawned a widespread practice of permitting the fugitive, upon a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the asylum State’s courts, to show that the demanding State’s charging instrument is so insufficent that it cannot withstand some generalized version of a motion to dismiss or common-law demurrer. Tr. of Oral Arg. 29-36. The cases the Smolins principally rely upon as support for this asserted practice are People ex rel. Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction of City of New York, 100 Misc. 2d 48, 417 N. Y. S. 2d 377 (1979), aff’d, 75 App. Div. 2d 526, 426 N. Y. S. 2d 969 (1980), and Application of Varona, 38 Wash. 2d 833, 232 P. 2d 923 (1951). See Brief for Respondent 15-17. In Lewis, however, the New York trial court actually granted extradition despite its apparent misgivings about the substantiality of the criminal charge. Lewis, supra, at 56, 417 N. Y. S. 2d, at 382. And, in Varona, the Washington Supreme Court relied on the fact that the indictment, on its face, did not charge a crime under California law. Application of Varona, supra, at 833-834, 232 P. 2d, at 923-924. Neither case, in our view, supports the broad proposition that the asylum State’s courts may entertain motions to dismiss or demurrers to the indictment or information from the demanding State.
To the contrary, our cases make clear that no such inquiry is permitted. For example, in Pierce v. Creecy, decided after Roberts, supra, this Court refused to grant relief from extradition over multiple objections to the sufficiency of the indictment. The Pierce Court concluded that it was enough that “the indictment, whether good or bad, as a pleading, unmistakably describes every element of the crime of false swearing, as it is defined in the Texas Penal Code . . . .” 210 U. S., at 404. It reasoned:
“If more were required it would impose upon courts, in the trial of writs of habeas corpus, the duty of a critical examination of the laws of States with whose jurisprudence and criminal procedure they can have only a general acquaintance. Such a duty would be an intolerable burden, certain to lead to errors in decision, irritable to the just pride of the States and fruitful of miscarriages of justice. The duty ought not be assumed unless it is plainly required by the Constitution, and, in our opinion, there is nothing in the letter or the spirit of that instrument which requires or permits its performance.” Id., at 405.
Similarly, in Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U. S. 128 (1917), the appellant argued that he had a seemingly valid statute of limitations defense based on the fact that more than three years, the limitations period, had elapsed since the date of the crime recited in the indictment and that he had been publicly and openly resident in the demanding State for that entire period. The Court found that the question of limitations was properly considered only in the demanding State’s courts. Id., at 135; see also Drew v. Thaw, 235 U. S., at 439-440 (whether the escape of a person committed to a mental institution is a crime “is a question as to the law of New York which the New York courts must decide”).
This proceeding is neither the time nor place for the Smolins’ arguments that Judith Pope’s affidavit is fraudulent and that the California custody decrees establish Richard as the lawful custodian under the full faith and credit provision of the federal Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the Smolins are not entirely correct in all of this: that California had exclusive modification jurisdiction over the custody of Jennifer and Jamie; that, under the California decrees, Richard Smolin had lawful custody of the children when he brought them to California; and, that, accordingly, the Smolins did not violate La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:45A(4) (West 1986) as is charged. Of course, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980 creates a uniform federal rule governing custody determinations, a rule to which the courts of Louisiana must adhere when they consider the Smolins’ case on the merits. We are not informed by the record why it is that the States of California and Louisiana are so eager to force the Smolins halfway across the continent to face criminal charges that, at least to a majority of the California Supreme Court, appear meritless. If the Smolins are correct, they are not only innocent of the charges made against them, but also victims of a possible abuse of the criminal process. But, under the Extradition Act, it is for the Louisiana courts to do justice in this case, not the California courts: “surrender is not to be interfered with by the summary process of habeas corpus upon speculations as to what ought to be the result of a trial in the place where the Constitution provides for its taking place.” Drew v. Thaw, supra, at 440. The judgment of the California Supreme Court is
Reversed.
The California Supreme Court found that under the Parental Kidnap-ing Prevention Act, California had exclusive modification jurisdiction over the original custody decree. 41 Cal. 3d 758, 770, 716 P. 2d 991, 999 (1986). See 28 U. S. C. § 1738A(d) (“The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a child custody determination consistently with the provisions of this section continues as long as [such court has jurisdiction under the law of such State] and such State remains the residence of the child or any contestant”); 28 U. S. C. § 1738A(f) (“A court of a State may modify a determination of the custody of the same child made by a court of another State, if— . . . (2) the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction, or it has declined to exercise such jurisdiction to modify such determination”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner, a longshoreman, filed a libel in rem in a United States District Court against the steamship Yaka to recover for injuries he sustained while engaged in loading the vessel. The Yaka’s owner, Waterman Steamship Corporation, appeared as claimant of the ship but brought in as an additional defendant petitioner’s employer, Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation, which at the time of’ the accident was operating Waterman’s ship under a bareboat charter and whose negligence Waterman alleged caused petitioner’s injury. The district judge found that at the time of the injury petitioner was in the ship standing on a stack of rectangular, wooden, pallets used in loading the vessel and that the sole cause of the injury was a latent defect in one of the planks of a pallet,' which caused it to break. The judge held that the defective pallet supplied by- Pan-Atlantic rendered Waterman’s Yaka unseaworthy and that therefore petitioner could recover against the ship. But since the defective pallet was furnished by Pan-Atlantic, the trial judge went on to hold that it must make Waterman whole because of an indémnity clause in the bareboat charter agreement. 183 F. Supp. 69. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that neither Waterman nor Pan-Atlantic could be held personally liable for the unseaworthiness and that a libel in rem against a ship could not be sustained unless there was an underlying personal liability to support the in rem action. 307 F. 2d 203. Having previously reserved in Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 U. S. 698, 700 n. 3 (1962), the question of whether personal liability is essential to the liability of a ship, we granted certiorari. 371 U. S. 938.
In determining that there was no underlying personal liability for the unseaworthiness of the vessel, the Court of Appeals held that (1) Waterman, the actual owner, could not be made to respond in damages because the unseaworthiness of its ship arose after it had been demised under bareboat charter to Pan-Atlantic, and (2) Pan-Atlantic could not. have been held personally liable in damages to petitioner for the unseaworthiriess because Pan-Atlantic was petitioner’s employer under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, and, while that Act permits actions for damages against third persons, it provides that compensation liability of an employer under the Act is exclusive and in place of all other liability on his part.
We find it unnecessary to decide whether a ship may ever be held liable for its unseaworthiness where no personal liability could be asserted because, in our view, , the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Pan-Atlantic could not be held personally liable' for the unseaworthiness of the ship which caused petitioner’s injury.
Pan-Atlantic was operating the Yaka as demisee or bareboat charterer from Waterman. Under such arrangements full possession and control .of the vessel are delivered up to the charterer for a period of time. The ship is then directed by its Master and manned by his crew; it makes his voyages and carries the cargo he chooses. Services performed on board the ship are primarily for his benefit. It has long been recognized in the law of admiralty that for many, if not most, purposes the bareboat charterer is to be treated as the owner, generally called owner pro hac vice. We have no doubt, and indeed Pan-Atlantic admits, that, barring explicit statutory exemption, the. bareboat charterer is personally liable for the unseaworthiness of a chartered vessel, and that this liability will support a libel in rem against the vessél. Since the unseaworthiness of the Yaka is no longer in dispute, the only question is whether the Longshoremen’s Act prevents recovery by petitioner for Pan-Atlantic’s breach of its warranty of seaworthiness.
In Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85 (1946), we held that a shipowner’s warranty of seaworthiness extended to a longshoreman injured while loading the ship, even though the longshoreman was employed by an independent contractor. In doing so, we noted particularly the hazards of marine service, the helplessness of the men to ward off the perils of unseaworthiness, the harshness of forcing them' to shoulder their losses alone, and the broad range of the “humanitarian policy” of the doctrine of seaworthiness, which we held not to depend upon any kind of contract. 328 U. S., at 93-95. We further held that the Longshoremen’s' and Harbor Workers’ Act was not intended to take away from longshoremen' the traditional remedies- of the sea, so that recovery for unseaworthiness could be had notwithstanding the availability of compensation. • Ten years later, in Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic S. S. Corp., 350 U. S. 124 (1956), we were faced with the question of whether a shipowner’who was forced to pay damages to a longshoreman injured by the unsafe storage of cargo could "recover indemnity from the stevedoring company for whom the longshoreman worked. Even in the absence of an indemnity provision, the Court held that the stevedoring company was liable over to the shipowner because it had promised to store the.cargo safely. The Court was not convinced by. arguments that its result made the economic burden of the longshoreman’s recovery fall on the stevedoring employer contrary to the purpose of the Act. Thus, there can be no doubt that, if the petitioner here had been employed to do this particular work by an independent stevedoring company rather than directly by the owner, he could have recovered damages for his injury from the owner who could have then under Ryan shifted the burden of the recovery to petitioner’s steve-doring employer. Yet the Court of Appeals held, and Pan-Atlantic would have us hold, that petitioner must be completely denied the traditional and basic protection of the warranty of seaworthiness simply because Pan-Atlantic was not only the owner pro hac vice of the ship but was also petitioner’s employer. In making this argument, Pan-Atlantic has not pointed and could not point to any economic difference between giving relief in this case, where the owner acted as his own stevedore, and in one in which the owner' hires an independent company. In either case, under Ryan, the burden ultimately falls on the company whose default caused the injury. Pan-Atlantic relies simply on the literal wording of the statute, and it must be admitted that the statute on its face lends support to Pari-Atlantic’s construction. But we cannot now consider the wording of the statute alone. We must view it in the light of our prior cases in this area, like Sieracki, Ryan, and others, the holdings of which have been 'left unchanged by Congress. In particular, we pointed out several times in the Sieracki case, which has been consistently followed since, that a shipowner’s obligation of seaworthiness cannot be shifted about, limited, or escaped by contracts or by the absence of contracts and that the shipowner’s obligation is rooted, not in contracts, but in the hazards of the work. And Ryan’s holding that a negligent stevedoring company must indemnify a shipowner has in later cases been followed and to some degree extended. In the light of this whole body of law, statutory and decisional, only.blind' adherence to the superficial meaning of a statute could prompt us to ignore the fact that Pan-Atlantic was not only an employer of longshoremen but was also a bareboat charterer and operator of a ship and, as such, was charged with the traditional, absolute, and nondelegable obligation of seaworthiness which it should not be permitted to avoid. We have previously said that the Longshoremen’s Act “must be liberally construed in conformance with its purpose, and in a way which avoids harsh and incongruous results.” We think it would produce a harsh and incongruous result, one out of keeping with the dominant intent of Congress to help longshoremen, to distinguish between liability to longshoremen injured under precisely the same circumstances béeause some draw their pay directly from a shipowner and others from a stevedoring company doing the ship’s service. Petitioner’s need for protection from unseaworthiness was neither more nor less than that of a longshoreman working for a stevedoring company. As we said in a slightly different factual context, “All were subjected to the same danger. All were entitled to like treatment under law.” We conclude that petitioner was not barred by the Longshoremen’s Act from relying on Pan-Atlantic’s liability as a shipowner for the Yaka’s unseaworthiness in order to support his libel in rem against the vessel.
Reversed.
Whether a bareboat charter’absolves the owner from liability on its warranty of seaworthiness is a question we also reserved in Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 U. S. 698, 700 (1962). We do not reach that question here.
Counsel state that an in personam complaint against Waterman was dismissed and no appeal was taken by petitioner. But this has no relevancy here.
44 Stat. 1424 (1927), 33 U. S. C. §§901-950.
33 U. S. C. § 933.
33 U. S. C. § 90S.
See Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 U. S. 698, 699-700 (1962), and cases there cited; Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty (1957), 215.
See, e.g., Leary v. United, States, 14 Wall. 607, 610 (1872); United States v. Shea, 152 U. S. 178 (1894).
Pan-Atlantic states in its brief, “Whether we call him bareboat charterer, owner pro hac vice, or demisee, it is he who ‘is the war-rantor of seaworthiness.’ ”
Cf. Cannella v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 174 F. 2d 794 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1949); Cannella v. United States, 179 F. 2d 491 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1950).
See, e. g., Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 358 U. S. 423 (1959).
See, e. g., Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406 (1953) ; Alaska S. S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U. S. 396 (1954); Rogers v. United States Lines, 347 U. S. 984 (1954); Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 358 U. S. 423 (1959).
See, e. g., Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co., 355 U. S. 563 (1958); Crumady v. The Joachim Hendrik Fisser, 358 U. S. 423 (1959); Waterman S. S. Corp. v. Dugan & McNamara, Inc., 364 U. S. 421 (1960).
Voris v. Eikel, 346 U. S. 328, 333 (1953).
See S. Rep. No. 973, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1926); H. R. Rep. No. 1190, 69th Cong., Ist Sess. (1926).
Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 413 (1953).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a state prisoner is eligible for federal habeas relief if the underlying state court merits ruling was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law" as determined by this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). In this case, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that this demanding standard was met by a Virginia court's application of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). The question presented is whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the state court's ruling involved an unreasonable application of this Court's holding.
I
On July 6, 1999, respondent Dennis LeBlanc raped a 62-year-old woman. He was 16 at the time. In 2003, a state trial court sentenced him to life in prison for his crimes. In the 1990's, Virginia had, for felony offenders, abolished parole that followed a traditional framework. See Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-165.1 (2013). As a form of replacement, Virginia enacted its so-called "geriatric release" program, which allows older inmates to receive conditional release under some circumstances. LeBlanc v. Mathena, 841 F.3d 256, 261 (C.A.4 2016) (citing Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-40.01 ).
Seven years after respondent was sentenced, this Court decided Graham v. Florida . Graham established that the Eighth Amendment prohibits juvenile offenders convicted of nonhomicide offenses from being sentenced to life without parole. While a "State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide crime," the Court held, it must "give defendants like Graham some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." 540 U.S., at 75, 124 S.Ct. 598. The Court in Graham left it to the States, "in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance" with the Graham rule. Ibid.
Respondent later filed a motion in state trial court-the Virginia Beach Circuit Court-seeking to vacate his sentence in light of Graham . The trial court denied the motion. In so doing, it relied on the Supreme Court of Virginia's decision in Angel v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 248, 704 S.E.2d 386 (2011). The Angel court held that Virginia's geriatric release program satisfies Graham 's requirement of parole for juvenile offenders. The statute establishing the program provides:
"Any person serving a sentence imposed upon a conviction for a felony offense ... (i) who has reached the age of sixty-five or older and who has served at least five years of the sentence imposed or (ii) who has reached the age of sixty or older and who has served at least ten years of the sentence imposed may petition the Parole Board for conditional release." § 53.1-40.01.
The Angel court explained that "[t]he regulations for conditional release under this statute provide that if the prisoner meets the qualifications for consideration contained in the statute, the factors used in the normal parole consideration process apply to conditional release decisions under this statute." 281 Va., at 275, 704 S.E.2d, at 402. The geriatric release program thus complied with Graham, the Angel court held, because it provided "the meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation required by the Eighth Amendment." 281 Va., at 275, 704 S.E.2d, at 402 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Virginia Supreme Court, in reviewing the trial court's ruling in the instant case, summarily denied respondent's requests for appeal and for rehearing.
In 2012, respondent filed a federal habeas petition in the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the petition, but the District Court disagreed and granted the writ. The District Court explained that "there is no possibility that fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts wit [h] the dictates of Graham ." LeBlanc v. Mathena, 2015 WL 4042175, *18 (July 1, 2015).
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the state trial court's ruling was an unreasonable application of Graham . 841 F.3d, at 259-260. In the panel majority's view, Virginia's geriatric release program did not provide a meaningful opportunity for juvenile nonhomicide offenders to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.
Judge Niemeyer dissented. He criticized the majority for "fail[ing] to respect, in any meaningful way, the deference Congress requires federal courts to give state court decisions on postconviction review." Id., at 275.
The Commonwealth of Virginia petitioned for certiorari. The petition is now granted, and the judgment is reversed: The Virginia trial court did not unreasonably apply the Graham rule.
II
In order for a state court's decision to be an unreasonable application of this Court's case law, the ruling must be "objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong; even clear error will not suffice." Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1372, 1376, 191 L.Ed.2d 464 (2015) (per curiam ) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, a litigant must "show that the state court's ruling ... was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). This is "meant to be" a difficult standard to meet. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred by failing to accord the state court's decision the deference owed under AEDPA. Graham did not decide that a geriatric release program like Virginia's failed to satisfy the Eighth Amendment because that question was not presented. And it was not objectively unreasonable for the state court to conclude that, because the geriatric release program employed normal parole factors, it satisfied Graham 's requirement that juveniles convicted of a nonhomicide crime have a meaningful opportunity to receive parole. The geriatric release program instructs Virginia's Parole Board to consider factors like the "individual's history ... and the individual's conduct ... during incarceration," as well as the prisoner's "inter-personal relationships with staff and inmates" and "[c]hanges in attitude toward self and others." See 841 F.3d, at 280-281 (Niemeyer, J., dissenting) (citing Virginia Parole Board Policy Manual 2-4 (Oct. 2006)). Consideration of these factors could allow the Parole Board to order a former juvenile offender's conditional release in light of his or her "demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Graham, 560 U.S., at 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011. The state court thus did not diverge so far from Graham 's dictates as to make it "so obvious that ... there could be no 'fairminded disagreement' " about whether the state court's ruling conflicts with this Court's case law. White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1706, 188 L.Ed.2d 698 (2014).
"Perhaps the logical next step from" Graham would be to hold that a geriatric release program does not satisfy the Eighth Amendment, but "perhaps not." 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1707. "[T]here are reasonable arguments on both sides." Id., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1707. With respect to petitioners, these include the arguments discussed above. Supra, at 1728 - 1729. With regards to respondent, these include the contentions that the Parole Board's substantial discretion to deny geriatric release deprives juvenile nonhomicide offenders a meaningful opportunity to seek parole and that juveniles cannot seek geriatric release until they have spent at least four decades in prison.
These arguments cannot be resolved on federal habeas review. Because this case arises "only in th[at] narrow context," the Court "express[es] no view on the merits of the underlying" Eighth Amendment claim. Woods, supra, at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1378 (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor does the Court "suggest or imply that the underlying issue, if presented on direct review, would be insubstantial." Marshall v. Rodgers, 569 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1446, 1451, 185 L.Ed.2d 540 (2013) (per curiam ); accord, Woodall, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1703. The Court today holds only that the Virginia trial court's ruling, resting on the Virginia Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Angel, was not objectively unreasonable in light of this Court's current case law.
III
A proper respect for AEDPA's high bar for habeas relief avoids unnecessarily "disturb[ing] the State's significant interest in repose for concluded litigation, den[ying] society the right to punish some admitted offenders, and intrud[ing] on state sovereignty to a degree matched by few exercises of federal judicial authority." Harrington, supra, at 103, 131 S.Ct. 770 (internal quotation marks omitted). The federalism interest implicated in AEDPA cases is of central relevance in this case, for the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's holding created the potential for significant discord in the Virginia sentencing process. Before today, Virginia courts were permitted to impose-and required to affirm-a sentence like respondent's, while federal courts presented with the same fact pattern were required to grant habeas relief. Reversing the Court of Appeals' decision in this case-rather than waiting until a more substantial split of authority develops-spares Virginia courts from having to confront this legal quagmire.
For these reasons, the petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice GINSBURG, concurring in the judgment.
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), as today's per curiam recognizes, established that a juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide offense must have "some meaningful opportunity to obtain release [from prison] based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Id., at 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011. See ante, at 1727 - 1728. I join the Court's judgment on the understanding that the Virginia Supreme Court, in Angel v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 248, 704 S.E.2d 386 (2011), interpreted Virginia law to require the parole board to provide such a meaningful opportunity under the geriatric release program. See id., at 275, 704 S.E.2d, at 402 ("the factors used in the normal parole consideration process apply to conditional release decisions under this statute"). In other words, contrary to the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of Virginia law, the parole board may not deny a juvenile offender geriatric release "for any reason whatsoever," 841 F.3d 256, 269 (2016) (emphasis in original); instead, the board, when evaluating a juvenile offender for geriatric release, must consider the normal parole factors, including rehabilitation and maturity. See ante, at 1728 - 1729.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 appellant railroads brought this action in a United States District Court to set aside a rate order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The order prescribed maximum carload rates for carrying certain kinds of fresh vegetables. The rates were charged to be “confiscatory” and therefore in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The sole basis for this charge was an allegation that if put in effect the rates would produce less money than it would cost the railroads to carry the particular vegetables covered by each rate. Denying that a commodity rate violates due process merely because it is noncompensatory, the Commission moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that proof of everything the complaint alleged would not justify invalidation of the order. On this ground, and without reaching another Commission contention on which the District Court relied, we hold that the case was properly dismissed by that court.
There is and has been no claim that the challenged rates will make any one of the complaining railroads operate its entire business at a loss, or even carry all fresh vegetables at a loss. The carload rates prescribed are but minor alterations in a vast, complex network of rates that apply to fresh vegetable shipments throughout the Nation. One of the two rates applies only to carload shipments of carrots with tops, the other to carload shipments of a limited group of other fresh vegetables such as string beans, lettuce and parsnips. And both rates relate only to shipments from points in Texas to points in some but not all of the other states.
Such adjustments of rates among vegetables as the Commission here made would appear to be but normal, run-of-the-mine regulations and the fixing of a cheaper transportation rate for one vegetable than for another may well serve an important public need. So long as a railroad is not caused by such regulations to lose money on its over-all business, it is hard to think that it could successfully charge that its property was being taken for public use “without just compensation.” And apparently the railroads rely not on the just compensation but on the Due Process provision of the Fifth Amendment. This appears from their complaint and the cases cited to support their contention. Chief reliance is placed on Northern Pacific R. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, and a companion case decided the same day, Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. West Virginia, 236 U. S. 605. Both cases involved state statutes fixing railroad rates, one on coal and one on passengers. Both were found to be noncompensatory. Both were held violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In both the ground was that the rates were “unreasonable” and “arbitrary.” The Court was careful to point out and emphasize that there was nothing in the records of those cases to show that there were “reasonable” grounds on which to justify imposing noncom-pensatory rates on the railroads. It would not be possible to hold that the vegetable rates here challenged are the result of unreasonable or arbitrary Commission action.
The history of regulation of fresh vegetable transportation rates from the south and southwest shows the difficulties the Commission has had in that field. Much of that history can be found in the Commission reports cited below. Not only has the Commission had to consider conflicting rate claims as between shippers and carriers; it has also had to resolve disputes over such questions among the carriers themselves. The present rate order is but one of a long series of Commission orders designed to correct defects and injustices that develop from time to time in the general fresh vegetable rate pattern. Among the factors considered by the Commission in fixing these rates have been these: value of the vegetable; comparison of vegetable values; comparisons with rates on the same vegetables in different sections of the country; comparisons with rates on commodities other than vegetables; special characteristics of some vegetables that add to or subtract from expense of transportation; perish-ability; claim hazards of the carrier as between different vegetables; competing truck rates; and possible harmful effects of rates on vegetable prices and sales.
This mere sample of factors that have to be considered in rate cases demonstrates the absolute necessity for considerable flexibility in rate making. For not only are fair decisions as to vegetable rates vital to the welfare of farmers and whole sections of the country; the health and well-being of the Nation are involved. Moreover, Commission power to adjust rates to meet public needs is implicit in the congressional plan for a nationally integrated railroad system. United States v. Lowden, 308 U. S. 225, 230; The New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184; Railroad Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 257 U. S. 563, 583-586. And so long as rates as a whole afford railroads just compensation for their over-all services to the public the Due Process Clause should not be construed as a bar to the fixing of noncompensatory rates for carrying some commodities when the public interest is thereby served.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The District Court dismissed because the railroads had not tendered any issue of confiscation or offered any proof of transportation costs until after the Commission had finished its hearings, made findings and entered its rate order. 105 F. Supp. 631. For this reason the District Court declined the railroads’ request to hear evidence of transportation costs, a procedural course approved in Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 349, or to hold the case for remand to the Commission for it to make a preliminary appraisal of the facts in line with the suggestion in New York v. United States, 331 U. S. 284, 334-336. Relying on the Court’s opinion in the Baltimore & Ohio case, supra, the railroads here contend that dismissal because of their delay in raising the issue before the Commission deprived them of a constitutional right to have a judicial determination of their Fifth Amendment contention. The Commission’s answer to this contention is a request that we re-examine the Baltimore & Ohio case, abandon the constitutional principles announced by the majority there and apply the concurring minority views to the facts of this case. Because there is a more appropriate ground for decision we assume, without deciding, that the confiscation issue here was raised in time.
The Fifth Amendment provides in part: “No person shall . . . be deprived of . . . property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
279 I. C. C. 671 and 284 I. C. C. 206 are the original and rehearing reports on the present rate order. Other reports on the system of vegetable rates are Southwestern Vegetable Case, 200 I. C. C. 355, 209 I. C. C. 606, 214 I. C. C. 63; Southeastern Vegetable Case, 200 I. C. C. 273; Transcontinental Rates and Estimated Weights on Vegetables, 270 I. C. C. 665; Estimated Weights on Lettuce from the Southwest, 276 I. C. C. 647.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In early 1970, Clay L. Shaw filed a civil rights action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Four years later, before trial had commenced, Shaw died. The question presented is whether the District Court was required to adopt as federal law a Louisiana survivorship statute, which would have caused this action to abate, or was free instead to create a federal common-law rule allowing the action to survive. Resolution of this question turns on whether the state statute is “inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 42 U. S. C. § 1988.
I
In 1969, Shaw was tried in a Louisiana state court on charges of having participated in a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. He was acquitted by a jury but within days was arrested on charges of having committed perjury in his testimony at the conspiracy trial. Alleging that these prosecutions were undertaken in bad faith, Shaw’s § 1983 complaint named as defendants the then District Attorney of Orleans Parish, Jim Garrison, and five other persons, including petitioner Willard E. Robertson, who was alleged to have lent financial support to Garrison’s investigation of Shaw through an organization known as “Truth or Consequences.” On Shaw’s application, the District Court enjoined prosecution of the perjury action, Shaw v. Garrison, 328 F. Supp. 390 (1971), and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 467 F. 2d 113 (CA5 1972).
Since Shaw had filed an action seeking damages, the parties continued with discovery after the injunction issued. Trial was set for November 1974, but in August 1974 Shaw died. The executor of his estate, respondent Edward F. Wegmann (hereafter respondent), moved to be substituted as plaintiff, and the District Court granted the motion. Petitioner and other defendants then moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it had abated on Shaw’s death.
The District Court denied the motion to dismiss. It began its analysis by referring to 42 U. S. C. § 1988; this statute provides that, when federal law is “deficient” with regard to “suitable remedies” in federal civil rights actions, federal courts are to be governed by
“the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of [the] civil . . . cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
The court found the federal civil rights laws to be “deficient in not providing for survival.” Shaw v. Garrison, 391 F. Supp. 1353, 1361 (1975). It then held that, under Louisiana law, an action like Shaw’s would survive only in favor of a spouse, children, parents, or siblings. Since no person with the requisite relationship to Shaw was alive at the time of his death, his action would have abated had state law been adopted as the federal rule. But the court refused to apply state law, finding it inconsistent with federal law, and in its place created “a federal common law of survival in civil rights actions in favor of the personal representative of the deceased.” Id., at 1368.
On an interlocutory appeal taken pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court first noted that all parties agreed that, “if Louisiana law applies, Shaw’s § 1983 claim abates.” 545 F. 2d 980, 982 (1977). Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals applied 42 U. S. C. § 1988, found federal law “deficient” with regard to survivorship, and held Louisiana law “inconsistent with the broad remedial purposes embodied in the Civil Rights Acts.” 545 F. 2d, at 983. It offered a number of justifications for creating a federal common-law rule allowing respondent to continue Shaw’s action: Such a rule would better further the policies underlying § 1983, 545 F. 2d, at 984r-985; would “foste[r] the uniform application of the civil rights laws,” id., at 985; and would be consistent with “[t]he marked tendency of the federal courts to allow actions to survive in other areas of particular federal concern,” ibid. The court concluded that, “as a matter of federal common law, a § 1983 action instituted by a plaintiff prior to his death survives in favor of his estate.” Id., at 987.
We granted certiorari, 434 U. S. 983 (1977), and we now reverse.
II
As both courts below held, and as both parties here have assumed, the decision as to the applicable survivorship rule is governed by 42 U. S. C. § 1988. This statute recognizes that in certain areas “federal law is unsuited or insufficient 'to furnish suitable remedies’ ”; federal law simply does not “cover every issue that may arise in the context of a federal civil rights action.” Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 703, 702 (1973), quoting 42 U. S. C. § 1988. When federal law is thus “deficient,” § 1988 instructs us to turn to “the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the [forum] State,” as long as these are “not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” See n. 1, supra. Regardless of the source of the law applied in a particular case, however, it is clear that the ultimate rule adopted under § 1988 “ 'is a federal rule responsive to the need whenever a federal right is impaired.’ ” Moor v. County of Alameda, supra, at 703, quoting Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229, 240 (1969).
As we noted in Moor v. County of Alameda, and as was recognized by both courts below, one specific area not covered by federal law is that relating to “the survival of civil rights actions under § 1983 upon the death of either the plaintiff or defendant.” 411 U. S., at 702 n. 14. State statutes governing the survival of state actions do exist, however. These statutes, which vary widely with regard to both the types of claims that survive and the parties as to whom survivorship is allowed, see W. Prosser, Law of Torts 900-901 (4th ed. 1971), were intended to modify the simple, if harsh, 19th-century common-law rule: “[A]n injured party’s personal claim was [always] extinguished . . . upon the death of either the injured party himself or the alleged wrongdoer.” Moor v. County of Alameda, supra, at 702 n. 14; see Michigan Central R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 67 (1913). Under § 1988, this state statutory law, modifying the common law, provides the principal reference point in determining survival of civil rights actions, subject to the important proviso that state law may not be applied when it is “inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Because of this proviso, the courts below refused to adopt as federal law the Louisiana survivorship statute and in its place created a federal common-law rule.
Ill
In resolving questions of inconsistency between state and federal law raised under § 1988, courts must look not only at particular federal statutes and constitutional provisions, but also at “the policies expressed in [them].” Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., supra, at 240; see Moor v. County of Alameda, supra, at 703. Of particular importance is whether application of state law “would be inconsistent with the federal policy underlying the cause of action under consideration.” Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 465 (1975). The instant cause of action arises under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, one of the “Reconstruction civil rights statutes” that this Court has accorded “ 'a sweep as broad as [their] language.’ ” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88, 97 (1971), quoting United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 801 (1966).
Despite the broad sweep of § 1983, we can find nothing in the statute or its underlying policies to indicate that a state law causing abatement of a particular action should invariably be ignored in favor of a rule of absolute survivorship. The policies underlying § 1983 include compensation of persons injured by deprivation of federal rights and prevention of abuses of power by those acting under color of state law. See, e. g., Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 254 (1978); Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 238-242 (1972); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 172-187 (1961). No claim is made here that Louisiana’s survivorship laws are in general inconsistent with these policies, and indeed most Louisiana actions survive the plaintiff’s death. See La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann., Art. 428 (West 1960); La. Civ. Code Ann., Art. 2315 (West 1971). Moreover, certain types of actions that would abate automatically on the plaintiff’s death in many States — for example, actions for defamation and malicious prosecution — would apparently survive in Louisiana. In actions other than those for damage to property, however, Louisiana does not allow the deceased’s personal representative to be substituted as plaintiff; rather, the action survives only in favor of a spouse, children, parents, or siblings. See 391 F. Supp., at 1361-1363; La. Civ. Code Ann., Art. 2315 (West 1971); J. Wilton Jones Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 248 So. 2d 878 (La. App. 1970 and 1971) (en banc). But surely few persons are not survived by one of these close relatives, and in any event no contention is made here that Louisiana’s decision to restrict certain survivorship rights in this manner is an unreasonable one.
It is therefore difficult to see how any of § 1983’s policies would be undermined if Shaw’s action were to abate. The goal of compensating those injured by a deprivation of rights provides no basis for requiring compensation of one who is merely suing as the executor of the deceased’s estate. And, given' that most Louisiana actions survive the plaintiff’s death, the fact that a particular action might abate surely would not adversely affect § 1983’s role in preventing official illegality, at least in situations in which there is no claim that the illegality caused the plaintiff’s death. A state official contemplating illegal activity must always be prepared to face the prospect of a § 1983 action being filed against him. In light of this prospect, even an official aware of the intricacies of Louisiana survivorship law would hardly be influenced in his behavior by its provisions.
It is true that § 1983 provides “a uniquely federal remedy against incursions under the claimed authority of state law upon rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the Nation.” Mitchum v. Foster, supra, at 239. That a federal remedy should be available, however, does not mean that a § 1983 plaintiff (or his representative) must be allowed to continue an action in disregard of the state law to which § 1988 refers us. A state statute cannot be considered “inconsistent” with federal law merely because the statute causes the plaintiff to lose the litigation. If success of the § 1983 action were the only benchmark, there would be no reason at all to look to state law, for the appropriate rule would then always be the one favoring the plaintiff, and its source would be essentially irrelevant. But § 1988 quite clearly instructs us to refer to state statutes; it does not say that state law is to be accepted or rejected based solely on which side is advantaged thereby. Under the circumstances presented here, the fact that Shaw was not survived by one of several close relatives should not itself be sufficient to cause the Louisiana survivorship provisions to be deemed “inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 42 U. S. C. § 1988.
IY
Our holding today is a narrow one, limited to situations in which no claim is made that state law generally is inhospitable to survival of § 1983 actions and in which the particular application of state survivorship law, while it may cause abatement of the action, has no independent adverse effect on the policies underlying § 1983. A different situation might well be presented, as the District Court noted, if state law “did not provide for survival of any tort actions,” 391 F. Supp., at 1363, or if it significantly restricted the types of actions that survive. Cf. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S., at 258 (failure of common law to “recognize an analogous cause of action” is not sufficient reason to deny compensation to § 1983 plaintiff). We intimate no view, moreover, about whether abatement based on state law could be allowed in a situation in which deprivation of federal rights caused death. See supra, at 592, and n. 10; cf. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F. 2d 401 (CA5 1961) (deceased allegedly beaten to death by policemen; state survival law applied in favor of his widow and estate).
Here it is agreed that Shaw’s death was not caused by the deprivation of rights for which he sued under § 1983, and Louisiana law provides for the survival of most tort actions. Respondent’s only complaint about Louisiana law is that it would cause Shaw’s action to abate. We conclude that the mere fact of abatement of a particular lawsuit is not sufficient ground to declare state law “inconsistent” with federal law.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1988 provides in pertinent part:
“The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of this chapter and Title 18, for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so- far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party -found guilty.”
The Court of Appeals held that this Court's decision in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), did not bar the enjoining of the state perjury prosecution, since the District Court’s “finding of a bad faith prosecution establishes irreparable injury both great and immediate for purposes of the comity restraints discussed in Younger." 467 F. 2d, at 122.
See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 25 (a)(1). As the Court of Appeals observed, this Rule “does not resolve the question [of] what law of survival of actions should be applied in this case. [It] simply describes the manner in which parties are to be substituted in federal court once it is determined that the applicable substantive law allows the action to survive a party’s death.” 545 F. 2d 980, 982 (CA5 1977) (emphasis in original).
The dissenting opinion argues that, despite this lack of coverage, “the laws of the United States” are not necessarily “[un] suitable” or “deficient in the provisions necessary.” 42 U. S. C. § 1988; see post, at 595. Both courts below found such a deficiency, however, and respondent here agrees with them. 545 F. 2d, at 983; Shaw v. Garrison, 391 F. Supp. 1353, 1358-1361 (1975); Brief for Respondent 6.
There is a survivorship provision in 42 U. S. C. § 1986, but this statute applies only with regard to “the wrongs . . . mentioned in [42 U. S. C.] section 1985.” Although Shaw’s complaint alleged causes of action under §§ 1985 and 1986, the District Court dismissed this part of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 391 F. Supp., at 1356, 1369-1371. These dismissals were not challenged on the interlocutory appeal and are not at issue here.
Section 1988’s reference to “the common law” might be interpreted as a reference to the decisional law of the forum State, or as a reference to the kind of general common law that was an established part of our federal jurisprudence by the time of § 1988’s passage in 1866, see Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 (1842); cf. Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S., at 702 n. 14 (referring to the survivorship rule “at common law”). The latter interpretation has received some judicial and scholarly support. See, e. g., Basista v. Weir, 340 F. 2d 74, 85-86, n. 10 (CA3 1965); Theis, Shaw v. Garrison: Some Observations on 42 U. S. C. § 1988 and Federal Common Law, 36 La. L. Rev. 681, 684-685 (1976). See also Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 258 n. 13 (1978). It makes no difference for our purposes which interpretation is the correct one, because Louisiana has a survivor-ship statute that, under the terms of § 1988, plainly governs this case.
An action for defamation abates on the plaintiff’s death in the vast majority of States, see W. Prosser, Law of Torts 900-901 (4th ed. 1971), and a large number of States also provide for abatement of malicious prosecution actions, see, e. g., Dean v. Shirer, 547 F. 2d 227, 229-230 (CA4 1976) (South Carolina law); Hall v. Wooten, 506 F. 2d 564, 569 (CA6 1974) (Kentucky law). See also 391 F. Supp., at 1364 n. 17. In Louisiana, an action for defamation or malicious prosecution would apparently survive (assuming that one of the relatives specified in La. Civ. Code Ann., Art. 2315 (West 1971), survives the deceased, as discussed in text infra); such an action seems not to fall into the category of “strictly personal” actions, La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann., Art. 428 (West 1960), that automatically abate on the plaintiff’s death. See Johnson, Death on the Calíais Coach: The Mystery of Louisiana Wrongful Death and Survival Actions, 37 La. L. Rev. 1, 6 n. 23, 52, and n. 252 (1976). See also Official Revision Comment (c) to La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann., Art. 428.
For those actions that do not abate automatically on the plaintiff’s death, most States apparently allow the personal representative of the deceased to be substituted as plaintiff. See 391 F. Supp., at 1364, and n. 18.
The reasonableness of Louisiana’s approach is suggested by the fact that several federal statutes providing for survival take the same approach, limiting survival to specific named relatives. See, e. g., 33 U. S. C. § 908 (d) (1970 ed., Supp. V) (Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act); 45 U. S. C. § 59 (Federal Employers’ Liability Act). The approach taken by federal statutes in other substantive areas cannot, of course, bind a federal court in a § 1983 action, nor does the fact that a state survivorship statute may be reasonable by itself resolve the question whether it is “inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 42 U. S. C. § 1988.
This does not, of course, preclude survival of a § 1983 action when such is allowed by state law, see Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S., at 702-703, n. 14, nor does it preclude recovery by survivors who are suing under § 1983 for injury to their own interests.
In order to find even a marginal influence on behavior as a result of Louisiana’s survivorship provisions, one would have to make the rather farfetched assumptions that a state official had both the desire and the ability deliberately to select as victims only those persons who would die before conclusion of the § 1983 suit (for reasons entirely unconnected with the official illegality) and who would not be survived by any close relatives.
In addition to referring to the policies underlying § 1983, the Court of Appeals based its decision in part on the desirability of uniformity in the application of the civil rights laws and on the fact that the federal courts have allowed survival “in other areas of particular federal concern . . . where statutory guidance on the matter is lacking.” 545 F. 2d, at 985; see supra, at 588. With regard to the latter point, however, we do not find “statutory guidance . . . lacking”; § 1988 instructs us to turn to state laws, unless an “inconsistency” with federal law is found. While the courts below found such an inconsistency, we do not agree, as discussed in text supra, and henee the survivorship rules in areas where the courts are free to develop federal common law — without first referring to state law and finding an inconsistency — can have no bearing on our decision here. Similarly, whatever the value of nationwide uniformity in areas of civil rights enforcement where Congress has not spoken, in the areas to which § 1988 is applicable Congress has provided direction, indicating that state law will often provide the content of the federal remedial rule. This statutory reliance on state law obviously means that there will not be nationwide uniformity on these issues.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States, the Republic of France, and 15 other Nations have acceded to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, opened for signature, Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U. S. T. 2555, T. I. A. S. No. 7444. This Convention — sometimes referred to as the “Hague Convention” or the “Evidence Convention” — prescribes certain procedures by which a judicial authority in one contracting state may request evidence located in another contracting state. The question presented in this case concerns the extent to which a federal district court must employ the procedures set forth in the Convention when litigants seek answers to interrogatories, the production of documents, and admissions from a French adversary over whom the court has personal jurisdiction.
I — I
The two petitioners are corporations owned by the Republic of France. They are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, and marketing aircraft. One of their planes, the “Rallye,” was allegedly advertised in American aviation publications as “the World’s safest and most economical STOL plane.” On August 19, 1980, a Rallye crashed in Iowa, injuring the pilot and a passenger. Dennis Jones, John George, and Rosa George brought separate suits based upon this accident in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleging that petitioners had manufactured and sold a defective plane and that they were guilty of negligence and breach of warranty. Petitioners answered the complaints, apparently without questioning the jurisdiction of the District Court. With the parties’ consent, the cases were consolidated and referred to a Magistrate. See 28 U. S. C. § 636(c)(1).
Initial discovery was conducted by both sides pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without objection. When plaintiffs served a second request for the production of documents pursuant to Rule 34, a set of interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33, and requests for admission pursuant to Rule 36, however, petitioners filed a motion for a protective order. App. 27-37. The motion alleged that because petitioners are “French corporations, and the discovery sought can only be found in a foreign state, namely France,” the Hague Convention dictated the exclusive procedures that must be followed for pretrial discovery. App. 2. In addition, the motion stated that under French penal law, the petitioners could not respond to discovery requests that did not comply with the Convention. Ibid.
The Magistrate denied the motion insofar as it related to answering interrogatories, producing documents, and making admissions. After reviewing the relevant cases, the Magistrate explained:
“To permit the Hague Evidence Convention to override the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would frustrate the courts’ interests, which particularly arise in products liability cases, in protecting United States citizens from harmful products and in compensating them for injuries arising from use of such products.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a.
The Magistrate made two responses to petitioners’ argument that they could not comply with the discovery requests without violating French penal law. Noting that the law was originally “ ‘inspired to impede enforcement of United States antitrust laws,”’ and that it did not appear to have been strictly enforced in France, he first questioned whether it would be construed to apply to the pretrial discovery requests at issue. Id., at 22a-24a. Second, he balanced the interests in the “protection of United States citizens from harmful foreign products and compensation for injuries caused by such products” against France’s interest in protecting its citizens “from intrusive foreign discovery procedures.” The Magistrate concluded that the former interests were stronger, particularly because compliance with the requested discovery will “not have to take place in France” and ■will not be greatly intrusive or abusive. Id., at 23a-25a.
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(a). Although immediate appellate review of an interlocutory discovery order is not ordinarily available, see Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U. S. 394, 402-403 (1976), the Court of Appeals considered that the novelty and the importance of the question presented, and the likelihood of its recurrence, made consideration of the merits of the petition appropriate. 782 F. 2d 120 (1986). It then held that “when the district court has jurisdiction over a foreign litigant the Hague Convention does not apply to the production of evidence in that litigant’s possession, even though the documents and information sought may physically be located within the territory of a foreign signatory to the Convention.” Id., at 124. The Court of Appeals disagreed with petitioners’ argument that this construction would render the entire Hague Convention “meaningless,” noting that it would still serve the purpose of providing an improved procedure for obtaining evidence from nonparties. Id., at 125. The court also rejected petitioners’ contention that considerations of international comity required plaintiffs to resort to Hague Convention procedures as an initial matter (“first use”), and correspondingly to invoke the federal discovery rules only if the treaty procedures turned out to be futile. The Court of Appeals believed that the potential overruling of foreign tribunals’ denial of discovery would do more to defeat than to promote international comity. Id., at 125-126. Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded that objections based on the French penal statute should be considered in two stages: first, whether the discovery order was proper even though compliance may require petitioners to violate French law; and second, what sanctions, if any, should be imposed if petitioners are unable to comply. The Court of Appeals held that the Magistrate properly answered the first question and that it was premature to address the second. The court therefore denied the petition for mandamus. We granted certiorari. 476 U. S. 1168 (1986).
HH HH
In the District Court and the Court of Appeals, petitioners contended that the Hague Evidence Convention “provides the exclusive and mandatory procedures for obtaining documents and information located within the territory of a foreign signatory.” 782 F. 2d, at 124. We are satisfied that the Court of Appeals correctly rejected this extreme position. We believe it is foreclosed by the plain language of the Convention. Before discussing the text of the Convention, however, we briefly review its history.
The Hague Conference on Private International Law, an association of sovereign states, has been conducting periodic sessions since 1893. S. Exec. Doc. A, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., p. v (1972) (S. Exec. Doc. A). The United States participated in those sessions as an observer in 1956 and 1960, and as a member beginning in 1964 pursuant to congressional authorization. In that year Congress amended the Judicial Code to grant foreign litigants, without any requirement of reciprocity, special assistance in obtaining evidence in the United States. In 1965 the Hague Conference adopted a Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Service Convention), 20 U. S. T. 361, T. I. A. S. No. 6638, to which the Senate gave its advice and consent in 1967. The favorable response to the Service Convention, coupled with the longstanding interest of American lawyers in improving procedures for obtaining evidence abroad, motivated the United States to take the initiative in proposing that an evidence convention be adopted. Statement of Carl F. Salans, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State, Convention on Taking of Evidence Abroad, S. Exec. Rep. No. 92-25, p. 3 (1972). The Conference organized a special commission to prepare the draft convention, and the draft was approved without a dissenting vote on October 26, 1968. S. Exec. Doc. A, p. v. It was signed on behalf of the United States in 1970 and ratified by a unanimous vote of the Senate in 1972. The Convention’s purpose was to establish a system for obtaining evidence located abroad that would be “tolerable” to the state executing the request and would produce evidence “utilizable” in the requesting state. Amram, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, in S. Exec. Doc. A, p. 11.
In his letter of transmittal recommending ratification of the Convention, the President noted that it was “supported by such national legal organizations as the American Bar Association, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the National Conference, of Commissions on Uniform State Laws, and by a number of State, local, and specialized bar associations.” S. Exec. Doc. A, p. hi. There is no evidence of any opposition to the Convention in any of those organizations. The Convention was fairly summarized in the Secretary of State’s letter of submittal to the President:
“The willingness of the Conference to proceed promptly with work on the evidence convention is perhaps attributable in large measure to the difficulties encountered by courts and lawyers in obtaining evidence abroad from countries with markedly different legal systems. Some countries have insisted on the exclusive use of the complicated, dilatory and expensive system of letters rogatory or letters of request. Other countries have refused adequate judicial assistance because of the absence of a treaty or convention regulating the matter. The substantial increase in litigation with foreign aspects arising, in part, from the unparalleled expansion of international trade and travel in recent decades had intensified the need for an effective international agreement to set up a model system to bridge differences between the common law and civil law approaches to the taking of evidence abroad.
“Civil law countries tend to concentrate on commissions rogatoires, while common law countries take testimony on notice, by stipulation and through commissions to consuls or commissioners. Letters of request for judicial assistance from courts abroad in securing needed evidence have been the exception, rather than the rule. The civil law technique results normally in a résumé of the evidence, prepared by the executing judge and signed by the witness, while the common law technique results normally in a verbatim transcript of the witness’s testimony certified by the reporter.
“Failure by either the requesting state or the state of execution fully to take into account the differences of approach to the taking of evidence abroad under the two systems and the absence of agreed standards applicable to letters of request have frequently caused difficulties for courts and litigants. To minimize such difficulties in the future, the enclosed convention, which consists of a preamble and forty-two articles, is designed to:
“1. Make the employment of letters of request a principal means of obtaining evidence abroad;
“2. Improve the means of securing evidence abroad by increasing the powers of consuls and by introducing in the civil law world, on a limited basis, the concept of the commissioner;
“3. Provide means for securing evidence in the form needed by the court where the action is pending; and
“4. Preserve all more favorable and less restrictive practices arising from internal law, internal rules of procedure and bilateral or multilateral conventions.
“What the convention does is to provide a set of minimum standards with which contracting states agree to comply. Further, through articles 27, 28 and 32, it provides a flexible framework within which any future liberalizing changes in policy and tradition in any country with respect to international judicial cooperation may be translated into effective change in international procedures. At the same time it recognizes and preserves procedures of every country which now or hereafter may provide international cooperation in the taking of evidence on more liberal and less restrictive bases, whether this is effected by supplementary agreements or by municipal law and practice.” Id., p. vi.
rH b-H u-j
In arguing their entitlement to a protective order, petitioners correctly assert that both the discovery rules set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention are the law of the United States. Brief for Petitioners 31. This observation, however, does not dispose of the question before us; we must analyze the interaction between these two bodies of federal law. Initially, we note that at least four different interpretations of the relationship between the federal discovery rules and the Hague Convention are possible. Two of these interpretations assume that the Hague Convention by its terms dictates the extent to which it supplants normal discovery rules. First, the Hague Convention might be read as requiring its use to the exclusion of any other discovery procedures whenever evidence located abroad is sought for use in an American court. Second, the Hague Convention might be interpreted to require first, but not exclusive, use of its procedures. Two other interpretations assume that international comity, rather than the obligations created by the treaty, should guide judicial resort to the Hague Convention. Third, then, the Convention might be viewed as establishing a supplemental set of discovery procedures, strictly optional under treaty law, to which concerns of comity nevertheless require first resort by American courts in all cases. Fourth, the treaty may be viewed as an undertaking among sovereigns to facilitate discovery to which an American court should resort when it deems that course of action appropriate, after considering the situations of the parties before it as well as the interests of the concerned foreign state.
In interpreting an international treaty, we are mindful that it is “in the nature of a contract between nations,” Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U. S. 243, 253 (1984), to which “[gjeneral rules of construction apply.” Id., at 262. See Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 240-241 (1796) (opinion of Chase, J.). We therefore begin “with the text of the treaty and the context in which the written words are used.” Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 392, 397 (1985). The treaty’s history, “‘the negotiations, and the practical construction adopted by the parties’ ” may also be relevant. Id., at 396 (quoting Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U. S. 423, 431-432 (1943)).
We reject the first two of the possible interpretations as inconsistent with the language and negotiating history of the Hague Convention. The preamble of the Convention specifies its purpose “to facilitate the transmission and execution of Letters of Request” and to “improve mutual judicial cooperation in civil or commercial matters.” 23 U. S. T., at 2557, T. I. A. S. No. 7444. The preamble does not speak in mandatory terms which would purport to describe the procedures for all permissible transnational discovery and exclude all other existing practices. The text of the Evidence Convention itself does not modify the law of any contracting state, require any contracting state to use the Convention procedures, either in requesting evidence or in responding to such requests, or compel any contracting state to change its own evidence-gathering procedures.
The Convention contains three chapters. Chapter I, entitled “Letters of Requests,” and chapter II, entitled “Taking of Evidence by Diplomatic Officers, Consular Agents and Commissioners,” both use permissive rather than mandatory language. Thus, Article 1 provides that a judicial authority in one contracting state “may” forward a letter of request to the competent authority in another contracting state for the purpose of obtaining evidence. Similarly, Articles 15, 16, and 17 provide that diplomatic officers, consular agents, and commissioners “may... without compulsion,” take evidence under certain conditions. The absence of any command that a contracting state must use Convention procedures when they are not needed is conspicuous.
Two of the Articles in chapter III, entitled “General Clauses,” buttress our conclusion that the Convention was intended as a permissive supplement, not a pre-emptive replacement, for other means of obtaining evidence located abroad. Article 23 expressly authorizes a contracting state to declare that it will not execute any letter of request in aid of pretrial discovery of documents in a common-law country. Surely, if the Convention had been intended to replace completely the broad discovery powers that the common-law courts in the United States previously exercised over foreign litigants subject to their jurisdiction, it would have been most anomalous for the common-law contracting parties to agree to Article 23, which enables a contracting party to revoke its consent to the treaty’s procedures for pretrial discovery. In the absence of explicit textual support, we are unable to accept the hypothesis that the common-law contracting states abjured recourse to all pre-existing discovery procedures at the same time that they accepted the possibility that a contracting party could unilaterally abrogate even the Convention’s procedures. Moreover, Article 27 plainly states that the Convention does not prevent a contracting state from using more liberal methods of rendering evidence than those authorized by the Convention. Thus, the text of the Evidence Convention, as well as the history of its proposal and ratification by the United States, unambiguously supports the conclusion that it was intended to establish optional procedures that would facilitate the taking of evidence abroad. See Amram, The Proposed Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, 55 A. B. A. J. 651, 655 (1969); President’s Letter of Transmittal, Sen. Exec. Doc. A, p. hi.
An interpretation of the Hague Convention as the exclusive means for obtaining evidence located abroad would effectively subject every American court hearing a case involving a national of a contracting state to the internal laws of that state. Interrogatories and document requests are staples of international commercial litigation, no less than of other suits, yet a rule of exclusivity would subordinate the court’s supervision of even the most routine of these pretrial proceedings to the actions or, equally, to the inactions of foreign judicial authorities. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit observed in In re Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, 754 F. 2d 602, 612 (1985), cert. pending, No. 85-98:
“It seems patently obvious that if the Convention were interpreted as preempting interrogatories and document requests, the Convention would really be much more than an agreement on taking evidence abroad. Instead, the Convention would amount to a major regulation of the overall conduct of litigation between nationals of different signatory states, raising a significant possibility of very serious interference with the jurisdiction of United States courts.
“While it is conceivable that the United States could enter into a treaty giving other signatories control over litigation instituted and pursued in American courts, a treaty intended to bring about such a curtailment of the rights given to all litigants by the federal rules would surely state its intention clearly and precisely identify crucial terms.”
The Hague Convention, however, contains no such plain statement of a pre-emptive intent. We conclude accordingly that the Hague Convention did not deprive the District Court of the jurisdiction it otherwise possessed to order a foreign national party before it to produce evidence physically located within a signatory nation.
IV
While the Hague Convention does not divest the District Court of jurisdiction to order discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the optional character of the Convention procedures sheds light on one aspect of the Court of Appeals’ opinion that we consider erroneous. That court concluded that the Convention simply “does not apply” to discovery sought from a foreign litigant that is subject to the jurisdiction of an American court. 782 F. 2d, at 124. Plaintiffs argue that this conclusion is supported by two considerations. First, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide ample means for obtaining discovery from parties who are subject to the court’s jurisdiction, while before the Convention was ratified it was often extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain evidence from nonparty witnesses abroad. Plaintiffs contend that it is appropriate to construe the Convention as applying only in the area in which improvement was badly needed. Second, when a litigant is subject to the jurisdiction of the district court, arguably the evidence it is required to produce is not “abroad” within the meaning of the Convention, even though it is in fact located in a foreign country at the time of the discovery request and even though it will have to be gathered or otherwise prepared abroad. See In re Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, 754 F. 2d, at 611; In re Messerschmitt Bolkow Blohm GmbH, 757 F. 2d 729, 731 (CA5 1985), cert. vacated, 476 U. S. 1168 (1986); Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. United States District Court, 805 F. 2d 340, 341-342 (CA10 1986).
Nevertheless, the text of the Convention draws no distinction between evidence obtained from third parties and that obtained from the litigants themselves; nor does it purport to draw any sharp line between evidence that is “abroad” and evidence that is within the control of a party subject to the jurisdiction of the requesting court. Thus, it appears clear to us that the optional Convention procedures are available whenever they will facilitate the gathering of evidence by the means authorized in the Convention. Although these procedures are not mandatory, the Hague Convention does “apply” to the production of evidence in a litigant’s possession in the sense that it is one method of seeking evidence that a court may elect to employ. See Briefs of Amici Curiae for the United States and the SEC 9-10, the Federal Republic of Germany 5-6, the Republic of France 8-12, and the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland 8.
y
Petitioners contend that even if the Hague Convention’s procedures are not mandatory, this Court should adopt a rule requiring that American litigants first resort to those procedures before initiating any discovery pursuant to the normal methods of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e. g., Laker Airways, Ltd. v. Pan American World Airways, 103 F. R. D. 42 (DC 1984); Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F. R. D. 58 (ED Pa. 1983). The Court of Appeals rejected this argument because it was convinced that an American court’s order ultimately requiring discovery that a foreign court had refused under Convention procedures would constitute “the greatest insult” to the sovereignty of that tribunal. 782 F. 2d, at 125-126. We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ view. It is well known that the scope of American discovery is often significantly broader than is permitted in other jurisdictions, and we are satisfied that foreign tribunals will recognize that the final decision on the evidence to be used in litigation conducted in American courts must be made by those courts. We therefore do not believe that an American court should refuse to make use of Convention procedures because of a concern that it may ultimately find it necessary to order the production of evidence that a foreign tribunal permitted a party to withhold.
Nevertheless, we cannot accept petitioners’ invitation to announce a new rule of law that would require first resort to Convention procedures whenever discovery is sought from a foreign litigant. Assuming, without deciding, that we have the lawmaking power to do so, we are convinced that such a general rule would be unwise. In many situations the Letter of Request procedure authorized by the Convention would be unduly time consuming and expensive, as well as less certain to produce needed evidence than direct use of the Federal Rules. A rule of first resort in all cases would therefore be inconsistent with the overriding interest in the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of litigation in our courts. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1.
Petitioners argue that a rule of first resort is necessary to accord respect to the sovereignty of states in which evidence is located. It is true that the process of obtaining evidence in a civil-law jurisdiction is normally conducted by a judicial officer rather than by private attorneys. Petitioners contend that if performed on French soil, for example, by an unauthorized person, such evidence-gathering might violate the “judicial sovereignty” of the host nation. Because it is only through the Convention that civil-law nations have given their consent to evidence-gathering activities within their borders, petitioners argue, we have a duty to employ those procedures whenever they are available. Brief for Petitioners 27-28. We find that argument unpersuasive. If such a duty were to be inferred from the adoption of the Convention itself, we believe it would have been described in the text of that document. Moreover, the concept of international comity requires in this context a more particularized analysis of the respective interests of the foreign nation and the requesting nation than petitioners’ proposed general rule would generate. We therefore decline to hold as a blanket matter that comity requires resort to Hague Evidence Convention procedures without prior scrutiny in each case of the particular facts, sovereign interests, and likelihood that resort to those procedures will prove effective.
Some discovery procedures are much more “intrusive” than others. In this case, for example, an interrogatory asking petitioners to identify the pilots who flew flight tests in the Rallye before it was certified for flight by the Federal Aviation Administration, or a request to admit that petitioners authorized certain advertising in a particular magazine, is certainly less intrusive than a request to produce all of the “design specifications, line drawings and engineering plans and all engineering change orders and plans and all drawings concerning the leading edge slats for the Rallye type aircraft manufactured by the Defendants.” App. 29. Even if a court might be persuaded that a particular document request was too burdensome or too “intrusive” to be granted in full, with or without an appropriate protective order, it might well refuse to insist upon the use of Convention procedures before requiring responses to simple interrogatories or requests for admissions. The exact line between reasonableness and unreasonableness in each case must be drawn by the trial court, based on its knowledge of the case and of the claims and interests of the parties and the governments whose statutes and policies they invoke.
American courts, in supervising pretrial proceedings, should exercise special vigilance to protect foreign litigants from the danger that unnecessary, or unduly burdensome, discovery may place them in a disadvantageous position. Judicial supervision of discovery should always seek to minimize its costs and inconvenience and to prevent improper uses of discovery requests. When it is necessary to seek evidence abroad, however, the district court must supervise pretrial proceedings particularly closely to prevent discovery abuses. For example, the additional cost of transportation of documents or witnesses to or from foreign locations may increase the danger that discovery may be sought for the improper purpose of motivating settlement, rather than finding relevant and probative evidence. Objections to “abusive” discovery that foreign litigants advance should therefore receive the most careful consideration. In addition, we have long recognized the demands of comity in suits involving foreign states, either as parties or as sovereigns with a coordinate interest in the litigation. See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113 (1895). American courts should therefore take care to demonstrate due respect for any special problem confronted by the foreign litigant on account of its nationality or the location of its operations, and for any sovereign interest expressed by a foreign state. We do not articulate specific rules to guide this delicate task of adjudication.
I — I >
In the case before us, the Magistrate and the Court of Appeals correctly refused to grant the broad protective order, that petitioners requested. The Court of Appeals erred, however, in stating that the Evidence Convention does not apply to the pending discovery demands. This holding may be read as indicating that the Convention procedures are not even an option that is open to the District Court. It must be recalled, however, that the Convention’s specification of duties in executing states creates corresponding rights in requesting states; holding that the Convention does not apply in this situation would deprive domestic litigants of access to evidence through treaty procedures to which the contracting states have assented. Moreover, such a rule would deny the foreign litigant a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate appropriate reasons for employing Convention procedures in the first instance, for some aspects of the discovery process.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Hague Convention entered into force between the United States and France on October 6, 1974. The Convention is also in force in Barbados, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Office of the Legal Adviser, United States Dept, of State, Treaties in Force 261-262 (1986).
Petitioner Soeiété Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale is wholly owned by the Government of France. Petitioner Soeiété de Construction d’Avions de Tourisme is a wholly owned subsidiary of Soeiété Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale.
App. 22, 24. The term “STOL,” an acronym for “short takeoff and landing,” “refers to a fixed-wing aircraft that either takes off or lands with only a short horizontal run of the aircraft.” Douglas v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 96, 99, 510 F. 2d 364, 365, cert. denied, 423 U. S. 825 (1975).
Plaintiffs made certain requests for the production of documents pursuant to Rule 34(b) and for admissions pursuant to Rule 36. App. 19-23. Apparently the petitioners responded to those requests without objection, at least insofar as they called for material or information that was located in the United States. App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a. In turn, petitioners deposed witnesses and parties pursuant to Rule 26, and served interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33 and a request for the production of documents pursuant to Rule 34. App. 13. Plaintiffs complied with those requests.
Although the District Court is the nominal respondent in this mandamus proceeding, plaintiffs are the real respondent parties in interest.
Article 1A of the French “blocking statute,” French Penal Code Law No. 80-538, provides:
“Subject to treaties or international agreements and applicable laws and regulations, it is prohibited for any party to request, seek or disclose, in writing, orally or otherwise, economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical documents or information leading to the constitution of evidence with a view to foreign judicial or administrative proceedings or in connection therewith.
“Art. ler bis. — Sous réserve des traités ou accords internationaux et des lois et réglements en vigueur, il est interdit a toute personne de demander, de rechercher ou de communiquer, par écrit, oralement ou sous toute autre forme, des documents ou renseignements d’ordre économique, commercial, industriel, financier ou technique tendant á la constitution de preuves en vue de procédures judiciaires ou administratives étrangéres ou dans le cadre de celles-ci.”
Article 2 provides:
“The parties mentioned in [Article 1A] shall forthwith inform the competent minister if they receive any request concerning such disclosures.
“Art. 2. Les personnes visées aux articles ler et ler bis sont tenues d’informer sans délai le ministre compétent lorsqu’elles se trouvent saisies de toute demande concernant de telles communications.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 47a-50a.
Id., at 25a. The Magistrate stated, however, that if oral depositions were to be taken in France, he would require compliance with the Hague Evidence Convention. Ibid.
His quotation was from Toms, The French Response to Extraterritorial Application of United States Antitrust Laws, 15 Int’l Law. 585, 586 (1981).
He relied on a passage in the Toms article stating that “the legislative history [of the Law] shows only that the Law was adopted to protect French interests from abusive foreign discovery procedures and excessive assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Nowhere is there an indication that the Law was to impede litigation preparations by French companies, either for their own defense or to institute lawsuits abroad to protect their interests, and arguably such applications were unintended.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a-23a (citing Toms, supra, at 598).
“The record before this court does not indicate whether the Petitioners have notified the appropriate French Minister of the requested discovery in accordance with Article 2 of the French Blocking Statute, or whether the Petitioners have attempted to secure a waiver of prosecution from the French government. Because the Petitioners are corporations owned by the Republic of France, they stand in a most advantageous position to receive such a waiver. However, these issues will only be relevant should the Petitioners fail to comply with the magistrate’s discovery order, and we need not presently address them.” 782 F. 2d, at 127.
The Republic of France likewise takes the following position in this ease:
“THE HAGUE CONVENTION IS THE EXCLUSIVE MEANS OF DISCOVERY IN TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION AMONG THE CONVENTION’S SIGNATORIES UNLESS THE SOVEREIGN ON WHOSE TERRITORY DISCOVERY IS TO OCCUR CHOOSES OTHERWISE.” Brief for Republic of France as Amicus Curiae 4.
See S. Exec. Doc. A, p. v; Pub. L. 88-244, 77 Stat. 775 (1963).
As the Rapporteur for the session of the Hague Conference which produced the Hague Evidence Convention stated: “In 1964 Rule 28(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U. S. C. §§ 1781 and 1782 were amended to offer to foreign countries and litigants, without a requirement of reciprocity, wide judicial assistance on a unilateral basis for the obtaining of evidence in the United States. The amendments named the Department of State as a conduit for the receipt and transmission of letters of request. They authorized the use in the federal courts of evidence taken abroad in civil law countries, even if its form did not comply with the conventional formalities of our normal rules of evidence. No country in the world has a more open and enlightened policy.” Amram, The Proposed Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, 55 A. B. A. J. 651 (1969).
118 Cong. Rec. 20623 (1972).
The Hague Conference on Private International Law’s omission of mandatory language in the preamble is particularly significant in light of the same body’s use of mandatory language in the preamble to the Hague Service Convention, 20 U. S. T. 361, T. I. A. S. No. 6638. Article 1 of the Service Convention provides: “The present Convention shall apply in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.” Id., at 362, T. I. A. S. No. 6638. As noted, supra, at 530, the Service Convention was drafted before the Evidence Convention, and its language provided a model exclusivity provision that the drafters of the Evidence Convention could easily have followed had they been so inclined. Given this background, the drafters’ election to use permissive language instead is strong evidence of their intent.
At the time the Convention was drafted, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b) clearly authorized the taking of evidence on notice either in ae-cordance with the laws of the foreign country or in pursuance of the law of the United States.
The first paragraph of Article 1 reads as follows:
“In civil or commercial matters a judicial authority of a Contracting State may, in accordance with the provisions of the law of that State, request the competent authority of another Contracting State, by means of a Letter of Request, to obtain evidence, or to perform some other judicial act.” 23 U. S. T., at 2557, T. I. A. S. 7444.
Thus, Article 17 provides:
“In a civil or commercial matter, a person duly appointed as a commissioner for the purpose may, without compulsion, take evidence in the territory of a Contracting State in aid of proceedings commenced in the courts of another Contracting State if—
“(a) a competent authority
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the .Court.
Petitioner Dawson was served with a subpoena to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee. He alleges that the subpoena was signed in blank by the Committee Chairman and that respondent Wheeler, an investigator for the Committee, filled in Dawson’s name without authorization of the Committee. We read the complaint, as does the Solicitor General, most favorably to Dawson and conclude that the complaint alleges that no member of the Committee even attempted to delegate the Committee’s subpoena power to Wheeler. The complaint also alleges that Wheeler intended to subject petitioner, when he appeared as a witness before the Committee, to public shame, disgrace, ridicule, stigma, scorn and obloquy, and falsely place upon him the stain of disloyalty without any opportunity of fair defense, to petitioner’s irreparable injury. The complaint alleges not only the lack of authority of respondent Wheeler to fill in the blank subpoena-but also the unconstitutionality of the House Resolution and the Act of Congress, 60 Stat. 828, authorizing the Committe to act and to. subpoena witnesses. The complaint alleges that the mere service of the subpoena on Dawson cost him his job and that Wheeler caused service to be made while petitioner was at work knowing that loss of employment would result. It prays that the subpoena be declared void and of no force or effect, and asks for damages and for,an injunction.
The District Court denied declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that since Dawson’s appearance did not seem imminent the case was not ripe for equitable intervention and that the mere apprehension that a federal right might be infringed at some future time did not warrant declaratory or injunctive relief at the present time. The District Court held that no federal cause of action was stated as respects damages and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court of Appeals held that declaratory relief, being within the District Court’s discretion, was properly denied and that the claim for injunctive relief had become moot. It held, however, that “in the sense of Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678,” there was “jurisdiction to entertain the claim for money damages,” and to that extent reversed. 280 F. 2d 293. On remand the District Court dismissed the action without opinion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 302 F. 2d 36. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 371 U. S. 812. The basic question presented is whether a federal claim for damages is stated.
We agree with the Court of Appeals in its first opinion (280 F. 2d 293) that on the face of the complaint the federal court had jurisdiction. As we stated in Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 685, “the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the Constitution and laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another. For this reason the District Court has-jurisdiction.” And see Bock v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628, 630.
But on the undisputed facts, as they appear on argument of the case, no federal cause of action can be made out. Dawson’s main reliance is on the Fourth Amendment, which protects a person against unreasonable searches and seizures. Its violation, he contends, occurred when an unauthorized subpoena was served on him. But there was neither a search nor a seizure of him. He was neither arrested nor detained pursuant to any subpoena; nor, so far as the complaint discloses, did he respond to the subpoena and either téstify or refuse to testify; nor was the subpoena used to cite him for contempt. Cf. Williams v. United States, 341 U. S. 97. In short, the facts alleged do not establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the provisions of the Civil Rights Act are clearly inapplicable to this kind of case. See R. S. §§ 1979, 1980, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983, 1985; Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167.
Apart from any rights which may arise under the Fourth Amendment, .Congress has not created a cause of action for abuse of the subpoena power by a federal officer, at least where the subpoena was never given coercive effect. No claim is made that the Federal Tort Claims Act reaches that far. Cf. Hatahley v. United States, 351 U. S. 173. There is much discussion in the briefs of Barr v. Matteo, 360 U. S. 564. But that was a libel action brought against a federal official in the District of Columbia. And the immunity doctrine of that case and Howard v. Lyons, 360 U. S. 593, upon which the Court of Appeals rested, is not relevant here; for, as the Solicitor General has conceded, under the allegations of the complaint respondent Wheeler was not acting sufficiently within the scope of his authority to bring the doctrine into play.
It is argued that the statute governing the issuance of subpoenas not having been complied with, a cause of action for damages “arises” under it within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1331. As respects the creation by the federal courts of common-law rights, it is perhaps needless to state that we are not in the free-wheeling days antedating Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64. The instances where we have created federal common law are few and restricted. In Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363, we created federal common law to govern transactions in the commercial paper of the United States; and we did so in view of the desirability of a uniform rule in that area. Id., p. 367. But even that rule was qualified in Bank of America v. Parnell, 352 U. S. 29. In Tunstall v. Brotherhood, 323 U. S. 210, the federal right was derived from-the federal duty of the union to act as bargaining representative for all members of the union. But it is difficult for us to see how the present statute, which only grants power to issue subpoenas, implies a cause of action for abuse of that power. Congress has not done here what was done in Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, and left to federal courts the creation of a federal common law for abuse of process.
When it comes to suits for damages for abuse of power, federal officials are usually governed by local law. See, e. g., Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1, 10, 12. Federal law, however, supplies the defense, if the conduct complained of was done pursuant to a federally imposed duty (see, e. g., Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247; cf. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257), or immunity from suit. See Barr v. Matteo, supra; Howard v. Lyons, supra. Congress could, of course, provide otherwise, but it has not done so. Over the years Congress has 'considered the problem of state civil and criminal actions against federal officials many times. See Hart and Wechsler, The Federal Courts. and the Federal System, 1147-1150, But no general statute making federal officers liable for acts committed “under color,” but in violation, of their federal authority has been passed. Congress has provided for removal to a federal court of any state action, civil or criminal, against “[a]ny officer of the United States ... , or person acting under him, for any act under color of .such office . . . .” 28 U. S. C. § 1442 (a)(1). That state law governs the cause of action alleged is shown- by the fact that removal is possible in a nondiversity case such as this one only because the interpretation of a federal defense makes the case one “arising .under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Tennessee v. Davis, supra; Gay v. Ruff, 292 U. S. 25, 34. We conclude, therefore, that it is not for us to fill any hiatus Congress has left in this area.
No question of pendent jurisdiction as in Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U. S. 238, is presented, for petitioner has not attempted to state a'claim under state law.
We hold on the conceded facts that no federal cause'of action was stated and that .the judgment must be and is
Affirmed.
Petitioner Donald Wheeldin was in the case when we granted certiorari.' But since that time Wheeldin has moved for leave to withdraw his petition, which motion we hereby grant.
By § 1983 Congress made liable in civil suits “every person” who “under color” of any state or territorial law deprives anyone of a right “secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. But respondent Wheeler was not acting “under color” (see Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 108, 111; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 171-187) of state or territorial law- And even if § 1985 applies to federal officers (compare Screios v. United States, supra, with Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U. S. 651) who conspire with others to commit acts falling within the narrow confines of that statute, no such conspiracy is here involved. See generally 1 Emerson and Haber, Political and Civil Rights in the United States, 79-100; 1961 United States Commission on Civil Rights Report, Book 5, 71-77.
28 U. S. C. § 2680 provides: “The provisions of [the Tort Claims Act] . . . shall not apply to—
“ (h) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.”
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, P. L. 601, c. 753, House Rule XI (1) (q) (2), 60 Stat. 828: “Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee [on Un-American Activities] or any subcommittee, or by any’ member designated by any such chairman ....”,
The other cases cited are singularly inapposite. Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, was a suit to enforce a liability created by a federal statute, and the question was what remedies the federal courts should apply. Howard v. Lyons, 360 U. S. 593, held in a diversity suit for libel against a federal official that, although state law created the right, the defense of privilege is to be formulated by the federal courts.. Id., 597.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue presented in this case is whether Arkansas’ evidentiary rule prohibiting the admission of hypnotically refreshed testimony violated petitioner’s constitutional right to testify on her own behalf as a defendant in a criminal case.
I
Petitioner Vickie Lorene Rock was charged with manslaughter in the death of her husband, Frank Rock, on July 2, 1983. A dispute had been simmering about Frank’s wish to move from the couple’s small apartment adjacent to Vickie’s beauty parlor to a trailer she owned outside town. That night a fight erupted when Frank refused to let petitioner eat some pizza and prevented her from leaving the apartment to get something else to eat. App. 98, 103-104. When police arrived on the scene they found Frank on the floor with a bullet wound in his chest. Petitioner urged the officers to help her husband, Tr. 230, and cried to a sergeant who took her in charge, “please save him” and “don’t let him die.” Id., at 268. The police removed her from the building because she was upset and because she interfered with their investigation by her repeated attempts to use the telephone to call her husband’s parents. Id., at 263-264, 267-268. According to the testimony of one of the investigating officers, petitioner told him that “she stood up to leave the room and [her husband] grabbed her by the throat and choked her and threw her against the wall and... at that time she walked over and picked up the weapon and pointed it toward the floor and he hit her again and she shot him.” Id., at 281.
Because petitioner could not remember the precise details of the shooting, her attorney suggested that she submit to hypnosis in order to refresh her memory. Petitioner was hypnotized twice by Doctor Bettye Back, a licensed neuropsychologist with training in the field of hypnosis. Id., at 901-903. Doctor Back interviewed petitioner for an hour prior to the first hypnosis session, taking notes on petitioner’s general history and her recollections of the shooting. App. 46-47. Both hypnosis sessions were recorded on tape. Id., at 53. Petitioner did not relate any new information during either of the sessions, id., at 78, 83, but, after the hypnosis, she was able to remember that at the time of the incident she had her thumb on the hammer of the gun, but had not held her finger on the trigger. She also recalled that the gun had discharged when her husband grabbed her arm during the scuffle. Id., at 29, 38. As a result of the details that petitioner was able to remember about the shooting, her counsel arranged for a gun expert to examine the handgun, a single-action Hawes.22 Deputy Marshal. That inspection revealed that the gun was defective and prone to fire, when hit or dropped, without the trigger’s being pulled. Tr. 662-663, 711.
When the prosecutor learned of the hypnosis sessions, he filed a motion to exclude petitioner’s testimony. The trial judge held a pretrial hearing on the motion and concluded that no hypnotically refreshed testimony would be admitted. The court issued an order limiting petitioner’s testimony to “matters remembered and stated to the examiner prior to being placed under hypnosis.” App. to Pet. for Cert, xvii. At trial, petitioner introduced testimony by the gun expert, Tr. 647-712, but the court limited petitioner’s own description of the events on the day of the shooting to a reiteration of the sketchy information in Doctor Back’s notes. See App. 96-104. The jury convicted petitioner on the manslaughter charge and she was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas rejected petitioner’s claim that the limitations on her testimony violated her right to present her defense. The court concluded that “the dangers of admitting this kind of testimony outweigh whatever probative value it may have,” and decided to follow the approach of States that have held hypnotically refreshed testimony of witnesses inadmissible per se. 288 Ark. 566, 573, 708 S. W. 2d 78, 81 (1986). Although the court acknowledged that “a defendant’s right to testify is fundamental,” id., at 578, 708 S. W. 2d, at 84, it ruled that the exclusion of petitioner’s testimony did not violate her constitutional rights. Any “prejudice or deprivation” she suffered “was minimal and resulted from her own actions and not by any erroneous ruling of the court.” Id., at 580, 708 S. W. 2d, at 86. We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 947 (1986), to consider the constitutionality of Arkansas’ per se rule excluding a criminal defendant’s hypnotically refreshed testimony.
II
Petitioner’s claim that her testimony was impermissibly excluded is bottomed on her constitutional right to testify in her own defense. At this point in the development of our adversary system, it cannot be doubted that a defendant in a criminal case has the right to take the witness stand and to testify in his or her own defense. This, of course, is a change from the historic common-law view, which was that all parties to litigation, including criminal defendants, were disqualified from testifying because of their interest in the outcome of the trial. See generally 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence §§576, 579 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1979). The principal rationale for this rule was the possible untrustworthiness of a party’s testimony. Under the common law, the practice did develop of permitting criminal defendants to tell their side of the story, but they were limited to making an unsworn statement that could not be elicited through direct examination by counsel and was not subject to cross-examination. Id., at §579, p. 827.
This Court in Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U. S. 570, 573-582 (1961), detailed the history of the transition from a rule of a defendant’s incompetency to a rule of competency. As the Court there recounted, it came to be recognized that permitting a defendant to testify advances both the “ ‘detection of guilt’” and “‘the protection of innocence,’” id., at 581, quoting 1 Am. L. Rev. 396 (1867), and by the end of the second half of the 19th century, all States except Georgia had enacted statutes that declared criminal defendants competent to testify. See 365 U. S., at 577 and n. 6, 596-598. Congress enacted a general competency statute in the Act of Mar. 16, 1878, 20 Stat. 30, as amended, 18 U. S. C. § 3481, and similar developments followed in other common-law countries. Thus, more than 25 years ago this Court was able to state:
“In sum, decades ago the considered consensus of the English-speaking world came to be that there was no rational justification for prohibiting the sworn testimony of the accused, who above all others may be in a position to meet the prosecution’s case.” Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U. S., at 582.
The right to testify on one’s own behalf at a criminal trial has sources in several provisions of the Constitution. It is one of the rights that “are essential to due process of law in a fair adversary process.” Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 819, n. 15 (1975). The necessary ingredients of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that no one shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law include a right to be heard and to offer testimony:
“A person’s right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense — a right to his day in court — are basic in our system of jurisprudence; and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.” (Emphasis added.) In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273 (1948).
See also Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U. S., at 602 (Clark, J., concurring) (Fourteenth Amendment secures “right of a criminal defendant to choose between silence and testifying in his own behalf”).
The right to testify is also found in the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which grants a defendant the right to call “witnesses in his favor,” a right that is guaranteed in the criminal courts of the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 17-19 (1967). Logically included in the accused’s right to call witnesses whose testimony is “material and favorable to his defense,” United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U. S. 858, 867 (1982), is a right to testify himself, should he decide it is in his favor to do so. In fact, the most important witness for the defense in many criminal cases is the defendant himself. There is no justification today for a rule that denies an accused the opportunity to offer his own testimony. Like the truthfulness of other witnesses, the defendant’s veracity, which was the concern behind the original common-law rule, can be tested adequately by cross-examination. See generally Westen, The Compulsory Process Clause, 73 Mich. L. Rev. 71, 119-120 (1974).
Moreover, in Faretta v. California, 422 U. S., at 819, the Court recognized that the Sixth Amendment
“grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense. It is the accused, not counsel, who must be ‘informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,’ who must be ‘confronted with the witnesses against him,’ and who must be accorded ‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’” (Emphasis added.)
Even more fundamental to a personal defense than the right of self-representation, which was found to be “necessarily implied by the structure of the Amendment,” ibid., is an accused’s right to present his own version of events in his own words. A defendant’s opportunity to conduct his own defense by calling witnesses is incomplete if he may not present himself as a witness.
The opportunity to testify is also a necessary corollary to the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against compelled testimony. In Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222, 230 (1971), the Court stated: “Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so.” Id., at 225. Three of the dissenting Justices in that case agreed that the Fifth Amendment encompasses this right: “[The Fifth-Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination] is fulfilled only when an accused is guaranteed the right ‘to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will.’... The choice of whether to testify in one’s own defense... is an exercise of the constitutional privilege.” Id., at 230, quoting Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 8 (1964). (Emphasis removed.)
Ill
The question now before the Court is whether a criminal defendant’s right to testify may be restricted by a state rule that excludes her posthypnosis testimony. This is not the first time this Court has faced a constitutional challenge to a state rule, designed to ensure trustworthy evidence, that interfered with the ability of a defendant to offer testimony. In Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967), the Court was confronted with a state statute that prevented persons charged as principals, accomplices, or accessories in the same crime from being introduced as witnesses for one another. The statute, like the original common-law prohibition on testimony by the accused, was grounded in a concern for the reliability of evidence presented by an interested party:
“It was thought that if two'persons charged with the same crime were allowed to testify on behalf of each other, ‘each would try to swear the other out of the charge.’ This rule, as well as the other disqualifications for interest, rested on the unstated premises that the right to present witnesses was subordinate to the court’s interest in preventing perjury, and that erroneous decisions were best avoided by preventing the jury from hearing any testimony that might be perjured, even if it were the only testimony available on a crucial issue.” (Footnote omitted.) Id., at 21, quoting Benson v. United States, 146 U. S. 325, 335 (1892).
As the Court recognized, the incompetency of a codefendant to testify had been rejected on nonconstitutional grounds in 1918, when the Court, refusing to be bound by “the dead hand of the common-law rule of 1789,” stated:
“ ‘[T]he conviction of our time [is] that the truth is more likely to be arrived at by hearing the testimony of all persons of competent understanding who may seem to have knowledge of the facts involved in a case, leaving the credit and weight of such testimony to be determined by the jury or by the court....’” 388 U. S., at 22, quoting Rosen v. United States, 245 U. S. 467, 471 (1918).
The Court concluded that this reasoning was compelled by the Sixth Amendment’s protections for the accused. In particular, the Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment was designed in part “to make the testimony of a defendant’s witnesses admissible on his behalf in court.” 388 U. S., at 22.
With the rationale for the common-law incompetency rule thus rejected on constitutional grounds, the Court found that the mere presence of the witness in the courtroom was not enough to satisfy the Constitution’s Compulsory Process Clause. By preventing the defendant from having the benefit of his accomplice’s testimony, “the State arbitrarily denied him the right to put on the stand a witness who was physically and mentally capable of testifying to events that he had personally observed, and whose testimony would have been relevant and material to the defense.” (Emphasis added.) Id., at 23.
Just as a State may not apply an arbitrary rule of competence to exclude a material defense witness from taking the stand, it also may not apply a rule of evidence that permits a witness to take the stand, but arbitrarily excludes material portions of his testimony. In Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284 (1973), the Court invalidated a State’s hearsay rule on the ground that it abridged the defendant’s right to “present witnesses in his own defense.” Id., at 302. Chambers was tried for a murder to which another person repeatedly had confessed in the presence of acquaintances. The State’s hearsay rule, coupled with a “voucher” rule that did not allow the defendant to cross-examine the confessed murderer directly, prevented Chambers from introducing testimony concerning these confessions, which were critical to his defense. This Court reversed the judgment of conviction, holding that when a state rule of evidence conflicts with the right to present witnesses, the rule may “not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice,” but must meet the fundamental standards of due process. Ibid. In the Court’s view, the State in Chambers did not demonstrate that the hearsay testimony in that case, which bore “assurances of trustworthiness” including corroboration by other evidence, would be unreliable, and thus the defendant should have been able to introduce the exculpatory testimony. Ibid.
Of course, the right to present relevant testimony is not without limitation. The right “may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.” Id., at 295. But restrictions of a defendant’s right to testify may not be arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve. In applying its evidentiary rules a State must evaluate whether the interests served by a rule justify the limitation imposed on the defendant’s constitutional right to testify.
IV
The Arkansas rule enunciated by the state courts does not allow a trial court to consider whether posthypnosis testimony may be admissible in a particular case; it is a per se rule prohibiting the admission at trial of any defendant’s hypnotically refreshed testimony on the ground that such testimony is always unreliable. Thus, in Arkansas, an accused’s testimony is limited to matters that he or she can prove were remembered before hypnosis. This rule operates to the detriment of any defendant who undergoes hypnosis, without regard to the reasons for it, the circumstances under which it took place, or any independent verification of the information it produced.
In this case, the application of that rule had a significant adverse effect on petitioner’s ability to testify. It virtually prevented her from describing any of the events that occurred on the day of the shooting, despite corroboration of many of those events by other witnesses. Even more importantly, under the court’s rule petitioner was not permitted to describe the actual shooting except in the words contained in Doctor Back’s notes. The expert’s description of the gun’s tendency to misfire would have taken on greater significance if the jury had heard petitioner testify that she did not have her finger on the trigger and that the gun went off when her husband hit her arm.
In establishing its per se rule, the Arkansas Supreme Court simply followed the approach taken by a number of States that have decided that hypnotically enhanced testimony should be excluded at trial on the ground that it tends to be unreliable. Other States that have adopted an exclusionary rule, however, have done so for the testimony of witnesses, not for the testimony of a defendant. The Arkansas Supreme Court failed to perform the constitutional analysis that is necessary when a defendant’s right to testify is at stake.
Although the Arkansas court concluded that any testimony that cannot be proved to be the product of prehypnosis memory is unreliable, many courts have eschewed a per se rule and permit the admission of hypnotically refreshed testimony. Hypnosis by trained physicians or psychologists has been recognized as a valid therapeutic technique since 1958, although there is no generally accepted theory to explain the phenomenon, or even a consensus on a single definition of hypnosis. See Council on Scientific Affairs, Scientific Status of Refreshing Recollection by the Use of Hypnosis, 253 J. A. M. A. 1918, 1918-1919 (1985) (Council Report). The use of hypnosis in criminal investigations, however, is controversial, and the current medical and legal view of its appropriate role is unsettled.
Responses of individuals to hypnosis vary greatly. The popular belief that hypnosis guarantees the accuracy of recall is as yet without established foundation and, in fact, hypnosis often has no effect at all on memory. The most common response to hypnosis, however, appears to be an increase in both correct and incorrect recollections. Three general characteristics of hypnosis may lead to the introduction of inaccurate memories: the subject becomes “suggestible” and may try to please the hypnotist with answers the subject thinks will be met with approval; the subject is likely to “confabulate,” that is, to fill in details from the imagination in order to make an answer more coherent and complete; and, the subject experiences “memory hardening,” which gives him great confidence in both true and false memories, making effective cross-examination more difficult. See generally M. Orne et al., Hypnotically Induced Testimony, in Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives 171 (G. Wells & E. Loftus, eds., 1984); Diamond, Inherent Problems in the Use of Pretrial Hypnosis on a Prospective Witness, 68 Calif. L. Rev. 313, 333-342 (1980). Despite the unreliability that hypnosis concededly may introduce, however, the procedure has been credited as instrumental in obtaining investigative leads or identifications that were later confirmed by independent evidence. See, e. g., People v. Hughes, 59 N. Y. 2d 523, 533, 453 N. E. 2d 484, 488 (1983); see generally R. Udolf, Forensic Hypnosis 11-16 (1983).
The inaccuracies the process introduces can be reduced, although perhaps not eliminated, by the use of procedural safeguards. One set of suggested guidelines calls for hypnosis to be performed only by a psychologist or psychiatrist with special training in its use and who is independent of the investigation. See Orne, The Use and Misuse of Hypnosis in Court, 27 Int’l J. Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 311, 335-336 (1979). These procedures reduce the possibility that biases will be communicated to the hypersuggestive subject by the hypnotist. Suggestion will be less likely also if the hypnosis is conducted in a neutral setting with no one present but the hypnotist and the subject. Tape or video recording of all interrogations, before, during, and after hypnosis, can help reveal if leading questions were asked. Id., at 336. Such guidelines do not guarantee the accuracy of the testimony, because they cannot control the subject’s own motivations or any tendency to confabulate, but they do provide a means of controlling overt suggestions.
The more traditional means of assessing accuracy of testimony also remain applicable in the case of a previously hypnotized defendant. Certain information recalled as a result of hypnosis may be verified as highly accurate by corroborating evidence. Cross-examination, even in the face of a confident defendant, is an effective tool for revealing inconsistencies. Moreover, a jury can be educated to the risks of hypnosis through expert testimony and cautionary instructions. Indeed, it is probably to a defendant’s advantage to establish carefully the extent of his memory prior to hypnosis, in order to minimize the decrease in credibility the procedure might introduce.
We are not now prepared to endorse without qualifications the use of hypnosis as an investigative tool; scientific understanding of the phenomenon and of the means to control the effects of hypnosis is still in its infancy. Arkansas, however, has not justified the exclusion of all of a defendant’s testimony that the defendant is unable to prove to be the product of prehypnosis memory. A State’s legitimate interest in barring unreliable evidence does not extend to per se exclusions that may be reliable in an individual case. Wholesale inadmissibility of a defendant’s testimony is an arbitrary restriction on the right to testify in the absence of clear evidence by the State repudiating the validity of all post-hypnosis recollections. The State would be well within its powers if it established guidelines to aid trial courts in the evaluation of posthypnosis testimony and it may be able to show that testimony in a particular case is so unreliable that exclusion is justified. But it has not shown that hypnotically enhanced testimony is always so untrustworthy and so immune to the traditional means of evaluating credibility that it should disable a defendant from presenting her version of the events for which she is on trial.
In this case, the defective condition of the gun corroborated the details petitioner remembered about the shooting. The tape recordings provided some means to evaluate the hypnosis and the trial judge concluded that Doctor Back did not suggest responses with leading questions. See n. 3, supra. Those circumstances present an argument for admissibility of petitioner’s testimony in this particular case, an argument that must be considered by the trial court. Arkansas’ per se rule excluding all posthypnosis testimony infringes impermissibly on the right of a defendant to testify on his own behalf.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Another officer reported a slightly different version of the events:
“She stated that she had told her husband that she was going to go outside. He refused to let her leave and grabbed her by the throat and began choking her. They struggled for a moment and she grabbed a gun. She told him to leave her alone and he hit her at which time the gun went off. She stated that it was an accident and she didn’t mean to shoot him. She said she had to get to the hospital and talk to him.” Tr. 388.
See also id., at 301-304, 337-338; App. 3-10.
Doctor Back’s handwritten notes regarding petitioner’s memory of the day of the shooting read as follows:
“Pt states she & husb. were discussing moving out to a trailer she had prev. owned. He was ‘set on’ moving out to the trailer — she felt they should discuss. She becfame] upset & went to another room to lay down. Bro. came & left. She came out to eat some of the pizza, he wouldn’t allow her to have any. She said she would go out and get [something] to eat he wouldn’t allow her — He pushed her against a wall an end table in the corner [with] a gun on it. They were the night watchmen for business that sets behind them. She picked gun up stated she didn’t want him hitting her anymore. He wouldn’t let her out door, slammed door & ‘gun went off & he fell & he died’ [pt looked misty eyed here — near tears]” (additions by Doctor Back). App. 40.
The full pretrial order reads as follows:
“NOW on this 26th day of November, 1984, comes on the captioned matter for pre-trial hearing, and the Court finds:
“1. On September 27 and 28,1984, Defendant was placed under hypnotic trance by Dr. Bettye Back, PhD, Fayetteville, Arkansas, for the express purpose of enhancing her memory of the events of July 2, 1983, involving the death of Frank Rock.
“2. Dr. Back was professionally qualified to administer hypnosis. She was objective in the application of the technique and did not suggest by leading questions the responses expected to be made by Defendant. She was employed on an independent, professional basis. She made written notes of facts related to her by Defendant during the pre-hypnotic interview. She did employ post-hypnotic suggestion with Defendant. No one else was present during any phase of the hypnosis sessions except Dr. Back and Defendant.
“3. Defendant cannot be prevented by the Court from testifying at her trial on criminal charges under the Arkansas Constitution, but testimony of matters recalled by Defendant due to hypnosis will be excluded because of inherent unreliability and the effect of hypnosis in eliminating any meaningful cross-examination on those matters. Defendant may testify to matters remembered and stated to the examiner prior to being placed under hypnosis. Testimony resulting from post-hypnotic suggestion will be excluded.” App. to Pet. for Cert. xvii.
When petitioner began to testify, she was repeatedly interrupted by the prosecutor, who objected that her statements fell outside the scope of the pretrial order. Each time she attempted to describe an event on the day of the shooting, she was unable to proceed for more than a few words before her testimony was ruled inadmissible. For example, she was unable to testify without objection about her husband’s activities on the morning of the shooting, App. 11, about their discussion and disagreement concerning the move to her trailer, id., at 12, 14, about her husband’s and his brother’s replacing the shock absorbers on a van, id., at 16, and about her brother-in-law’s return to eat pizza, id., at 19-20. She then made a proffer, outside the hearing of the jury, of testimony about the fight in an attempt to show that she could adhere to the court’s order. The prosecution objected to every detail not expressly described in Doctor Back’s notes or in the testimony the doctor gave at the pretrial hearing. Id., at 32-35. The court agreed with the prosecutor’s statement that “ninety-nine percent of everything [petitioner] testified to in the proffer” was inadmissible. Id., at 35.
The removal of the disqualifications for accused persons occurred later than the establishment of the competence to testify of civil parties. 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 579, p. 826 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1979). This was not due to concern that criminal defendants were more likely to be unreliable than other witnesses, but to a concern for the accused:
“If, being competent, he failed to testify, that (it was believed) would damage his cause more seriously than if he were able to claim that his silence were enforced by law. Moreover, if he did testify, that (it was believed) would injure more than assist his cause, since by undergoing the ordeal of cross-examination, he would appear at a disadvantage dangerous even to an innocent man.” Id., at 828.
The Arkansas Constitution guarantees an accused the right “to be heard by himself and his counsel.” Art. 2, § 10. Rule 601 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence provides a general rule of competency: “Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules.”
Ferguson v. Georgia struck down as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment a Georgia statute that limited a defendant’s presentation at trial to an unsworn statement, insofar as it denied the accused “the right to have his counsel question him to elicit his statement.” 365 U. S., at 596. The Court declined to reach the question of a defendant’s constitutional right to testify, because the case did not involve a challenge to the particular Georgia statute that rendered a defendant incompetent to testify. Id., at 572, n. 1. Two Justices, however, urged that such a right be recognized explicitly. Id., at 600-601, 602 (concurring opinions).
Before Ferguson v. Georgia, it might have been argued that a defendant’s ability to present an unsworn statement would satisfy this right. Once that procedure was eliminated, however, there was no longer any doubt that the right to be heard, which is so essential to due process in an adversary system of adjudication, could be vindicated only by affording a defendant an opportunity to testify before the factfinder.
This right reaches beyond the criminal trial: the procedural due process constitutionally required in some extrajudicial proceedings includes the right of the affected person to testify. See, e. g., Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778, 782, 786 (1973) (probation revocation); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 489 (1972) (parole revocation); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 269 (1970) (termination of welfare benefits).
On numerous occasions the Court has proceeded on the premise that the right to testify on one’s own behalf in defense to a criminal charge is a fundamental constitutional right. See, e. g., Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U. S. 157, 164 (1986); id., at 186, n. 5 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U. S. 745, 751 (1983) (defendant has the “ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, as to whether to... testify in his or her own behalf”); Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U. S. 605, 612 (1972) (“Whether the defendant is to testify is an important tactical decision as well as a matter of constitutional right”).
Numerous state procedural and evidentiary rules control the presentation of evidence and do not offend the defendant’s right to testify. See, e. g., Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S., at 302 (“In the exercise of this right, the accused, as is required of the State, must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence”); Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 23, n. 21 (1967) (opinion should not be construed as disapproving testimonial privileges or nonarbitrary rules that disqualify those incapable of observing events due to mental infirmity or infancy from being witnesses).
The rule leaves a trial judge no discretion to admit this testimony, even if the judge is persuaded of its reliability by testimony at a pretrial hearing. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36 (statement of the Attorney General of Arkansas).
The Arkansas Supreme Court took the position that petitioner was fully responsible for any prejudice that resulted from the restriction on her testimony because it was she who chose to resort to the technique of hypnosis. 288 Ark. 566, 580, 708 S. W. 2d 78, 86 (1986). The prosecution and the trial court each expressed a similar view and the theme was renewed repeatedly at trial as a justification for limiting petitioner’s testimony. See App. 15, 20, 21-22, 24, 36. It should be noted, however, that Arkansas had given no previous indication that it looked with disfavor on the use of hypnosis to assist in the preparation for trial and there were no previous state-court rulings on the issue.
See, e. g., Contreras v. State, 718 P. 2d 129 (Alaska 1986); State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa, 132 Ariz. 180, 207-208, 644 P. 2d 1266, 1293-1294 (1982); People v. Quintanar, 659 P. 2d 710, 711 (Colo. App. 1982); State v. Davis, 490 A. 2d 601 (Del. Super. 1985); Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9, 18-19 (Fla. 1985), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 894 (1986); State v. Moreno, 68 Haw. 233, 709 P. 2d 103 (1985); State v. Haislip, 237 Kan. 461, 482, 701 P. 2d 909, 925-926, cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1022 (1985); State v. Collins, 296 Md. 670, 464 A. 2d 1028 (1983); Commonwealth v. Kater, 388 Mass. 519, 447 N. E. 2d 1190 (1983); People v. Gonzales, 415 Mich. 615, 329 N. W. 2d 743 (1982), opinion added to, 417 Mich. 1129, 336 N. W. 2d 751 (1983); Alsbach v. Bader, 700 S. W. 2d 823 (Mo. 1985); State v. Palmer, 210 Neb. 206, 218, 313 N. W. 2d 648, 655 (1981); People v. Hughes, 59 N. Y. 2d 523, 453 N. E. 2d 484 (1983); Robison v. State, 677 P. 2d 1080, 1085 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 467 U. S. 1246 (1984); Commonwealth v. Nazarovitch, 496 Pa. 97, 110, 436 A. 2d 170, 177 (1981); State v. Martin, 101 Wash. 2d 713, 684 P. 2d 651 (1984). See State v. Ture, 353 N. W. 2d 502, 513-514 (Minn. 1984).
The Arkansas court relied on a California case, People v. Shirley, 31 Cal. 3d 18, 723 P. 2d 1354, cert. denied
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
The principal question for decision is whether the Defense Production Act of 1950 authorized the President to apply administrative action to the enforcement of its wage stabilization provisions. For the reasons hereafter stated, we decide that it did.
There is here also the question whether such administrative enforcement may be applied even after the restrictions placed on wages under Title IV of the Act have expired, provided the enforcement is limited to violations antedating such expiration. Our answer is in the affirmative.
Appellee further claims that the pending administrative proceeding should be enjoined because the mere conduct of that proceeding might cause it irreparable damage. For the reasons given below, we find that argument untenable.
]Appellee, Grand Central Aircraft Company, is a California corporation which was engaged, in 1951, in the production and repair of aircraft equipment in Glendale, California, and Tucson, Arizona. November 4, 1952, the Wage Stabilization Board filed a complaint with the National Enforcement Commission alleging in substance that appellee, between January 26, 1951, and January 1, 1952, had paid wage increases in violation of an order freezing wages at the levels of January 25, 1951. Those payments consisted of wages totaling about $5,500,000, including about $750,000 alleged to have been in excess of the wage ceilings. January 14, 1953, the National Enforcement Commission appointed Phil C. Neal to hear the evidence as an Enforcement Commissioner and to recommend to the Commission a determination of the issues in the proceeding. He set the case for hearing on February 24 at Los Angeles, California, but further action was enjoined, as stated below, so that the proceeding is still pending at that stage.
February 13, 1953, appellee filed the instant suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division. Appellee asked the court to restrain the defendant members of the Wage Stabilization Board, the National Enforcement Commission, officials of the Twelfth Region Wage Stabilization Board, and the Enforcement Commissioner, from proceeding with the administrative hearing. Only the regional officials and the Enforcement Commissioner were served. In its complaint, appellee denied that it had violated the Defense Production Act or any regulation or order under it. Appellee claimed also that the administrative procedure then being followed was unauthorized by the Constitution or any statute and that, even if originally authorized, that authorization had now expired. Finally, appellee claimed the hearing should be enjoined because the mere conduct of the proceeding would inflict irreparable damage upon it. A three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 2282, granted the restraining order and interlocutory injunction sought by appellee against further conduct of the administrative proceeding. After hearing and trial, the injunction was made permanent. 114 F. Supp. 389. The order was then appealed to this Court under 28 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 1253. Stay of the injunction was denied, two Justices dissenting and one not participating. 345 U. S. 988. Probable jurisdiction of the appeal was noted. 346 U.S.920.
A somewhat comparable case was decided by a three-judge United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in favor of an employer June 14, 1953, in Jonco Aircraft Cory. v. Franklin, 114 F. Supp. 392, with Chief Circuit Judge Hutcheson dissenting. That judgment was reversed by this Court, -per curiam, for failure of appellee to exhaust its administrative remedy. 346 U. S. 868.
I.
We consider first the claim to injunctive relief which appellee made on the ground that the conduct of the proposed administrative hearings would cause it irreparable damage by weakening its bank credit and depriving it of essential working capital. On that basis, interlocutory relief was granted pending the court’s determination of the ultimate issue of the validity of the administrative procedure. That injunction has been made permanent but the Government, on behalf of appellants, contends that appellee is acting prematurely in seeking such relief before carrying the prescribed administrative procedure at least to the point where it faces some immediate compulsion and greater probability of damage than it has established.
The proposed hearings are to be held before an Enforcement Commissioner with authority merely to recommend findings to a Regional Enforcement Commission subject to review by the National Enforcement Commission. Those findings may show no violation of wage ceilings. At most, they will be concerned with appellee’s alleged payment of wages in excess of wage ceilings to an extent of about $750,000. If such a violation of the ceilings is found by the National Enforcement Commission, it may then, under § 405 (b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and the President's delegated authority, certify to governmental agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue for income-tax purposes, the disal-lowance of all or part of appellee’s illegal wage payments. Appellee argues that such proceedings carry the possibility of the disallowance as a business expense, for income-tax purposes, of $750,000, more or less, up to the total wages paid, exceeding $5,500,000. Appellee contends also that the mere threat of such action would jeopardize the bank credit upon which it depends for essential working capital. There is grave doubt of the right of appellee thus to test the validity of administrative procedure before exhausting it or bringing the issues closer to a focus than it has done. However, it is clear that once the right of the Government to hold administrative hearings is established, a litigant cannot enjoin them merely because they might jeopardize his bank credit or otherwise be inconvenient or embarrassing. Aircraft & Diesel Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U. S. 752, 777-779. “[T]he expense and annoyance of litigation is ‘part of the social burden of living under government.’ ” Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 304 U. S. 209, 222. See also, Myers v. Bethlehem Corp., 303 U. S. 41, 47; Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 112-113; Franklin v. Jonco Aircraft Corp., per curiam, 346 U. S. 868.
It is appellee’s principal claim that there is no properly authorized administrative procedure for it to exhaust and that the administrative authorities who seek to determine its case have no lawful right to do so. We, therefore, go directly to the heart of this controversy, which is the question whether the administrative enforcement of the 1950 yjage stabilization program has been validly authorized. /
II.
The procedure in question is prescribed by General Procedural Regulation 1, Revised, issued by the Economic Stabilization Administrator, August 21, 1952, 17 Fed. Reg. 7737. The hearings are to be conducted regionally by an Enforcement Commissioner and provision is made for appeal to the National Enforcement Commission. That Commission (NEC) is authorized to issue a certificate of disallowance prescribing the amount of wages to be disregarded by the executive departments and other governmental agencies in determining the costs and expenses of appellee for the purposes of any other law or regulation. ESA Gen. Order No. 18, July 28, 1952, 17 Fed. Reg. 6925. Standards of action are prescribed by the Economic Stabilization Administrator in his General Order No. 15, April 3, 1952, 17 Fed. Reg. 2994. Appellee does not complain of noncompliance with these regulations. It complains rather that they are not authorized by statute or that, if purporting to be so authorized, the statute violates the Federal Constitution.
The Government finds authority for the creation of this administrative machinery in § 405 (b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, when read in connection with the entire Act. That section is derived from § 5 (a) of the Stabilization Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 767, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 965 (a). To read the Defense Production Act of 1950 without reference to this model is to read it out of the context in which Congress enacted it.
The Stabilization Act of 1942 was a vital wartime measure, adopted October 2, 1942, directing the President “on or before November 1, 1942, to issue a general order stabilizing prices, wages, and salaries, affecting the cost of living.” In it, Congress relied upon presidential action geared to the critical necessity for speedy compliance. Its purpose was to check inflation. It subordinated individual convenience to nationwide standards. Its sanctions were entrusted to administrative agencies capable of prompt action. Section 5 (a) provided that—
“No employer shall pay, and no employee shall receive, wages or salaries in contravention of the regulations promulgated by the President under this Act. The President shall also prescribe the extent to which any wage or salary payment made in contravention of such regulations shall be disregarded by the executive departments and other governmental agencies in determining the costs or expenses of any employer for the purposes of any other law or regulation.” 56 Stat. 767, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 965 (a).
The Act granted the President broad powers to promulgate regulations. October 3, 1942, he issued Executive Order No. 9250, 7 Fed. Reg. 7871, “to control so far as possible the inflationary tendencies and the vast dislocations attendant thereon which threaten our military-effort and our domestic economic structure, and for the more effective prosecution of the war.” That order established an Office of Economic Stabilization, headed by an Economic Stabilization Director. In Title II it established a national “Wage and Salary Stabilization Policy.” This placed wage rates under the control of the National War Labor Board and froze them generally at the levels prevailing September 15, 1942. In Title III it authorized the National War Labor Board to issue rules and regulations “for the speedy determination of the propriety of any wage increases or decreases in accordance with this Order.” It thus established administrative processes for making specific determinations of wages paid in contravention of the Act. The same processes also enabled the Government, through other agencies, to disregard such illegal payments when computing taxes, compensation under cost-plus contracts and other governmental transactions.
October 27, 1942, James F. Byrnes, the Economic Stabilization Director, with the personal approval of the President, issued the regulations which later were to serve as the model for the regulations now before us. They delegated to the National War Labor Board authority to certify, to all executive departments and other agencies of the Government, disallowances of payments of wages based upon the Board’s determination of their violation of the Act.
July 30, 1943, the Board adopted rules to govern its procedures and those of Regional War Labor Boards in dealing with violation of the wage stabilization program. Those regulations likewise are comparable to the ones involved in this case. 9 Fed. Reg. 4681 et seg.
Nearly 100,000 proceedings were thus held and disal-lowances of nearly $30,000,000 were made up to February 24, 1947, Those proceedings were matters of general public knowledge and were well known to Congress. They support the natural presumption that Congress, in its subsequent actions, accepted them as legitimate interpretations of the Stabilization Act. Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, 16; Helvering v. Winmill, 305 U. S. 79, 82-83; Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294, 310-315; Hecht v. Motley, 265 U. S. 144, 153.
Under the Act of 1942, the President thus determined, through his administrative agencies, many specific violations of the prescribed wage ceilings. It was the practice of those administrative agencies to certify to other departments and agencies specific disallowances of the wages paid in violation of such ceilings. See Troy Laundry Co. v. Wirtz, 155 F. 2d 53; Woodworth Co. v. Kavanagh, 102 F. Supp. 9, aff’d, 202 F. 2d 154.
A comparison of the terms of the Act of 1942 with those of the Defense Production Act of September 8, 1950, and a comparison of the regulations and practice under those Acts is impressive.
Section 405 (b) of the later Act is as follows:
“No employer shall pay, and no employee shall receive, any wage, salary, or other compensation in contravention of any regulation or order promulgated by the President under this title. The President shall also prescribe the extent to which any wage, salary, or compensation payment made in contravention of any such regulation or order shall be disregarded by the executive departments and other governmental agencies in determining the costs or expenses of any employer for the purposes of any other law or regulation.” 64 Stat. 807, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed., Supp. V) § 2105 (b).
It follows, almost word for word, the language of § 5 (a) of the earlier Act, supra, at p. 542. While it substitutes the phrase “any wage, salary, or other compensation” in place of “wages or salaries,” and the phrase “any regulation or order” in place of “the regulations,” the substance of the two sections is inescapably the same.
The Act of 1950 granted the President broad powers to make regulations under it and to delegate the authority conferred upon him by it. His orders and regulations follow the pattern of the earlier ones. September 9, 1950, he issued Executive Order No. 10161, 15 Fed. Reg. 6105, 6106, Part IV of which created a new agency known as the Economic Stabilization Agency, headed by an Economic Stabilization Administrator. To him the President delegated responsibility for wage stabilization. He established, within such agency, a Wage Stabilization Board with functions to be determined by the Administrator. January 24,1951, Eric Johnston, then the Administrator, delegated to that Board his functions of wage stabilization. ESA Gen. Order No. 3, 16 Fed. Reg. 739. January 26, he froze wages generally at the levels prevailing January 25. Gen. Wage Stabilization Regulation No. 1, 16 Fed. Reg. 816.
Enforcement under the Act of 1950 thus closely resembled enforcement under the Act of 1942. June 13, the Wage Stabilization Board established a National Enforcement Commission and authorized the establishment of Regional Enforcement Commissions. Such Commissions were authorized to make determinations of wage violations and the disallowances of specific wage payments under §405 (b). Those determinations were to be “conclusive for the purpose therein stated. The executive departments and other agencies of the government which receive certifications of such determinations shall disregard and disallow the amount thus certified.” WSB Enforcement Resolution No. 1, § 1 (c), 16 Fed. Reg. 6028, 6029. June 28, this procedure was further described in a resolution of the War Stabilization Board. 16 Fed. Reg. 7284.
April 3, 1952, the Economic Stabilization Administrator, in General Order No. 15, 17 Fed. Reg. 2994, prescribed the standards to be followed in making dis-allowances, including a recognition of extenuating and mitigating circumstances.
Effective July 30, 1952, § 403 (b) of the Act was amended to establish a new Wage Stabilization Board. 66 Stat. 300-301. Its functions were defined by the Economic Stabilization Administrator in ESA General Order No. 16, 17 Fed. Reg. 6925. On the same day, he issued ESA General Order No. 18, 17 Fed. Reg. 6925, defining the functions of the National Enforcement Commission. The order covered the Commission’s authority to determine and certify specific disallowances in accordance with the standards prescribed in General Order No. 15, supra. The language and substance is obviously reminiscent of that under the Act of 1942.
The legislative history confirms the parallel nature of the two programs. The occasion for the Act of 1950 was the recurring need to check inflation. The military-demands in Korea and elsewhere in 1950 made it necessary to maintain a large production of military goods while seeking also to meet the long-denied and increasing needs of the Nation’s civil economy. The 1950 Act expressly declared its purpose. Congress reenacted, on a temporary basis, the emergency powers of the President which had been effective during World War II.
The Senate Report on the 1950 bill expressly said:
“This subsection [405 (b)] adopts the language of the Stabilization Act of October 2, 1942, respecting the penalties to be applied for violations of the wage and salary stabilization program. The committee finds that the disallowance of illegal wage payments as a cost of doing business, for purposes of computing taxes, Government contract payments, and for purposes of establishing price ceilings, was an effective deterrent.” S. Rep. No. 2250, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 39.
The regulations, procedures and practices comparable to those under the Act of 1942 were fully reported to Congress.
Despite this history of administrative enforcement under the 1942 Act, appellee claims that, under the 1950 Act, the President had no authority to apply administrative action to the enforcement of wage stabilization. Appellee argues that § 706 of the later Act, as set forth in the margin, vested enforcement of the Act in the District Courts and thus left to the President only authority to promulgate general regulations. We do not agree. Section 706 appears in Title VII containing the so-called “general provisions” of the Act. Appellee reads the section as sharply restricting the administrative procedure which we have just described. Such an interpretation, however, cannot be given to it in the face of § 405 (b). Instead of sharply restricting the revival of administrative enforcement of wage ceilings under § 405 (b), we read § 706 as primarily applicable to other activities under the Act. It applies naturally enough to price controls, credit controls and allocations of material. We hold that the specific language of § 405 (b) should receive the same construction now that was placed on similar language in the Act of 1942. The “general provisions” of § 706 do not restrict the specific provisions of § 405 (b) now reenacted.
The correctness of the above interpretation was underscored July 31, 1951, when Congress inserted a new § 405 (a). In language strikingly similar to § 405 (b), that new section introduced administrative enforcement for price controls. Obviously it was not to be substantially eliminated by the existing provisions of § 706. As the specific language of § 405 (a) is thus controlling over the general provisions of § 706, so the same specific language in § 405 (b) is controlling over those same provisions.
| We have noted the other arguments submitted by-appellee concerning the interpretation and constitutionality of the statute but it would be premature action on our part to rule upon these until after the required administrative procedures have been exhausted.]
III.
Finally, appellee contends that, by the termination of the substantive provisions of the Defense Production Act of 1950, all authority has now expired for determining or disallowing past, as well as future, payments made in violation of wage ceilings.
As the Act is a temporary statute, the effect of its expiration is governed by the following general savings statute:
“The expiration of a temporary statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the temporary statute shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability.” (Emphasis supplied.) 1 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 109.
We find no express, or even implied, provision in the Act contrary to the policy of the general savings statute. All of the alleged violations here involved occurred in 1951. The substantive provisions of Title IV relating to wage stabilization and the supporting orders fixing the wage ceilings here at issue did not expire until April 30, 1953. Neither that expiration date nor the six-month extension of it for liquidation purposes restricts the general provision of § 109 as to the survival of enforcement proceedings.
The precise object of the general savings statute is to prevent the expiration of a temporary statute from cutting off appropriate measures to enforce the expired statute in relation to violations of it, or of regulations issued under it, occurring before its expiration. United States v. Allied Oil Corp., 341 U. S. 1, 5; Fleming v. Mohawk Co., 331 U. S. 111.
A similar situation followed the expiration, in 1946, of the substantive provisions of the Stabilization Act of 1942, and we have seen that the enforcement proceedings continued under it until 1949. See note 11, supra. On that occasion the authority to make disallowances was transferred to the Department of the Treasury. Exec. Order No. 9809, ¶10 (b), 11 Fed. Reg. 14281, 14283. In the present instance, wage stabilization enforcement has been transferred to the Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization. Exec. Order No. 10494, October 14,1953,18 Fed. Reg. 6585. The authority of the President to make such a delegation of his powers appears in §§ 703 and 705, and such authority remains effective until June 30, 1955, § 717 (a), note 23, supra.
The validity of the pending administrative proceeding being thus upheld, the judgment of the District Court enjoining that proceeding is
Reversed.
64 Stat. 798, as amended, 65 Stat. 131, 66 Stat. 296, 67 Stat. 129, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed., Supp. V) §2061 et seq.
“TITLE IV — PRICE AND WAGE STABILIZATION” containing §§ 401-412, 64 Stat. 803-812, 66 Stat. 304, and see 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed., Supp. V) §§2101-2110.
Created, within the Economic Stabilization Agency, by § 403 (b) of the Defense Production Act, June 30, 1952, 66 Stat. 300-301. See also, Exec. Order No. 10377, 17 Fed. Reg. 6891; ESA Gen. Order No. 16, 17 Fed. Reg. 6925.
ESA Gen. Order No. 18, effective July 30, 1952, 17 Fed. Reg. 6925, as amended at 9977, established NEC within the ESA and defined the functions of NEC.
Gen. Wage Stabilization Regulation 1, issued by Economic Stabilization Administrator, January 26, 1951, 16 Fed. Reg. 816.
The Government states that Neal, who is one of the appellants, is now on the staff of the Office of Defense Mobilization and is authorized and ready to conduct the hearing if the injunction is lifted.
56 Stat. 765, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) §961 et seq. The Stabilization Act itself was an amendment to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, approved January 30, 1942, 56 Stat. 23, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 901 et seq. For its title, see 58 Stat. 643. It was temporary legislation. Its termination date was June 30, 1944, or “such earlier date as the Congress by concurrent resolution, or the President by proclamation, may prescribe.” 56 Stat. 767. That date was postponed, one year at a time, to June 30, 1947. 58 Stat. 643, 59 Stat. 306, 60 Stat. 664, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) §966.
“Sec. 2. The President may, from time to time, promulgate such regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out any of the provisions of this Act; and may exercise any power or authority conferred upon him by this Act through such department, agency, or officer as he shall direct....” 56 Stat. 765, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 962.
Office of Economic Stabilization — Pt. 4001 — Wages and Salaries, 7 Fed. Reg. 8748 et seq. Subsequent amendments did not change the provisions for making tax disallowances based upon specific administrative determinations.
Ҥ 4001.2 Authority of National War Labor Board. The Board shall... have authority to determine whether any
“(a) Wage payments...
“are made in contravention of the Act, or any rulings, orders or regulations promulgated thereunder. Any such determination by the Board, made under rulings and orders issued by it, that a payment is in contravention of the Act, or any rulings, orders, or regulations promulgated thereunder, shall be conclusive upon all Executive Departments and agencies of the Government in determining the costs or expenses of any employer for the purpose of any law or regulation, either heretofore or hereafter enacted or promulgated, including the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 or any maximum price regulation thereof, or for the purpose of calculating deductions under the revenue laws of the United States, or for the purpose of determining costs or expenses under any contract made by or on behalf of the United States. Any determination of the Board made pursuant to the authority conferred on it shall be final and shall not be subject to review by The Tax Court of the United States or by any court in any civil proceedings.” 7 Fed. Reg., at 8749.
From October 3, 1942, to December 29, 1945, 68,233 cases, resulting in disallowances of $19,018,820.19, were handled by the National War Labor Board. 1 Termination Report, National War Labor Board, 428-441. From January 1, 1946, to January 30, 1947, 30,071 cases, resulting in disallowances of $11,822,609, were handled by the National Wage Stabilization Board. National Wage Stabilization Board (1946-1947) 223-235. While many cases resulted in findings of no violation or were closed without penalty or dis-allowance, many others were terminated with disallowances, either by consent or after hearings. There were 282 appeal cases processed by the National Boards, and although the controls were terminated in November 1946 by Executive Order No. 9801, 11 Fed. Reg. 13435, the enforcement activities, based on earlier violations, were carried on by the Department of the Treasury until 1949. See Ann. Reps, of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 62-63 (1947); 33-34 (1948); 26-27 (1949).
Not only was the life of the Act extended three times (see note 7, supra) but its administration was reviewed during annual appropriation hearings. See Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations on National War Agencies Appropriation Bills for 1944, Pt. 2, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. 667-668; for 1945, Pt. 1, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. 240-241, 303-304; for 1946, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 12-13.
“Sec. 403. (a) At such time as the President determines that it is necessary to impose price and wage controls generally over a substantial portion of the national economy, he shall administer such controls... through a new independent agency created for such purpose:.... Such agency may utilize the services, information, and facilities of other agencies and departments of the Government, but such agency shall not delegate enforcement of any of the controls to be administered by it under this section to any other agency or department.” 64 Stat. 807, as amended, 65 Stat. 137, 66 Stat. 300. See 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed., Supp. V) §2103. (Delegations as to the enforcement of controls, accordingly, were made only to officials within the new independent agency known as the Economic Stabilization Agency.)
“Sec. 703. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided, the President may delegate any power or authority conferred upon him by this Act to any officer or agency of the Government, including any new agency or agencies (and the President is hereby authorized to create such new agencies, other than corporate agencies, as he deems necessary), and he may authorize such redelegations by that officer or agency as the President may deem appropriate....” 64 Stat. 816, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed., Supp. V) § 2153 (a).
“Sec. 704. The President may make such rules, regulations, and orders as he deems necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Act. Any regulation or order under this Act may be established in such form and manner, may contain such classifications and differentiations, and may provide for such adjustments and reasonable exceptions as in the judgment of the President are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this Act, or to prevent circumvention or evasion, or to facilitate enforcement of this Act, or any rule, regulation, or order issued under this Act.” 64 Stat. 816, see 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed., Supp. V) § 2154.
“Sec. 4. Functions of the National Enforcement Commission. (a) The functions of the National Enforcement Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) shall be, with respect to persons within the jurisdiction of the Wage Stabilization Board, the Salary Stabilization Board and the Office of Salary Stabilization, and the Railroad and Airline Wage Board, to determine whether any wage, salary, or other compensation has been paid or accrued, at any time, in violation or contravention of any provision of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, or any regulation or order or directive heretofore or hereafter promulgated under the act. Such determination shall be made by the Commission after any of the foregoing named constituent organizations of this Agency have instituted an enforcement proceeding before it or after any such organization has submitted a settlement proposal to the Commission for its approval. Such determination shall be final within the Economic Stabilization Agency.
“ (b) The Commission is further authorized to certify and transmit such determinations in accordance with the policy and procedure set forth in Economic Stabilization Agency General Order No. 15, and other orders, directives, general policies or general regulations of the Economic Stabilization Administrator.
“Sec. 5. Redelegation of authority, (a) The authority delegated to the Economic Stabilization Administrator with respect to the imposition of disallowance sanctions under section 405 (b) of the Defense Production Act, as amended, for the violation or contravention of any provisions of, or any orders or any regulations issued under said act, as amended, relating to the payment of wages, salaries, or other compensation, is hereby redelegated to the Commission, in accordance with the functions described above.” 17 Fed. Reg., at 6926.
“Sec. 2.... The United States is determined to develop and maintain whatever military and economic strength is found to be necessary to carry out this purpose. Under present circumstances, this task requires diversion of certain materials and facilities from civilian use to military and related purposes. It requires expansion of productive facilities beyond the levels needed to meet the civilian demand. In order that this diversion and expansion may proceed at once, and that the national economy may be maintained with the maximum effectiveness and the least hardship, normal civilian production and purchases must be curtailed and redirected.
“It is the objective of this Act to provide the President with authority to accomplish these adjustments in the operation of the economy. It is the intention of the Congress that the President shall use the powers conferred by this Act to promote the national defense, by meeting, promptly and effectively, the requirements of military programs in support of our national security and foreign policy objectives, and by preventing undue strains and dislocations upon wages, prices, and production or distribution of materials for civilian use, within the framework, as far as practicable, of the American system of competitive enterprise.” 64 Stat. 798, 799, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed., Supp. V) § 2062.
See S. Rep. No. 2250, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. A-5, 20-40.
The 1950 Act, generally, was to terminate June 30, 1952. Title IV, as to price and wage stabilization, was to expire June 30, 1951. 64 Stat. 822. The latter date was extended to April 30, 1953. 66 Stat. 306, 67 Stat. 131. The survival of enforcement procedure in relation to prior violations is discussed in Section III of this opinion.
First Ann. Rep. of the Joint Committee on Defense Production, S. Rep. No. 1040, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. 98-103 (1951); Second Ann. Rep. of the same Committee, S. Rep. No. 3, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 108-119 (1952).
“Sec. 706. (a) Whenever in the judgment of the President any person has engaged or is about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of any provision of this Act, he may make application to the appropriate court for an order enjoining such acts or practices, or for an order enforcing compliance with such provision, and upon a showing by the President that such person has engaged or is about to engage in any such acts or practices a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, with or without such injunction or restraining order, shall be granted without bond.
“(b) The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have jurisdiction of violations of this Act or any rule, regulation, order, or subpena thereunder, and of all civil actions under this Act to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this Act or any rule, regulation, order, or subpena thereunder. Any criminal proceeding on account of any such violation may be brought in any district in which any act, failure to act, or transaction constituting the violation occurred. Any such civil action may be brought in any such district or in the district in which the defendant resides or transacts business. Process in such 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.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of- the Court.
The appellants are a Los Angeles labor union, one of its business agents, and four self-employed independent contractors, so-called “grease peddlers,” who were members of the union. They appeal from a judgment entered against them by a Federal District Court in a civil action brought by the United States to terminate violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act. The judgment was entered upon findings based upon a detailed stipulation of facts in which the appellants admitted all the allegations of the complaint and agreed to the ultimate conclusion that they had unlawfully combined and conspired in unreasonable restraint of foreign trade and commerce in yellow grease. In the stipulation the appellants also agreed to the issuance of a broad injunction against them. The District Court’s decree enjoined in specific detail the practices found to be unlawful, and in addition ordered the union to terminate the union membership of all self-employed grease peddlers. 196 F. Supp. 12. The appellants attack the judgment here upon the single ground that the District Court was in error in ordering termination of the union membership of these independent businessmen. Consideration of this claiin requires a somewhat detailed review of the nature of the illegal conspiracy in which the appellants in this case were concededly engaged.
During the period between 1954 and 1959 there were in Los Angeles County eight firms engaged as processors in the production of yellow grease, an inedible grease produced by removing moisture and solid impurities from so-called restaurant grease — waste grease resulting from the preparation of food in restaurants, hotels and institutions. A substantial part of the yellow grease so produced was sold to overseas purchasers and to purchasers in California for prompt shipment overseas.
The processors procured restaurant grease in two separate ways. They made direct purchases, usually from large restaurants, hotels and other institutions, and in these transactions the processors picked up the restaurant grease from the sellers through employees who were members of the union. Restaurant grease from other sources was usually purchased by the processors from grease peddlers, independent entrepreneurs whose earnings as middlemen consisted of the difference between the price at which they bought the restaurant grease from various sources and the price at which they sold it to the processors, less the cost of operating and maintaining their trucks. There were some 35 to 45 grease peddlers in the Los Angeles area.
In 1954 most of the grease peddlers became members of the appellant union, at the instigation of the appellant business agent, for the purpose of increasing the margin between the prices they paid for grease and the prices at which they sold it to the processors. To accomplish this purpose, fixed purchase and sale prices were agreed upon and enforced by union agents through the exercise or threatened exercise of union economic power in the form of strikes and boycotts against processors who indicated any inclination to deal with grease peddlers who were not union members. The union’s business agent allocated accounts and territories for both purchases and sales among the various grease peddlers, who agreed to refrain from buying from or soliciting the customers of other peddlers, and violations of this agreement could result in a grease peddler’s suspension from the union, in which event he was, of course, prohibited from carrying on his business.
From 1954 to 1959 this basic plan of price fixing and allocation of business was effectively carried out by elimination of the few peddlers who had not joined the union, and by coercion upon the processors through threats of “union trouble” if they did not comply.
Within the union the grease peddlers were treated as a separate group, distinct from the some 2,400 employee members. The meetings of the. grease peddlers were always held apart from regular union meetings, and from 1955 on, the grease peddlers were members of a special “subdivision” of the union — Local 626-B. The affairs of this separate subdivision were administered not by regular union officers, but by the appellant business agent who had originated the scheme, together with a committee of grease peddlers to assist in “policing, enforcing and carrying out the program to suppress and éliminate competition.”
There was no showing of any actual or potential wage or job competition, or of any other economic interrelationship, between the grease peddlers and the other members of the union. It was stipulated that no processors had ever substituted peddlers for employee-drivers in acquiring restaurant grease, or had ever threatened to do so. The stipulation made clear that the peddlers and the processors had essentially different sources of supply and different classes of customers. Based on these stipulated facts, the District Court affirmatively found that “there is no competition between [the employee and peddler] groups because each is engaged in a different line of work . . . .”
Pointing out that “the stipulated facts clearly show that before the grease peddlers joined the defendant Union, there was no suppression of competition among them, and that only the support of the Union and the powerful weapons at its command enabled the peddlers and the Union together to destroy free competition in the purchase and sale of waste grease,” the District Court concluded that “a decree terminating the membership of the grease peddlers in defendant Union appears to be the most effective, if not the only, means of preventing a recurrence of defendants’ unlawful activities.” The court further concluded that nothing in the Clayton Act or the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevented the issuance of a decree divesting the grease peddlers of union membership in the circumstances of this case. We agree with these basic conclusions.
It is beyond question that a court of equity has power in appropriate circumstances to order the dissolution of an association of businessmen, when the association and its members have conspired among themselves or with others to violate the antitrust laws. Hartford-Empire Co. v. United, States, 323 U. S. 386, 428. And the circumstances stipulated and found in the present case provided ample support, we think, for a decree of dissolution, as a matter of the discreet exercise of equitable power.
It is also beyond question that nothing in the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, nor in the labor exemption provisions of the Clayton Act, insulates a combination in illegal restraint of trade between businessmen and a labor union from the sanctions of the antitrust laws. Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 8, 325 U. S. 797. Indeed, the appellants have conceded the propriety of the order in the present case which broadly enjoins the illegal practices in which they were engaged.
The narrow question which emerges in this case, therefore, is whether businessmen who combine in an association which would otherwise be properly subject to dissolution under the antitrust laws can immunize themselves from that sanction by the simple expedient of calling themselves “Local 626-B” of a labor union. We think there is nothing in the Norris-LaGuardia Act nor in the Clayton Act, nor in the federal policy which these statutes reflect, to prevent a court from dissolving the ties which bound these businessmen together, and which bound them to the appellant union, in the circumstances of the present case.
The provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act place severe limitations upon the issuance of an injunction by a federal court in “any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute,” and the statute specifically forbids a District Court in such a case to prohibit anyone from “[bjecoming or remaining a member of any labor organization.” But, as the District Court correctly found, the present case was not one “involving or growing out of any labor dispute,” but one involving an illegal combination between businessmen and a union to restrain commerce. In such a case, as Allen Bradley Co. clearly held, neither the Norris-LaGuardia Act nor the labor exemption provisions of the Clayton Act are applicable.
This Court’s decision in Columbia River Co. v. Hinton, 315 U. S. 143, is very much in point. That was a private antitrust suit brought by a processor of fish to enjoin an allegedly illegal combination of fishermen, who had joined together in the Pacific Coast Fishermen’s Union to regulate the terms under which fish would be sold. The organization was “affiliated with the C. I. 0.” 315 U. S., at 144. The defendants claimed that an injunction against them would violate the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The Court held that the controversy was not a “labor dispute” within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, pointing out that that statute was “not intended to have application to disputes over the sale of commodities.” 315 U. S., at 145. Here, as in Columbia River Co., the grease peddlers were sellers of commodities, who became “members” of the union only for the purpose of bringing union power to bear in the successful enforcement of the illegal combination in restraint of the traffic in yellow grease. The District Court was not in error in ordering the complete termination of that illegal combination.
What has been said is not remotely to suggest that a labor organization might not often have a legitimate interest in soliciting self-employed entrepreneurs as members. Cf. Milk Wagon Drivers’ Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products, 311 U. S. 91; Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl, 315 U. S. 769; Local v. Oliver, 358 U. S. 283. And both the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the Clayton Act ensure that the antitrust laws cannot be used as a vehicle to stifle legitimate labor union activities. But here the court found upon stipulated facts that there was no job or wage competition or economic interrelationship of any kind between the grease peddlers and other members of the appellant union. If that situation should change in the future, the District Court will have ample power to amend its decree.
Affirmed.
“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal . . . .” 15 U. S. C. § 1.
The appeal was brought directly to this Court under the provisions of the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29.
Norris-LaGuardia Act, § 4, 29 U. S. C. § 104:
“104. Enumeration of specific acts not subject to restraining orders or injunctions.
“No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute (as these terms are herein defined) from doing, whether singly or in concert, any of the following acts:
“ (a) Ceasing or refusing to perform any work or to rernain in any relation of employment;
“(b) Becoming or remaining a member of any labor organization or of any employer organization, regardless of any such undertaking or promise as is described in section 103 of this title;
“(c) Paying or giving to, or withholding from, any person participating or interested in such labor dispute, any strike or unemployment benefits or insurance, or other moneys or things of value;
“(d) By all lawful means aiding any person participating or interested in any labor dispute who is being proceeded against in, or is prosecuting, any action or suit in any court of the United States or of any State;
“(e) Giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence;
“(f) Assembling peaceably to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interests in a labor dispute;
“(g) Advising or notifying any person of an intention to do any of the acts heretofore specified;
“(h) Agreeing with other persons to do or not to do any of the acts heretofore specified; and
“(i) Advising, urging, or otherwise causing or inducing without fraud or violence the acts heretofore specified, regardless of any such undertaking or promise as is described in section 103 of this title.” March 23, 1932, c. 90, § 4, 47 Stat. 70.
Clayton Act, §§ 6 and 20, 15'U. S. C. § 17, and 29 U. S. C. § 52:
“17. Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations.
“The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.” Oct. 15, 1914, c. 323, § 6, 38 Stat. 731.
“52. Statutory restriction of injunctive relief.
“No restraining order or injunction shall be granted by any court of the United States, or a judge or the judges thereof, in any case between an employer and employees, or between employers and employees, or between employees, oi; between persons employed and persons seeking employment, involving, or growing out of, a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment, unless necessary to prevent irreparable injury to property, or to a property right, of the party making the application, for which injury there is no adequate remedy at law, and such property or property right must be described with particularity in the application, which must be in writing and sworn to by the applicant or by his agent or attorney.
“And no such restraining order or injunction shall prohibit any person or persons, whether singly or in concert, from terminating any relation of employment, or from ceasing to perform any work or labor, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful means so to do; or from attending at any place where any such person or persons may lawfully be, for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or from peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working; or from ceasing to patronize or to employ any party to such dispute, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful and lawful means so to do; or from paying or giving to, or withholding from, any person engaged in such dispute, any strike benefits or other moneys or things of value; or from peaceably assembling in a lawful manner, and for lawful purposes; or from doing any act or thing which might lawfully be done in the absence of such dispute by any party thereto; nor shall any of the acts specified in this paragraph be considered or held to be violations of any law of the United States.” Oct. 15, 1914, c. 323, § 20, 38 Stat. 738.
The appellants also urge that the -decree violates their right of freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. This contention, carried to its logical conclusion, would render unconstitutional not only many of the provisions of the antitrust laws, but all general criminal conspiracy statutes as well. Such a claim was explicitly rejected in Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490.
The appellants further contend that the decree is void as to grease peddlers who were not joined as defendants. But the order of divestiture ran only against the union:
“The defendant Local 626 is ordered and directed:
“(a) To expel promptly from membership all grease peddlers;
“ (b) To refuse membership at any time in the future to any grease peddler;
“(c) To expel from membership any member who becomes a grease peddler;
“(d) To furnish a copy of this decree to all grease peddlers who are now members of Local 626.”
In November 1954, the grease peddlers formed a trade association known as the Los Angeles Grease Buyers Association. This association was unsuccessful in its efforts to control the market in restaurant grease, and it was dissolved in early 1955 after a meeting at which the appellant union business agent told the peddlers to choose between the union and the association, stating that the union could do for the peddlers what the association could not do.
United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U. S. 106, 114. Cf. Donaldson v. Read Magazine, 333 U. S. 178, 184.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted the writ in this case to consider the claim that an order of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, enjoining petitioners from distributing leaflets anywhere in the town of Westchester, Illinois, violates petitioners’ rights under the Federal Constitution.
Petitioner Organization for a Better Austin (OBA) is a racially integrated community organization in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago. Respondent is a real estate broker whose office and business activities are in the Austin neighborhood. He resides in Westchester, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago some seven miles from the Austin area.
OBA is an organization whose stated purpose is to “stabilize” the racial ratio in the Austin area. For a number of years the boundary of the Negro segregated area of Chicago has moved progressively west to Austin. OBA, in its efforts to “stabilize” the area — so it describes its program — has opposed and protested various real estate tactics and activities generally known as “blockbusting” or “panic peddling.”
It was the contention of OBA that respondent had been one of those who engaged in such tactics, specifically that he aroused the fears of the local white residents that Negroes were coming into the area and then, exploiting the reactions and emotions so aroused, was able to secure listings and sell homes to Negroes. OBA alleged that since 1961 respondent had from time to time actively promoted sales in this manner by means of flyers, phone calls, and personal visits to residents of the area in which his office is located, without regard to whether the persons solicited had expressed any desire to sell their homes. As the “boundary” marking the furthest westward advance of Negroes moved into the Austin area, respondent is alleged to have moved his office along with it.
Community meetings were arranged with respondent to try to persuade him to change his real estate practices. Several other real estate agents were prevailed on to sign an agreement whereby they would not solicit property, by phone, flyer, or visit, in the Austin community. Respondent who has consistently denied that he is engaging in “panic peddling” or “blockbusting” refused to sign, contending that it was his right under Illinois law to solicit real estate business as he saw fit.
Thereafter, during September and October of 1967, members of petitioner organization distributed leaflets in Westchester describing respondent’s activities. There was no evidence of picketing in Westchester. The challenged publications, now enjoined, were critical of respondent’s real estate practices in the Austin neighborhood; one of the leaflets set out the business card respondent used to solicit listings, quoted him as saying “I only sell to Negroes,” cited a Chicago Daily News article describing his real estate activities and accused him of being a “panic peddler.” Another leaflet, of the same general order, stated that: “When he signs the agreement, we stop coming to Westchester.” Two of the leaflets requested recipients to call respondent at his home phone number and urge him to sign the “no solicitation” agreement. On several days leaflets were given to persons in' a Westchester shopping center. On two other occasions leaflets were passed out to some parishioners on their way to or from respondent’s church in Westchester. Leaflets were also left at the doors of his neighbors. The trial court found that petitioners’ “distribution of leaflets was on all occasions conducted in a peaceful and orderly manner, did not cause any disruption of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, and did not precipitate any fights, disturbances or other breaches of the peace.” One of the officers of OBA testified at trial that he hoped that respondent would be induced to sign the no-solicitation agreement by letting “his neighbors know what he was doing to us.”
Respondent sought an injunction in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on December 20, 1967. After an adversary hearing the trial court entered a temporary injunction enjoining petitioners “from passing out pamphlets, leaflets or literature of any kind, and from picketing, anywhere in the City of Westchester, Illinois”
On appeal to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, that court affirmed. It sustained the finding of fact that petitioners’ activities in Westchester had invaded respondent’s right of privacy, had caused irreparable harm, and were without adequate remedy at law. The Appellate Court appears to have viewed the alleged activities as coercive and intimidating, rather than informative and therefore as not entitled to First Amendment protection. The Appellate Court rested its holding on its belief that the public policy of the State of Illinois strongly favored protection of the privacy of home and family from encroachment of the nature of petitioners’ activities.
It is elementary, of course, that in a case of this kind the courts do not concern themselves with the truth or validity of the publication. Under Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931), the injunction, so far as it imposes prior restraint on speech and publication, constitutes an impermissible restraint on First Amendment rights. Here, as in that case, the injunction operates, not to redress alleged private wrongs, but to suppress, on the basis of previous publications, distribution of literature “of any kind” in a city of 18,000.
This Court has often recognized that the activity of peaceful pamphleteering is a form of communication protected by the First Amendment. E. g., Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938). In sustaining the injunction, however, the Appellate Court was apparently of the view that petitioners’ purpose in distributing their literature was not to inform the public, but to “force” respondent to sign a no-solicitation agreement. The claim that the expressions were intended to exercise a coercive impact on respondent does not remove them from the reach of the First Amendment. Petitioners plainly intended to influence respondent’s conduct by their activities; this is not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper. See Schneider v. State, supra; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940). Petitioners were engaged openly and vigorously in making the public aware of respondent’s real estate practices. Those practices were offensive to them, as the views and practices of petitioners are no doubt offensive to others. But so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability.
Any prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a “heavy presumption” against its constitutional validity. Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U. S. 175, 181 (1968); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963). Respondent thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint. He has not met that burden. No prior decisions support the claim that the interest of an individual in being free from public criticism of his business practices in pamphlets or leaflets warrants use of the injunctive power of a court. Designating the conduct as an invasion of privacy, the apparent basis for the injunction here, is not sufficient to support an injunction against peaceful distribution of informational literature of the nature revealed by this record. Rowan v. United States Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728 (1970), relied on by respondent, is not in point; the right of privacy involved in that case is not shown here. Among other important distinctions, respondent is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public. Accordingly, the injunction issued by the Illinois court must be vacated.
Reversed.
The injunction is termed a “temporary” injunction by the Illinois courts. We have therefore considered whether we may properly decide this case. 28 U. S. C. § 1257. We see nothing in the record that would indicate that the Illinois courts applied a less rigorous standard in issuing and sustaining this injunction than they would with any permanent injunction in the case. Nor is there any indication that the injunction rests on a disputed question of fact that might be resolved differently upon further hearing. Indeed, our reading of the record leads to the conclusion that the issuance of a permanent injunction upon termination of these proceedings will be little more than a formality. Moreover, the temporary injunction here, which has been in effect for over three years, has already had marked impact on petitioners’ First Amendment rights. Although the record in this case is not such as to leave the matter entirely free from doubt we conclude we are not without power to decide this case. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214 (1966); Construction Laborers’ Local 488 v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542 (1963).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents and the lessee of an apartment were sitting in one of its rooms, bagging cocaine. While so engaged they were observed by a police officer, who looked through a drawn window blind. The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the officer’s viewing was a search that violated respondents’ Fourth Amendment rights. We hold that no such violation occurred.
James Thielen, a police officer in the Twin Cities’ suburb of Eagan, Minnesota, went to an apartment building to investigate a tip from a confidential informant. The informant said that he had walked by the window of a ground-floor apartment and had seen people putting a white powder into bags. The officer looked in the same window through a gap in the closed blind and observed the bagging operation for several minutes. He then notified headquarters, which began preparing affidavits for a search warrant while he returned to the apartment building. When two men left the building in a previously identified Cadillac, the police stopped the car. Inside were respondents Carter and Johns. As the police opened the door of the ear to let Johns out, they observed a black, zippered pouch and a handgun, later determined to be loaded, on the vehicle’s floor. Carter and Johns were arrested, and a later police search of the vehicle the next day discovered pagers, a scale, and 47 grams of cocaine in plastic sandwich bags.
After seizing the ear, the police returned to apartment 103 and arrested the occupant, Kimberly Thompson, who is not a party to this appeal. A search of the apartment pursu- ' ant to a warrant revealed cocaine residue on the kitchen table and plastic baggies similar to those found in the Cadillac. Thielen identified Carter, Johns, and Thompson as the three people he had observed placing the powder into baggies. The police later learned that while Thompson was the lessee of the apartment, Carter and Johns lived in Chicago and had come to the apartment for the sole purpose of packaging the cocaine. Carter and Johns had never been to the apartment before and were only in the apartment for approximately 2Vz hours. In return for the use of the apartment, Carter and Johns had given Thompson one-eighth of an ounce of the cocaine.
Carter and Johns were charged with conspiracy to commit a controlled substance crime in the first degree and aiding and abetting in a controlled substance crime in the first degree, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 152.021, subds. 1(1), 3(a), 609.05 (1996). They moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the apartment and the Cadillac, as well as to suppress several postarrest incriminating statements they had made. They argued that Thielen’s initial observation of their drug packaging activities was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that all evidence obtained as a result of this unreasonable search was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Minnesota trial court held that since, unlike the defendant in Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U. S. 91 (1990), Carter and Johns were not overnight social guests but temporary out-of-state visitors, they were not entitled to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment against the government intrusion into the apartment. The trial court also concluded that Thielen’s observation was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. After a trial, Carter and Johns were each convicted of both offenses. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that respondent Carter did not have “standing” to object to Thielen’s actions because his claim that he was predominantly a social guest was “inconsistent with the only evidence concerning his stay in the apartment, which indicates that he used it for a business purpose — to package drugs.” 545 N. W. 2d 695, 698 (1996). In a separate appeal, the Court of Appeals also affirmed Johns’ conviction, without addressing what it termed the “standing” issue. State v. Johns, No. C9-95-1765 (June 11, 1996), App. D-l, D-3 (unpublished).
A divided Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that respondents had “standing” to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment because they had “ ‘a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.’ ” 569 N. W. 2d 169, 174 (1997) (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 143 (1978)). The court noted that even though “society does not recognize as valuable the task of bagging cocaine, we conclude that society does recognize as valuable the right of property owners or leaseholders to invite persons into the privacy of their homes to conduct a common task, be it legal or illegal activity. We, therefore, hold that [respondents] had standing to bring [their] motion to suppress the evidence gathered as a result of Thielen’s observations.” 569 N. W. 2d, at 176; see also 569 N. W. 2d 180, 181 (1997). Based upon its conclusion that respondents had “standing” to raise their Fourth Amendment claims, the court went on to hold that Thielen’s observation constituted a search of the apartment under the Fourth Amendment, and that the search was unreasonable. Id., at 176-179. We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. 1003 (1998), and now reverse.
The Minnesota courts analyzed whether respondents had a legitimate expectation of privacy under the rubric of “standing” doctrine, an analysis that this Court expressly rejected 20 years ago in Rakas. 439 U. S., at 139-140. In that case, we held that automobile passengers could not assert the protection of the Fourth Amendment against the seizure of incriminating evidence from a vehicle where they owned neither the vehicle nor the evidence. Ibid. Central to our analysis was the idea that in determining whether a defendant is able to show the violation of his (and not someone else’s) Fourth Amendment rights, the “definition of those rights is more properly placed within the purview of substantive Fourth Amendment law than within that of standing.” Id., at 140. Thus, we held that in order to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable; i. e., one that has “a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.” Id., at 143-144, and n. 12. See also Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 740-741 (1979).
The Fourth Amendment guarantees: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches of “their persons [and] houses” and thus indicates that the Fourth Amendment is a personal right that must be invoked by an individual. See Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places”). But the extent to which the Fourth Amendment protects people may depend upon where those people are. We have held that “capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends . . . upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” Rakas, supra, at 143. See also Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98, 106 (1980).
The text of the Amendment suggests that its protections extend only to people in “their” houses. But we have held that in some circumstances a person may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house of someone else. In Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U. S. 91 (1990), for example, we decided that an overnight guest in a house had the sort of expectation of privacy that the Fourth Amendment protects. We said:
“To hold that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host’s home merely recognizes the every day expectations of privacy that we all share. Staying overnight in another’s home is a longstanding social custom that serves functions recognized as valuable by society. We stay in others’ homes when we travel to a strange city for business or pleasure, when we visit our parents, children, or more distant relatives out of town, when we are in between jobs or homes, or when we house-sit for a Mend....
“From the overnight guest’s perspective, he seeks shelter in another’s home precisely because it provides him with privacy, a place where he and his possessions will not be disturbed by anyone but his host and those his host allows inside. We are at our most vulnerable when we are asleep because we cannot monitor our own safety or the security of our belongings. It is for this reason that, although we may spend all day in public places, when we cannot sleep in our own home we seek out another private place to sleep, whether it be a hotel room, or the home of a Mend.” Id., at 98-99.
In Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 259 (1960), the defendant seeking to exclude evidence resulting from a search of an apartment had been given the use of the apartment by a Mend. He had clothing in the apartment, had slept there “‘maybe a night,’” and at the time was the sole occupant of the apartment. But while the holding of Jones — that a search of the apartment violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights — is still valid, its statement that “anyone legitimately on the premises where a search occurs may challenge its legality,” id., at 267, was expressly repudiated in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128 (1978). Thus, an overnight guest in a home may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, but one who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not.
Respondents here were obviously not overnight guests, but were essentially present for a business transaction and were only in the home a matter of hours. There is no suggestion that they had a previous relationship with Thompson, or that there was any other purpose to their visit. Nor was there anything similar to the overnight guest relationship in Olson to suggest a degree of acceptance into the household While the apartment was a dwelling place for Thompson, it was for these respondents simply a place to do business.
Property used for commercial purposes is treated differently for Fourth Amendment purposes from residential property. “An expectation of privacy in commercial premises, however, is different from, and indeed less than, a similar expectation in an individual’s home.” New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 700 (1987). And while it was a “home” in which respondents were present, it was not their home. Similarly, the Court has held that in some circumstances a worker can claim Fourth Amendment protection over his own workplace. See, e. g., O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709 (1987). But there is no indication that respondents in this case had nearly as significant a connection to Thompson’s apartment as the worker in O’Connor had to his own private office. See id., at 716-717.
If we regard the overnight guest in Minnesota v. Olson as typifying those who may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment in the home of another, and one merely “legitimately on the premises” as typifying those who may not do so, the present case is obviously somewhere in between. But the purely commercial nature of the transaction engaged in here, the relatively short period of time on the premises, and the lack of any previous connection between respondents and the householder, all lead us to conclude that respondents’ situation is closer to that of one simply permitted on the premises. We therefore hold that any search which may have occurred did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights.
Because we conclude that respondents had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment, we need not decide whether the police officer’s observation constituted a “search.” The judgments of the Supreme Court of Minnesota are accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Ginsbtjrg’s dissent, post, at 108-109, would render the operative language in Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U. S. 91 (1990), almost entirely superfluous. There, we explained the justification for extending Fourth Amendment protection to the overnight visitor: “Staying overnight in another's home is a longstanding social custom that serves functions recognized as valuable by society.... We are at our most vulnerable when we are asleep because we cannot monitor our own safety or the security of our belongings.” Id., at 98-99. If any short-term business visit by a stranger entitles the visitor to share the Fourth Amendment protection of the leaseholder’s home, the Court’s explanation of its holding in Olson was quite unnecessary.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Me. Justice Stewaet, and Me. Justice Rehnquist joined.
These appeals present a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute regulating the access of minors to abortions. They require us to continue the inquiry we began in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 (1976), and Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U. S. 132 (1976).
I
A
On August 2, 1974, the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed, over the Governor’s veto, an Act pertaining to abortions performed within the State. 1974 Mass. Acts, ch. 706. According to its title, the statute was intended to regulate abortions “within present constitutional limits.” Shortly before the Act was to go into effect, the class action from which these appeals arise was commenced in the District Court to enjoin, as unconstitutional, the provision of the Act now codified as Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 112, § 12S (West Supp. 1979).
Section 12S provides in part:
“If the mother is less than eighteen years of age and has not married, the consent of both the mother and her parents [to an abortion to be performed on the mother] is required. If one or both of the mother’s parents refuse such consent, consent may be obtained by order of a judge of the superior court for good cause shown, after such hearing as he deems necessary. Such a hearing will not require the appointment of a guardian for the mother. If one of the parents has died or has deserted his or her family, consent by the remaining parent is sufficient. If both parents have died or have deserted their family, consent of the mother’s guardian or other person having duties similar to a guardian, or any person who had assumed the care and custody of the mother is sufficient. The commissioner of public health shall prescribe a written form for such consent. Such form shall be signed by the proper person or persons and given to the physician performing the abortion who shall maintain it in his permanent files.”
Physicians performing abortions in the absence of the consent required by § 12S are subject to injunctions and criminal penalties. See Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 112, §§ 12Q, 12T, and 12U (West Supp. 1979).
A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1970 ed.), repealed by Pub. L. 94-381, § 1, 90 Stat. 1119. Plaintiffs in the suit, appellees in both the cases before us now, were William Baird; Parents Aid Society, Inc. (Parents Aid), of which Baird is founder and director; Gerald Zupnick, M. D., who regularly performs abortions at the Parents Aid clinic; and an unmarried minor, identified by the pseudonym “Mary Moe,” who, at the commencement of the suit, was pregnant, residing at home with her parents, and desirous of obtaining an abortion without informing them.
Mary Moe was permitted to represent the “class of unmarried minors in Massachusetts who have adequate capacity to give a valid and informed consent [to abortion], and who do not wish to involve their parents.” Baird v. Bellotti, 393 F. Supp. 847, 850 (Mass. 1975) (Baird I). Initially there was some confusion whether the rights of minors who wish abortions without parental involvement but who lack “adequate capacity” to give such consent also could be adjudicated in the suit. The District Court ultimately determined that Dr. Zupnick was entitled to assert the rights of these minors. See Baird v. Bellotti, 450 F. Supp. 997, 1001, and n. 6 (Mass. 1978).
Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Crit-tenton Hastings House & Clinic, both organizations that provide counseling to pregnant adolescents, and Phillip Stub-blefield, M. D. (intervenors), appeared as amici curiae on behalf of the plaintiffs. The District Court “accepted [this group] in a status something more than amici because of reservations about the adequacy of plaintiffs’ representation [of the plaintiff classes in the suit].” Id., at 999 n. 3.
Defendants in the suit, appellants here in No. 78-329, were the Attorney General of Massachusetts and the District Attorneys of all counties in the State. Jane Hunerwadel was permitted to intervene as a defendant and representative of the class of Massachusetts parents having unmarried minor daughters who then were, or might become, pregnant. She and the class she represents are appellants in No. 78-330.
Following three days of testimony, the District Court issued an opinion invalidating § 12S. Baird I, supra. The court rejected appellees’ argument that all minors capable of becoming pregnant also are capable of giving informed consent to an abortion, or that it always is in the best interests of a minor who desires an abortion to have one. See 393 F. Supp., at 854. But the court was convinced that “a substantial number of females under the age of 18 are capable of forming a valid consent,” id., at 855, and “that a significant number of [these] are unwilling to tell their parents.” Id., at 853.
In its analysis of the relevant constitutional principles, the court stated that “there can be no doubt but that a female’s constitutional right to an abortion in the first trimester does not depend upon her calendar age.” Id., at 855-856. The court found no justification for the parental consent limitation placed on that right by § 12S. since it concluded that the statute was “cast not in terms of protecting the minor,... but in recognizing independent rights of parents.” Id., at 856. The “independent” parental rights protected by § 12S, as the court understood them, were wholly distinct from the best interests of the minor.
B
Appellants sought review in this Court, and we noted probable jurisdiction. Bellotti v. Baird, 423 U. S. 982 (1975). After briefing and oral argument, it became apparent that § 12S was susceptible of a construction that “would avoid or substantially modify the federal constitutional challenge to the statute.” Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U. S. 132, 148 (1976) (Bel-lotti I). We therefore vacated the judgment of the District Court, concluding that it should have abstained and certified to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts appropriate questions concerning the meaning of § 12S, pursuant to existing procedure in that State. See Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. Rule 3:21.
On remand, the District Court certified nine questions to the Supreme Judicial Court. These were answered in an opinion styled Baird v. Attorney General, 371 Mass. 741, 360 N. E. 2d 288 (1977) (Attorney General). Among the more important aspects of § 12S, as authoritatively construed by the Supreme Judicial Court, are the following:
1. In deciding whether to grant consent to their daughter’s abortion, parents are required by § 12S to consider exclusively what will serve her best interests. See id., at 746-747, 360 N. E. 2d, at 292-293.
2. The provision in § 12S that judicial consent for an abortion shall be granted, parental objections notwithstanding, “for good cause shown” means that such consent shall be granted if found to be in the minor’s best interests.' The judge “must disregard all parental objections, and other considerations, which are not based exclusively” on that standard. Id., at 748, 360 N. E. 2d, at 293.
3. Even if the judge in a § 12S proceeding finds “that the minor is capable of making, and has made, an informed and reasonable decision to have an abortion,” he is entitled to withhold consent “in circumstances where he determines that the best interests of the minor will not be served by an abortion.” Ibid., 360 N. E. 2d, at 293.
4. As a general rule, a minor who desires an abortion may not obtain judicial consent without first seeking both parents’ consent. Exceptions to the rule exist when a parent is not available or when the need for the abortion constitutes “ ‘an emergency requiring immediate action.’ ” Id., at 750, 360 N. E. 2d, at 294. Unless a parent is not available, he must be notified of any judicial proceedings brought under § 12S. Id., at 755-756, 360 N. E. 2d, at 297.
5. The resolution of § 12S cases and any appeals that follow can be expected to be prompt. The name of the minor and her parents may be held in confidence. If need be, the Supreme Judicial Court and the superior courts can promulgate rules or issue orders to ensure that such proceedings are handled expeditiously. Id., at 756-758, 360 N. E. 2d, at 297-298.
6. Massachusetts Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 112, § 12F (West Supp. 1979), which provides, inter alia, that certain classes of minors may consent to most kinds of medical care without parental approval, does not apply to abortions, except as to minors who are married, widowed, or divorced. See 371 Mass., at 758-762, 360 N. E. 2d, at 298-300. Nor does the State’s common-law “mature minor rule” create an exception to § 12S. Id., at 749-750, 360 N. E. 2d, at 294. See n. 27, infra.
C
Following the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court, appellees returned to the District Court and obtained a stay of the enforcement of § 12S until its constitutionality could be determined. Baird v. Bellotti, 428 F. Supp. 854 (Mass. 1977) (Baird II). After permitting discovery by both sides, holding a pretrial conference, and conducting further hearings, the District Court again declared § 12S unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. Baird v. Bellotti, 450 F. Supp. 997 (Mass. 1978) (Baird III). The court identified three particular aspects of the statute which, in its view, rendered it unconstitutional.
First, as construed by the Supreme Judicial Court, § 12S requires parental notice in virtually every case where the parent is available. The court believed that the evidence warranted a finding “that many, perhaps a large majority of 17-year olds are capable of informed consent, as are a not insubstantial number of 16-year olds, and some even younger.” Id., at 1001. In addition, the court concluded that it would not be in the best interests of some “immature” minors — those incapable of giving informed consent — even to inform their parents of their intended abortions. Although the court declined to decide whether the burden of requiring a minor to take her parents to court was, per se, an impermissible burden on her right to seek an abortion, it concluded that Massachusetts could not constitutionally insist that parental permission be sought or notice given “in those cases where a court, if given free rein, would find that it was to the minor’s best interests that one or both of her parents not be informed... Id., at 1002.
Second, the District Court held that § 12S was defective in permitting a judge to veto the abortion decision of a minor found to be capable of giving informed consent. The court reasoned that upon a finding of maturity and informed consent, the State no longer was entitled to impose legal restrictions upon this decision. Id., at 1003. Given such a finding, the court could see “no reasonable basis” for distinguishing between a minor and an adult, and it therefore concluded that § 12S was not only “an undue burden in the due process sense, [but] a discriminatory denial of equal protection [as well].” Id., at 1004.
Finally, the court decided that § 12S suffered from what it termed “formal overbreadth,” ibid., because the statute failed explicitly to inform parents that they must consider only the minor’s best interests in deciding whether to grant consent. The court believed that, despite the Supreme Judicial Court’s construction of § 12S, parents naturally would infer from the statute that they were entitled to withhold consent for other, impermissible reasons. This was thought to create a “chilling effect” by enhancing the possibility that parental consent would be denied wrongfully and that the minor would have to proceed in court.
Having identified these flaws in § 12S, the District Court considered whether it should engage in “judicial repair.” Id., at 1005. It declined either to sever the statute or to give it a construction different from that set out by the Supreme Judicial Court, as that tribunal arguably had invited it to do. See Attorney General, 371 Mass., at 745-746, 360 N. E. 2d, at 292. The District Court therefore adhered to its previous position, declaring § 12S unconstitutional and permanently enjoining its enforcement. Appellants sought review in this Court a second time, and we again noted probable jurisdiction. 439 TJ. S. 925 (1978).
II
A child, merely on account of his minority, is not beyond the protection of the Constitution. As the Court said in In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 13 (1967), “whatever may be their precise impact, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone.” This observation, of course, is but the beginning of the analysis. The Court long has recognized that the status of minors under the law is unique in many respects. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter aptly put it: “Children have a very special place in life which law should reflect. Legal theories and their phrasing in other cases readily lead to fallacious reasoning if uncritically transferred to determination of a State’s duty towards children.” May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 536 (1953) (concurring opinion). The unique role in our society of the family, the institution by which “we inculcate and pass down many, of our most cherished values, moral and cultural,” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503-504 (1977) (plurality opinion), requires that constitutional principles be applied with sensitivity and flexibility to the special needs of parents and children. We have recognized three reasons justifying the conclusion that the constitutional rights of children cannot be equated with those of adults: the peculiar vulnerability of children; their inability to make critical decisions in an informed, mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in child rearing.
A
The Court’s concern for the vulnerability of children is demonstrated in its decisions dealing with minors’ claims to constitutional protection against deprivations of liberty or property interests by the State. With respect to many of these claims, we have concluded that the child’s right is virtually coextensive with that of an adult. For example, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee against the deprivation of liberty without due process of law is applicable to children in juvenile delinquency proceedings. In re Gault, supra. In particular, minors involved in such proceedings are entitled to adequate notice, the assistance of counsel, and the opportunity to confront their accusers. They can be found guilty only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and they may assert the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970) ; In re Gault, supra. See also Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 674 (1977) (corporal punishment of schoolchildren implicates constitutionally protected liberty interest); cf. Breed v. Jones, 421 U. S. 519 (1975) (Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits prosecuting juvenile as an adult after an adjudicatory finding in juvenile court that he had violated a criminal statute). Similarly, in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975), the Court held that children may not be deprived of certain property interests without due process.
These rulings have not been made on the uncritical assumption that the constitutional rights of children are indistinguishable from those of adults. Indeed, our acceptance of juvenile courts distinct from the adult criminal justice system assumes that juvenile offenders constitutionally may be treated differently from adults. In order to preserve this separate avenue for dealing with minors, the Court has said that hearings in juvenile delinquency cases need not necessarily “ ‘conform with all of the requirements of a criminal trial or even of the usual administrative hearing.’ ” In re Gault, supra, at 30, quoting Kent v. United States, 383 U. S. 541, 562 (1966). Thus, juveniles are not constitutionally entitled to trial by jury in delinquency adjudications. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U. S. 528 (1971). Viewed together, our cases show that although children generally are protected by the same constitutional guarantees against governmental deprivations as are adults, the State is entitled to adjust its legal system to account for children’s vulnerability and their needs for “concern,... sympathy, and... paternal attention.” Id., at 550 (plurality opinion).
B
Second, the Court has held that the States validly may limit the freedom of children to choose for themselves in the making of important, affirmative choices with potentially serious consequences. These rulings have been grounded in the recognition that, during the formative years of childhood and adolescence, minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them.
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968), illustrates well the Court’s concern over the inability of children to make mature choices, as the First Amendment rights involved are clear examples of constitutionally protected freedoms of choice. At issue was a criminal conviction for selling sexually oriented magazines to a minor under the age of 17 in violation of a New York state law. It was conceded that the conviction could not have stood under the First Amendment if based upon a sale of the same material to an adult. Id., at 634. Notwithstanding the importance the Court always has attached to First Amendment rights, it concluded that “even where there is an invasion of protected freedoms 'the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults id., at 638, quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 170 (1944). The Court was convinced that the New York Legislature rationally could conclude that the sale to children of the magazines in question presented a danger against which they should be guarded. Ginsberg, supra, at 641. It therefore rejected the argument that the New York law violated the constitutional rights of minors.
C
Third, the guiding role of parents in the upbringing of their children justifies limitations on the freedoms of minors. The State commonly protects its youth from adverse governmental action and from their own immaturity by requiring parental consent to or involvement in important decisions by minors. But an additional and more important justification for state deference to parental control over children is that “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535 (1925). “The duty to prepare the child for ‘additional obligations’... must be read to include the inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs, and elements of good citizenship.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 233 (1972). This affirmative process of teaching, guiding, and inspiring by precept and example is essential to the growth of young people into mature, socially responsible citizens.
We have believed in this country that this process, in large part, is beyond the competence of impersonal political institutions. Indeed, affirmative sponsorship of particular ethical, religious, or political beliefs is something we expect the State not to attempt in a society constitutionally committed to the ideal of individual liberty and freedom of choice. Thus, “[i]t is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 166 (emphasis added).
Unquestionably, there are many competing theories about the most effective way for parents to fulfill their central role in assisting their children on the way to responsible adulthood. While we do not pretend any special wisdom on this subject, we cannot ignore that central to many of these theories, and deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition, is the belief that the parental role implies a substantial measure of authority over one’s children. Indeed, “constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents’ claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society.” Ginsberg v. New York, supra, at 639.
Properly understood, then, the tradition of parental authority is not inconsistent with our tradition of individual liberty; rather, the former is one of the basic presuppositions of the latter. Legal restrictions on minors, especially those supportive of the parental role, may be important to the child’s chances for the full growth and maturity that make eventual participation in a free society meaningful and rewarding. Under the Constitution, the State can “properly conclude that parents and others, teachers for example, who have [the] primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility.” Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S., at 639.
Ill
With these principles in mind, we consider the specific constitutional questions presented by these appeals. In § 12S, Massachusetts has attempted to reconcile the constitutional right of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to choose to terminate her pregnancy as established by Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973), with the special interest of the State in encouraging an unmarried pregnant minor to seek the advice of her parents in making the important decision whether or not to bear a child. As noted above, § 12S was before us in Bellotti I, 428 U. S. 132 (1976), where we remanded the case for interpretation of its provisions by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. We previously had held in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 (1976), that a State could not lawfully authorize an absolute parental veto over the decision of a minor to terminate her pregnancy. Id., at 74. In Bellotti I, supra, we recognized that § 12S could be read as “fundamentally different from a statute that creates a ‘parental veto,’ ” 428 U. S., at 145, thus “avoid [ing] or substantially modify [ing] the federal constitutional challenge to the statute.” Id., at 148. The question before us — in light of what we have said in the prior cases — is whether § 12S, as authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Judicial Court, provides for parental notice and consent in a manner that does not unduly burden the right to seek an abortion. See id., at 147.
Appellees and intervenors contend that even as interpreted by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts § 12S does unduly burden this right. They suggest, for example, that the mere requirement of parental notice constitutes such a burden. As stated in Part II above, however, parental notice and consent are qualifications that typically may be imposed by the State on a minor’s right to make important decisions. As immature minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that take account of both immediate and long-range consequences, a State reasonably may determine that parental consultation often is desirable and in the best interest of the minor. It may further determine, as a general proposition, that such consultation is particularly desirable with respect to the abortion decision — one that for some people raises profound moral and religious concerns. As Mr. Justice Stewart wrote in concurrence in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, supra, at 91:
“There can be little doubt that the State furthers a constitutionally permissible end by encouraging an unmarried pregnant minor to seek the help and advice of her parents in making the very important decision whether or not to bear a child. That is a grave decision, and a girl of tender years, under emotional stress, may be ill-equipped to make it without mature advice and emotional support. It seems unlikely that she will obtain adequate counsel and support from the attending physician at an abortion clinic, where abortions for pregnant minors frequently take place.” (Footnote omitted.)
But we are concerned here with a constitutional right to seek an abortion. The abortion decision differs in important ways from other decisions that may be made during minority. The need to preserve the constitutional right and the unique nature of the abortion decision, especially when made by a minor, require a State to act with particular sensitivity when it legislates to foster parental involvement in this matter.
A
The pregnant minor’s options are much different from those facing a minor in other situations, such as deciding whether to marry. A minor not permitted to marry before the age of majority is required simply to postpone her decision. She and her intended spouse may preserve the opportunity for later marriage should they continue to desire it. A pregnant adolescent, however, cannot preserve for long the possibilty of aborting, which effectively expires in a matter of weeks from the onset of pregnancy.
Moreover, the potentially severe detriment facing a pregnant woman, see Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S., at 153, is not mitigated by her minority. Indeed, considering her probable education, employment skills, financial resources, and emotional maturity, unwanted motherhood may be exceptionally burdensome for a minor. In addition, the fact of having a child brings with it adult legal responsibility, for parenthood, like attainment of the age of majority, is one of the traditional criteria for the termination of the legal disabilities of minority. In sum, there are few situations in which denying a minor the right to make an important decision will have consequences so grave and indelible.
Yet, an abortion may not be the best choice for the minor. The circumstances in which this issue arises will vary widely. In a given case, alternatives to abortion, such as marriage to the father of the child, arranging for its adoption, or assuming the responsibilities of motherhood with the assured support of family, may be feasible and relevant to the minor’s best interests. Nonetheless, the abortion decision is one that simply cannot be postponed, or it will be made by default with far-reaching consequences.
For these reasons, as we held in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S., at 74, “the State may not impose a blanket provision... requiring the consent of a parent or person in loco parentis as a condition for abortion of an unmarried minor during the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy.” Although, as stated in Part II, supra, such deference to parents may be permissible with respect to other choices facing a minor, the unique nature and consequences of the abortion decision make it inappropriate “to give a third party an absolute, and possibly arbitrary, veto over the decision of the physician and his patient to terminate the patient’s pregnancy, regardless of the reason for withholding the consent.” 428 U. S., at 74. We therefore conclude that if the State decides to require a pregnant minor to obtain one or both parents’ consent to an abortion, it also must provide an alternative procedure whereby authorization for the abortion can be obtained.
A pregnant minor is entitled in such a proceeding to show either: (1) that she is mature enough and well enough informed to make her abortion decision, in consultation with her physician, independently of her parents’ wishes; or (2) that even if she is not able to make this decision independently, the desired abortion would be in her best interests. The proceeding in which this showing is made must assure that a resolution of the issue, and any appeals that may follow, will be completed with anonymity and sufficient expedition to provide an effective opportunity for an abortion to be obtained. In sum, the procedure must ensure that the provision requiring parental consent does not in fact amount to the “absolute; and possibly arbitrary, veto” that was found impermissible in Danforth. Ibid.
B
It is against these requirements that § 12S must be tested. We observe initially that as authoritatively construed by the highest court of the State, the statute satisfies some of the concerns that require special treatment of a minor’s abortion decision. It provides that if parental consent is refused, authorization may be “obtained by order of a judge of the superior court for good cause shown, after such hearing as he deems necessary.” A superior court judge presiding over a § 12S proceeding “must disregard all parental objections, and other considerations, which are not based exclusively on what would serve the minor’s best interests.” Attorney General, 371 Mass., at 748, 360 N. E. 2d, at 293. The Supreme Judicial Court also stated: “Prompt resolution of a [§ 12S] proceeding may be expected.... The proceeding need not be brought in the minor’s name and steps may be taken, by impoundment or otherwise, to preserve confidentiality as to the minor and her parents.... ['W] e believe that an early hearing and decision on appeal from a judgment of a Superior Court judge may also be achieved.” Id., at 757-758, 360 N. E. 2d, at 298. The court added that if these expectations were not met, either the superior court, in the exercise of its rulemaking power, or the Supreme Judicial Court would be willing to eliminate any undue burdens by rule or order. Ibid.
Despite these safeguards, which avoid much of what was objectionable in the statute successfully challenged in Dan-jorth, § 12S falls short of constitutional standards in certain respects. We now consider these.
(1)
Among the questions certified to the Supreme Judicial Court was whether § 12S permits any minors — mature or immature — to obtain judicial consent to an abortion without any parental consultation whatsoever. See n. 9, supra. The state court answered that, in general, it does not. “[T]he consent required by [§ 12S must] be obtained for every non-emergency abortion where the mother is less than eighteen years of age and unmarried.” Attorney General, supra, at 750, 360 N. E. 2d, at 294. The text of § 12S itself states an exception to this rule, making consent unnecessary from any parent who has “died or has deserted his or her family.” The Supreme Judicial Court construed the statute as containing an additional exception: Consent need not be obtained “where no parent (or statutory substitute) is available.” 371 Mass., at 750, 360 N. E. 2d, at 294. The court also ruled that an available parent must be given notice of any judicial proceedings brought by a minor to obtain consent for an abortion. Id., at 755-756, 360 N. E. 2d, at 297.
We think that, construed in this manner, § 12S would impose an undue burden upon the exercise by minors of the right to seek an abortion. As the District Court recognized, “there are parents who would obstruct, and perhaps altogether prevent, the minor’s right to go to court.” Baird III, 450 F. Supp., at 1001. There is no reason to believe that this would be so in the majority of cases where consent is withheld. But many parents hold strong views on the subject of abortion, and young pregnant minors, especially those living at home, are particularly vulnerable to their parents’ efforts to obstruct both an abortion and their access to court. It would be unrealistic, therefore, to assume that the mere existence of a legal right to seek relief in superior court provides an effective avenue of relief for some of those who need it the most.
We conclude, therefore, that under state regulation such as that undertaken by Massachusetts, every minor must have the opportunity — if she so desires — to go directly to a court without first consulting or notifying her parents. If she satisfies the court that she is mature and well enough informed to make intelligently the abortion decision on her own, the court must authorize her to act without parental consultation or consent. If she fails to satisfy the court that she is competent to make this decision independently, she must be permitted to show that an abortion nevertheless would be in her best interests. If the court is persuaded that it is, the court must authorize the abortion. If, however, the court is not persuaded by the minor that she is mature or that the abortion would be in her best interests, it may decline to sanction the operation.
There is, however, an important state interest in encouraging a family rather than a judicial resolution of a minor’s abortion decision. Also, as we have observed above, parents naturally take an interest in the welfare of their children— an interest that is particularly strong where a normal family relationship exists and where the child is living with one or both parents. These factors properly may be taken into account by a court called upon to determine whether an abortion in fact is in a minor’s best interests. If, all things considered, the court determines that an abortion is in the minor’s best interests, she is entitled to court authorization without any parental involvement. On the other hand, the court may deny the abortion request of an immature minor in the absence of parental consultation if it concludes that her best interests would be served thereby, or the court may in such a case defer decision until there is parental consultation in which the court may participate. But this is the full extent to which parental involvement may be required. For the reasons stated above, the constitutional right to seek an abortion may not be unduly burdened by state-imposed conditions upon initial access to court.
(2)
.Section 12S requires that both parents consent to a minor’s abortion. The District Court found it to be “custom” tO' perform other medical and surgical procedures on minors with the consent of only one parent, and it concluded that “nothing about abortions... requires the minor’s interest to be treated differently.” Baird I, 393 F. Supp., at 852. See Baird III, supra, at 1004 n. 9.
We are not persuaded that, as a general rule, the requirement of obtaining both parents’ consent unconstitutionally burdens a minor’s right to seek an abortion. The abortion decision has implications far broader than those associated with most other kinds of medical treatment. At least when the parents are together and the pregnant minor is living at home, both the father and mother have an interest — one normally supportive — in helping to determine the course that is in the best interests of a daughter. Consent and involvement by parents in important decisions by minors long have been recognized as protective of their immaturity. In the case of the abortion decision, for reasons we have stated, the focus of the parents’ inquiry should be the best interests of their daughter. As every pregnant minor is entitled in the first instance to go directly to the court for a judicial determination without prior parental notice, consultation, or consent, the general rule with respect to parental consent does not unduly burden the constitutional right. Moreover, where the pregnant minor goes to her parents and consent is denied, she still must have recourse to a prompt judicial determination
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to consider the propriety of an award of counsel fees to a successful plaintiff in a suit brought under § 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 523, 29 TJ. S. C. § 412. On August 6, 1962, at a regular meeting of the membership of petitioner Seafarers International Union of North America — Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District, respondent introduced a set of resolutions alleging various instances of undemocratic actions and shortsighted policies on the part of union officers. The resolutions were defeated and, on November 26, 1962, respondent was expelled from the union on the ground that his presentation of the resolutions violated a union rule proscribing “deliberate or malicious vilification with regard to the execution or the duties of any office or job.” After exhausting his intra-union remedies, respondent filed this suit under § 102 of the LMRDA, claiming that his expulsion under these circumstances violated his right of free speech as secured by § 101 (a) (2) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. §411 (a)(2).
On May 27, 1964, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a temporary injunction restoring respondent’s membership in the union, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 339 F. 2d 881 (1965). Some five years later, the case came on for trial and the District Court, finding a violation of respondent’s rights under § 101 (a)(2), ordered him permanently reinstated to membership in the union and, although denying respondent’s damages claims, granted him counsel fees in the sum of $5,500 against the union. The Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects, 462 F. 2d 777 (1972). We granted certiorari limited to the questions whether (1) an award of attorneys' fees is permissible under § 102 of the LMRDA, and (2) if so, whether such an award under the facts of this case constituted an abuse of the District Court’s discretion. 409 U. S. 1074. We affirm.
I
Although the traditional American rule ordinarily disfavors the allowance of attorneys’ fees in the absence of statutory or contractual authorization, federal courts, in the exercise of their equitable powers, may award attorneys’ fees when the interests of justice so require. Indeed, the power to award such fees “is part of the original authority of the chancellor to do equity in a particular situation,” Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U. S. 161, 166 (1939), and federal courts do not hesitate to exercise this inherent equitable power whenever “overriding considerations indicate the need for such a recovery.” Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S. 375, 391-392 (1970); see Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S. 714, 718 (1967).
Thus, it is unquestioned that a federal court may award counsel fees to a successful party when his opponent has acted “in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 54.77 [2], p. 1709 (2d ed. 1972); see, e. g., Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402 n. 4 (1968); Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U. S. 527 (1962); Bell v. School Bd. of Powhatan County, 321 F. 2d 494 (CA4 1963); Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 186 F. 2d 473 (CA4 1951). In this class of cases, the underlying rationale of “fee shifting” is, of course, punitive, and the essential element in triggering the award of fees is therefore the existence of “bad faith” on the part of the unsuccessful litigant.
Another established exception involves cases in which the plaintiff’s successful litigation confers “a substantial benefit on the members of an ascertainable class, and where the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit makes possible an award that will operate to spread the costs proportionately among them.” Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite, supra, at 393-394. “Fee shifting” is justified in these cases, not because of any “bad faith” of the defendant but, rather, because “[t]o allow the others to obtain full benefit from the plaintiff's efforts without contributing equally to the litigation expenses would be to enrich the others unjustly at the plaintiff's expense.” Id., at 392; see also Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., supra, at 719; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527, 532 (1882). Thus, in Mills y. Electric Auto-Lite Co., supra, we approved an award of attorneys’ fees to successful shareholder plaintiffs in a suit brought to set aside a corporate merger accomplished through the use of a misleading proxy statement in violation of § 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 895, 15 U. S. C. § 78n (a). In reaching this result, we reasoned that, since the dissemination of misleading proxy solicitations jeopardized important interests of both the corporation and “ 'the stockholders as a group,’ ” the successful enforcement of the statutory policy necessarily “rendered a substantial service to the corporation and its shareholders.” Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., supra, at 396. Under these circumstances, reimbursement of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees out of the corporate treasury simply shifted the costs of litigation to “the class that has benefited from them and that would have had to pay them had it brought the suit.” Id., at 397.
The instant case is clearly governed by this aspect of Mills. The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 was based, in part, on a congressional finding “from recent investigations in the labor and management fields, that there have been a number of instances of breach of trust, corruption, disregard of the rights of individual employees, and other failures to observe high standards of responsibility and ethical conduct . . . .” 29 U. S. C. §401 (b). In an effort to eliminate these abuses, Congress recognized that it was imperative that all union members be guaranteed at least “minimum standards of democratic process. ...” Thus, Title I of the LMRDA — the “Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations” — was specifically designed to promote the “full and active participation by the rank and file in the affairs of the union,” and, as the Court of Appeals noted, the rights enumerated in Title I were deemed “vital to the independence of the membership and the effective and fair operation of the union as the representative of its membership.” 462 F. 2d, at 780. See also International Assn. of Machinists v. Nix, 415 F. 2d 212 (CA5 1969); Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F. 2d 445 (CA2 1963).
Viewed in this context, there can be no doubt that, by vindicating his own right of free speech guaranteed by § 101 (a) (2) of Title I of the LMRDA, respondent necessarily rendered a substantial service to his union as an institution and to all of its members. When a union member is disciplined for the exercise of any of the rights protected by Title I, the rights of all members of the union are threatened. And, by vindicating his own right, the successful litigant dispels the “chill” cast upon the rights of others. Indeed, to the extent that such lawsuits contribute to the preservation of union democracy, they frequently prove beneficial “not only in the immediate impact of the results achieved but in their implications for the future conduct of the union’s affairs.” Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America, 150 U. S. App. D. C. 253, 260, 466 F. 2d 424, 431 (1972). Thus, as in Mills, reimbursement of respondent’s attorneys’ fees out of the union treasury simply shifts the costs of litigation to “the class that has benefited from them and that would have had to pay them had it brought the suit.” Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., supra, at 397. See also Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America, supra; Robins v. Schonfeld, 326 F. Supp. 525 (SDNY 1971); Cefalo v. International Union of District 50 United Mine Workers, 311 F. Supp. 946 (DC 1970); Sands v. Abelli, 290 F. Supp. 677 (SDNY 1968). We must therefore conclude that an award of counsel fees to a successful plaintiff in an action under § 102 of the LMRDA falls squarely within the traditional equitable power of federal courts to award such fees whenever “overriding considerations indicate the need for such a recovery.” Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., supra, at 391-392.
II
This does not end our inquiry, however, for even where “fee-shifting” would be appropriate as a matter of equity, Congress has the power to circumscribe such relief. In Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., supra, for example, we held that § 35 of the Lanham Act, 60 St-at. 439, 15 U. S. C. § 1117, precluded an award of attorneys’ fees as a separate element of recovery in a suit for deliberate infringement of a trademark. In reaching that result, we reasoned that, since § 35 “meticulously detailed the remedies available to a plaintiff who proves that his valid trademark has been infringed,” Congress must have intended the express remedial provisions of § 35 “to mark the boundaries of the power to award monetary relief in cases arising under the Act.” Id., at 719, 721. Petitioners contend that this reasoning dictates a similar conclusion with respect to § 102 of the LMRDA. We do not agree. Unlike § 35 of the Lanham Act, which specifically “provided not only for injunctive relief, but also for compensatory recovery measured by the profits that accrued to the defendant by virtue of his infringement, the costs of the action, and damages which may be trebled,” § 102 of the LMRDA broadly authorizes the courts to grant “such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate.” 29 U. S. C. § 412. Thus, § 102 does not “meticulously detail the remedies available to a plaintiff,” and we cannot fairly infer from the language of that provision an intent to deny to the courts the traditional equitable power to grant counsel fees in “appropriate” situations.
Petitioners argue further, however, that because Congress expressly authorized the recovery of counsel fees in §§ 201 (c) and 501 (b) of the LMRDA, 29 U. S. C. §§ 431 (c), 501 (b), the absence of a similar express provision in § 102 indicates an intent to preclude “fee-shifting” in suits brought under that section. Sections 201 (c) and 501 (b), which are not a part of Title I, deal with narrowly defined problems under the Act, and specifically authorize such limited remedies as an examination of the union's books and records and an accounting. By contrast, § 102 was premised upon the fact that Title I litigation necessarily demands that remedies “be tailored to fit facts and circumstances admitting of almost infinite variety,” and § 102 was therefore cast as a broad mandate to the courts to fashion “appropriate” relief. Indeed, any attempt on the part of Congress to spell out all of the remedies available under § 102 would create the “danger that those [remedies] not listed might be proscribed with the result that the courts would be fettered in their efforts to ‘grant relief according to the necessities of the case.’ ” Gartner v. Soloner, 384 F. 2d 348, 353 (CA3 1967). See Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., supra. Confronted with a virtually identical situation in Mills, we explained that the inclusion in certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of express provisions for recovery of attorneys' fees “should not be read as denying to the courts the power to award counsel fees in suits under other sections of the Act when circumstances make such an award appropriate . . . .” 396 U. S., at 390-391. That reasoning is equally persuasive today.
Finally, petitioners call our attention to two isolated comments in the legislative history of Title I — one by Senator Goldwater in his testimony before a House Committee and the other contained in a dissenting statement to a House Committee Report — expressing the fear that, in the absence of a specific provision for the award of counsel fees, such relief would be unavailable in suits brought under § 102. Although these statements plainly indicate “a feeling by some members of the Congress that it would have been desirable and prudent to spell out unmistakably a right to attorney’s fees,” they “hardly amount to a definitive and absolute setting of the Congressional face against the giving of such incidental relief by the courts where compatible with sound and established equitable principles.” Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America, 150 U. S. App. D. C., at 258, 466 F. 2d, at 429. See Gartner v. Soloner. supra, at 352. Indeed, both of these comments expressly favored the allowance of counsel fees in Title I litigation, and there is no suggestion anywhere in the legislative history that even a single member of Congress was opposed to such relief or desired the words “such relief ... as may be appropriate” to restrict the historic equity powers of the federal courts. On the contrary, there are numerous expressions by sponsors and other supporters of the Act indicating that § 102 was intended to afford the courts “a wide latitude to grant relief according to the necessities of the case,” and “to give such relief as [the court] deems equitable under all the circumstances.”
Moreover, the award of attorneys’ fees under § 102 is clearly consonant with Congress’ express desire to adopt “legislation that will afford necessary protection of the rights and interests of employees and the public generally . . . .” 29 U. S. C. § 401 (b). As the Court of Appeals recognized:
“Not to award counsel fees in cases such as this would be tantamount to repealing the Act itself by frustrating its basic purpose. It is difficult for individual members of labor unions to stand up and fight those who are in charge. The latter have the treasury of the union at their command and the paid union counsel at their beck and call while the member is on his own. . . . An individual union member could not carry such a heavy financial burden. Without counsel fees the grant of federal jurisdiction is but a gesture for few union members could avail themselves of it.” 462 F. 2d, at 780-781.
Thus, it is simply “untenable to assert that in establishing the bill of rights under the Act Congress intended to have those rights diminished by the unescapable fact that an aggrieved union member would be unable to finance litigation . . . .” Gartner v. Soloner, supra, at 355. See Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America, supra, at 259, 466 F. 2d, at 430; Robins v. Schonfeld, 326 F. Supp., at 531; Sands v. Abelli, 290 F. Supp., at 686; cf. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S., at 402. We therefore hold that the allowance of counsel fees to the successful plaintiff in a suit brought under § 102 of the LMRDA is consistent with both the Act and the historic equitable power of federal courts to grant such relief in the interests of justice.
Ill
Finally, petitioners maintain that the award of counsel fees to respondent under the facts of this case constituted an abuse of the District Court’s discretion. Specifically, petitioners argue that the District Court’s finding that some of respondent’s actions “were, in part, motivated by [his] political ambitions for union office” represents a finding of “bad faith” on the part of respondent. The District Court clearly rejected the “logic” of this contention, and we agree. Title I of the LMRDA was specifically designed to protect the union member’s right to seek higher office within the union, and we can hardly accept the proposition that the exercise of that right is tantamount to “bad faith.” See Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America, supra, at 259-260, 466 F. 2d, at 430-431.
Petitioners also contend that the award of attorneys' fees in this case was improper because the District Court, in denying respondent’s claim for punitive damages, found that “the defendants, in good faith, believed that they had a right to charge and discipline [respondent] for his actions.” It is clear, however, that “bad faith” may be found, not only in the actions that led to the lawsuit, but also in the conduct of the litigation. And, as the Court of Appeals noted, the conduct of this particular litigation was marked by “the dilatory action of the union and its officers . . . .” 462 F. 2d, at 780. Moreover, although the presence of “bad faith” is essential to “fee-shifting” under a “punishment” rationale, neither the presence nor absence of “bad faith” is in any sense disposi-tive where attorneys’ fees are awarded to the successful plaintiff under the “common benefit” rationale recognized in Mills and operative today. Under that theory, counsel fees are granted, not because of the “bad faith” of the defendant but, rather, because the litigation confers substantial benefits on an ascertainable class of beneficiaries. In that situation, the element of “bad faith” of the defendant is simply one of many considerations best addressed to the sound discretion of the District Court. Under the facts of this case, we cannot say that the District Court abused that discretion.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 102 of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 412, provides in pertinent part:
"Any person whose rights secured by the provisions of this sub-chapter have been infringed by any violation of this subchapter may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate.”
Section 101 (a) (2) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 411 (a) (2), provides:
“Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.”
In its unreported opinion, the District Court found that respondent “suffered no loss of wages as a result of his expulsion from the union.” And although respondent “was deprived of his right to attend meetings, and run for union office” during the period of his expulsion, the District Court concluded that “[t]he record is barren of any proof on which the court might make a determination of the value of [these rights].” Finally, the court denied respondent’s claim for punitive damages on the ground that the union’s decision to expel respondent was motivated neither by malice nor bad faith.
The American rule, it might be noted, is more restrictive than the general rule that prevails in most other nations. See, e. g., Ehrenzweig, Reimbursement of Counsel Fees and the Great Society, 54 Calif. L. Rev. 792, 793 (1966). Many commentators have argued for a “liberalization” of the American rule. See, e. g., Stoebuck, Counsel Fees Included in Costs: A Logical Development, 38 U. Colo. L. Rev. 202 (1966); Ehrenzweig, supra; Kuenzel, The Attorney’s Fee: Why Not a Cost of Litigation?, 49 Iowa L. Rev. 75 (1963); McCormick, Counsel Fees and Other Expenses of Litigation as an Element of Damages, 15 Minn. L. Rev. 619 (1931); Comment, The" Allocation of Attorney’s Fees After Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 316 (1971); Note, Attorney’s Fees: Where Shall the Ultimate Burden Lie?, 20 Vand. L. Rev. 1216 (1967).
See, e. g., Clayton Act, §4, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. §15; Communications Act of 1934, § 206, 48 Stat. 1072, 47 U. S. C. § 206; Interstate Commerce Act, § 16, 34 Stat. 590, 49 U. S. C. § 16 (2); Securities Exchange Act of 1934, §§ 9 (e), 18 (a), 48 Stat. 890, 897, 15 U. S. C. §§ 78i (e), 78r (a).
See, e. g., Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S. 714, 717 (1967); Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483 (1880); Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363 (1852).
This exception has its origins in the “common fund” cases, which have traditionally awarded attorneys’ fees to the successful plaintiff when his representative action creates or traces a “common fund,” the economic benefit of which is shared by all members of the class. See, e. g., Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U. S. 116 (1885); Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527 (1882). In Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U. S. 161 (1939), the rationale of these cases was extended to authorize an award of attorneys’ fees to a successful plaintiff who, although suing on her own behalf rather than as representative of a class, nevertheless established the right of others to recover out of specific assets of the same defendant through the operation of stare decisis. In reaching this result, the Court explained that the beneficiaries of the plaintiff’s litigation could be made to contribute to the costs of the suit by an order reimbursing the plaintiff out of the defendant’s assets from which the beneficiaries eventually would recover. Finally, in Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S. 375 (1970), we held that the rationale of these cases must logically extend, not only to litigation that confers a monetary benefit on others, but also to litigation “ ‘which corrects or prevents an abuse which would be prejudicial to the rights and interests’ ” of those others. Id., at 396, quoting Bosch v. Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Assn., 257 Minn. 362, 366-367, 101 N. W. 2d 423, 427 (1960).
Citing our decisions in Mills, supra, and Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400 (1968), respondent contends that the award of attorneys’ fees in this case might also be justified on the ground that, by successfully prosecuting this litigation, respondent acted as a “ ‘private attorney general,’ vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.” Id., at 402. See also Knight v. Auciello, 453 F. 2d 852 (CA1 1972); Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 444 F. 2d 143 (CA5 1971). In light of our conclusion with respect to the “common benefit” rationale, however, we have no occasion to consider that question.
Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., supra, at 392, quoting J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 432 (1964).
105 Cong. Rec. 6471 (1959) (Sen. McClellan).
29 U. S. C. §§411-415.
American Federation of Musicians v. Wittstein, 379 U. S. 171, 182-183 (1964).
In addition to the Tit. I guarantee of freedom of speech and assembly involved in this case, 29 U. S. C. §411 (a)(2), see n. 2, supra, Tit. I also guarantees equal “political” rights to all union members, 29 U. S. C. § 411 (a) (1); stability and fairness in the assessment of dues, initiation fees, and other assessments, 29 U. S. C. § 411 (a) (3); the right of all union members to sue and to participate in litigation, 29 U. S. C. § 411 (a) (4); and procedural fairness in the discipline process, 29 U. S. C. §411 (a)(5).
Petitioners contend that the payment of counsel fees out of the union treasury might deplete union funds to such an extent as to impair the union’s ability to operate as an effective collective-bargaining agent and to endanger union stability. Although this consideration is undoubtedly an important one, it is relevant, not to the power of federal courts to award counsel fees generally, but, rather, to the exercise of the District Court’s discretion on a case-by-case basis. See n. 23, infra.
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., supra, at 719.
Section 201 (c) provides for the award of counsel fees in a suit brought by a union member to obtain access to union books, records, and accounts to verify annual financial statements. 29 U. S. C. § 431 (c). Section 501 (b) authorizes “fee shifting” in a suit brought by a member against a union official to recover damages or for an accounting for the benefit of the union on the ground that the official is violating his duties. 29 U. S. C. § 501 (b).
Gartner v. Soloner, 384 F. 2d 348, 353 (CA3 1967).
Indeed, the Mills reasoning may be particularly appropriate with respect to the LMRDA. As Professor Cox has noted, “because much of the bill was written on the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives and because many sections contain calculated ambiguities or political compromises . . . , the courts would be well advised to seek out the underlying rationale without placing great emphasis upon close construction of the words,” Cox, Internal Affairs of Labor Unions Under the Labor Reform Act of 1959, 58 Mich. L. Rev. 819, 852 (1960).
In his testimony before the House Committee on Education and Labor, after passage of the Senate version of the LMRDA, Senator Goldwater stated that “the bill does not grant [the union member], even where successful in his suit, reasonable counsel fees or other costs. It thus forces him to assume the entire financial burden of the litigation. For an ordinary rank-and-file union member who is generally a wage worker, such a litigation thus becomes an impossible financial burden.” 105 Cong. Rec. 10095 (1959).
In opposing the reporting of the Elliott bill, H. R. 8342, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959), to the House, the nine dissenting Members of the House Committee on Education and Labor protested that “[u]nder that bill the individual member must shoulder the burden of litigation costs himself.” H. R. Rep. No. 741, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 95 (1959). At the end of their criticisms of the Elliott bill, the dissenters explained that “[f]or the reasons outlined above, we intend to support ... the so-called Landrum-Griffin bill (H. R. 8400 and 8401).” Id., at 98. Thus, although the enforcement provisions of the Elliott bill and the Landrum-Griffin bill were virtually identical, the dissenters apparently believed that the latter, which eventually was enacted, allowed the union member to recover counsel fees.
105 Cong. Rec. 15548 (1959) (Rep. Elliott).
Id., at 6717 (Sen. Kuchel). See id., at 15864 et seq. (Rep. O’Hara); see also 29 U. S. C. §§ 413, 523 (a).
In describing to the Senate the various “offenses” for which a union member could be expelled under then-existing union constitutions, Senator McClellan pointed out in particular the “offense” of “applying for the position of another union man in office.” He observed, with evident sarcasm, that: “A member had better not do that. The officers have squatters’ rights. Members had better not offer any competition. They had better not seek election. They had better not aspire to the presidency or the secretaryship, or they will be expelled or disciplined.” 105 Cong. Rec. 6478 (1959).
Another such consideration is, of course, the extent to which the payment of the plaintiff’s counsel fees out of the union treasury might impair the union’s ability to operate effectively. See n. 13, supra. Here, petitioners do not, and indeed cannot, contend that the award of only $5,500 would in any sense jeopardize union stability.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | F | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a licensee in New York authorized to serve alcoholic beverages and also the holder.of a federal retail liquor dealer’s occupational tax stamp, 26 U. S. C. § 5121 (a), brought this suit to obtain the return of seized liquor and to suppress it as evidence. The District Court granted the relief. The Court of Appeals reversed. 410 F. 2d 197. The case is here on a petition for writ of certiorari which we granted, 396 U. S. 814, to review the decision in light of Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, and See v. City of Seattle, 387 U. S. 541.
Petitioner runs a catering agent, a member of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service, was a guest at a party on petitioner’s premises and noted a possible violation of the federal excise tax law. When federal agents later visited the place, another party was in progress. They noticed that liquor was being served. Without the manager’s consent, they inspected the cellar. Then they asked the manager to open the locked liquor storeroom. He said that the only person authorized to open that room was one Rozzo, petitioner’s president, who was not on the premises. Later Rozzo arrived and refused to open the storeroom. He asked if the agents had a search warrant and they answered that they did not need one. When Rozzo continued to refuse to unlock the room, an agent broke the lock and entered. Then they removed the bottles of liquor now in controversy which they apparently suspected of being refilled contrary to the command of 26 U. S. C. § 5301 (c).
It is provided in 26 U. S. C. § 5146 (b) and in 26 U. S. C. § 7606 that the Secretary of the Treasury or delegate has broad authority to enter and inspect the premises of retail dealers in liquors. And in case of the refusal of a dealer to permit the inspection, it is provided 26 U. S. C. § 7342:
“Any owner of any building or place, or person having the agency or superintendence of the same, who refuses to admit any officer or employee of the Treasury Department acting under the authority of section 7606 (relating to entry of premises for examination of taxable articles) or refuses to permit him examine such article or articles, shall, for every such refusal, forfeit $500.”
The question is whether the imposition of a fine for refusal to permit entry — with the attendant consequences that violation of inspection laws may have in this closely regulated industry — is under this statutory scheme the exclusive sanction, absent a warrant to break and enter.
In Frank v. Maryland, 359 U. S. 360, 366-367, a case involving an inspection under a municipal code, we said:
“[The] inspector has no power to force entry and did not attempt it. A fine is imposed for resistance, but officials are not authorized to break past the unwilling occupant.”
Frank v. Maryland was overruled in Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, insofar as it permitted warrantless searches or inspections under municipal fire, health, and housing codes. The dictum that the provision for a fine on refusal to allow inspection made the use of force improper when there was no warrant was not disturbed ; and the question is whether that dictum contains the controlling principle for this cáse.
The Government, emphasizing that the Fourth Amendment bans only “unreasonable searches and seizures,” relies heavily on the long history of the regulation of the liquor industry during pre-Fourth Amendment days, first in England and later in the American Colonies. It is pointed out, for example, that in 1660 the precursor of modern-day liquor legislation was enacted in England which allowed commissioners to enter, on demand, brewing houses at all times for inspection. Massachusetts had a similar law in 1692. And in 1791, the year in which the Fourth Amendment was ratified, Congress imposed an excise tax on imported distilled spirits and on liquor distilled here, under which law federal officers had broad powers to inspect distilling premises and the premises of the importer without a warrant. From these and later laws and regulations governing the liquor industry, it is argued that Congress has been most solicitous in protecting the revenue against various types of fraud and to that end has repeatedly granted federal agents power to make warrantless searches and seizures of articles under the liquor laws.
The Court recognized the special treatment spection laws of this kind in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 624:
“[I]n the case of excisable or dutiable articles, the government has an interest in them for the payment of the duties thereon, and until such duties paid has a right to keep them under observation, to pursue and drag them from concealment.”
it added:
“The seizure of stolen goods common law; and the seizure of goods forfeited for breach of the revenue laws, or concealed to avoid the duties payable on them, has been authorized by English statutes for at least two centuries past; and the like seizures have been authorized by our own revenue acts from the commencement of the government. The first statute passed by Congress to regulate the collection of duties, the act of July 31, 1789, 1 Stat. 29, 43, contains provisions to this effect. As this act was passed by the same Congress which proposed for adoption the original amendments to the Constitution, it is clear that the members of that body did not regard searches and seizures of this kind as 'unreasonable,’ and they are not embraced within the prohibition of the amendment.” Id., at 623.
We agree that Congress has broad power to such powers of inspection under the liquor laws as it deems necessary to meet the evils at hand. The general rule laid down in See v. City of Seattle, supra, at 545— “that administrative entry, without consent, upon the portions of commercial premises which are not open to the public may only be compelled through prosecution or physical force within the framework of a warrant procedure” — is therefore not applicable here. In See, we reserved decision on the problems of “licensing programs” requiring inspection, saying they can be resolved “on a case-by-case basis under the general Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness.” Id., at 546.
Where Congress has authorized inspection but made no rules governing the procedure that inspectors must follow, the Fourth Amendment and its various restrictive rules apply. We said in the See case:
“The businessman, like the occupant of a residence, has a constitutional right to go about his business free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property. The businessman, too, has that right placed in jeopardy if the decision to enter and inspect for violation of regulatory laws can be made and enforced by the inspector in the field without official authority evidenced by a warrant.” Id., at 543.
What was said in See reflects this Nation’s traditions that are strongly opposed to using force without definite authority to break down doors. We deal here with the liquor industry long subject to close supervision and inspection. As respects that industry, and its various branches including retailers, Congress has broad authority to fashion standards of reasonableness for searches and seizures. Under the existing statutes, Congress selected a standard that does not include forcible entries without a warrant. It resolved the issue, not by authorizing forcible, warrantless entries, but by making it an offense for a licensee to refuse admission to the inspector.
Reversed.
26 U. S. C. § 5146 (b) provides:
or his delegate may enter during business hours premises (including places of storage) of any dealer for the purpose of inspecting or examining any records or other documents required to be kept by such dealer under this chapter or regulations issued pursuant thereto and any distilled spirits, wines, or beer or stored by such dealer on such premises.”
26 U. S. C. § 7606 provides:
“(a) Entry during day.
“The Secretary or his delegate may enter, in the daytime, any building or place where any articles or objects subject to tax are made, produced, or kept, so far as it may be necessary for the purpose of examining said articles or objects.
“(b) Entry at night.
are open Secretary or his delegate may enter them while so open, in the performance of his duties.”
As defined in 26 U. S. C. § 5122 (a).
And see United States v. Frisch, 140 F. 2d 660, 662.
The Fourth Amendment reads as follows:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
. 23, § 19.
Act of June 24, 1692, Mass. Acts and Resolves, Vol. 1, 1692-p. 33, c. 5, § 8.
Act of March 3, 1791, 1 Stat. 199.
Section 29 of the Act of March 3, 1791, 1 Stat. 206, provided:
officers of inspection of each survey at all times in the daytime, upon request, to enter into all every the houses, store-houses, ware-houses, buildings and which shall have been [registered] in manner aforesaid, and tasting, gauging or otherwise, to take an account of the quantity, and proofs of the said spirits therein contained; and also to samples thereof, paying for the same the usual price.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellant, a Negro resident of Memphis, Tennessee, brought this class action in the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking a declaration as to his claimed constitutional right, and that of others similarly situated, to travel on buses within that City without being subjected, as required by Tenn. Code Ann., 1955, §§ 65-1704 through 65-1709, to segregated seating arrangements on account of race. An injunction against enforcement of this statute or any other method of state-enforced segregation on Memphis transportation facilities was also sought. Various officials and officers of the City of Memphis, the Memphis Street Railway Company, and one of that Company’s employees were named as defendants. After a hearing a three-judge District Court, without reaching the merits, dismissed the complaint on the ground that no “actual controversy” within the intendment of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201, had been shown, in that appellant had ridden a bus in Memphis on only one occasion and had “boarded the bus for the purpose of instituting this litigation,” and was thus not “representative of a class of colored citizens who do use the buses in Memphis as a means of transportation.”
Of course, the federal courts will not grant declaratory relief in instances where the record does not disclose an “actual controversy.” Public Service Comm’n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237. In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273, this Court said: “The difference between an abstract question and a 'controversy’ contemplated by the Declaratory Judgment Act is necessarily one of degree, and it would be difficult, if it would be possible, to fashion a precise test for determining in every case whether there is such a controversy. Basically, the question in each case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” In the present case we think that the record establishes the existence of an actual controversy which should have been adjudicated by the lower court.
The District Court found that when appellant boarded a Memphis bus on April 26, 1956, and seated himself at the front of the vehicle, the driver told him he must move to the rear, “stating that the law required it because of [his] color”; that following appellant’s refusal to comply, two police officers shortly thereafter boarded the bus and “ordered [appellant] to go to the back of the bus, get off, or be arrested”; and that thereupon appellant left the bus. The record further shows that the appellees intend to enforce this state statute until its unconstitutionality has been finally adjudicated. We do not believe that appellant, in order to demonstrate the existence of an “actual controversy” over the validity of the statute here challenged, was bound to continue to ride the Memphis buses at the risk of arrest if he refused to seat himself in the space in such vehicles assigned to colored passengers. A resident of a municipality who cannot use transportation facilities therein without being subjected by statute to special disabilities necessarily has, we think, a substantial, immediate, and real interest in the validity of the statute which imposes the disability. See Gayle v. Browder, 352 U. S. 903, affirming the decision of a three-judge District Court reported at 142 F. Supp. 707. That the appellant may have boarded this particular bus for the purpose of instituting this litigation is not significant. See Young v. Higbee Co., 324 U. S. 204, 214; Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429, 434-435.
We hold that the court below erred in not proceeding to the merits. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether the District Court properly suppressed the fruits of an unlawful search that did not invade the respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights.
I
Respondent Jack Payner was indicted in September 1976 on a charge of falsifying his 1972 federal income tax return in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1001. The indictment alleged that respondent denied maintaining a foreign bank account at a time when he knew that he had such an account at the Castle Bank and Trust Company of Nassau, Bahama Islands. The Government’s case rested heavily on a loan guarantee agreement dated April 28, 1972, in which respondent pledged the funds in his Castle Bank account as security for a $100,000 loan.
Respondent waived his right to jury trial and moved to suppress the guarantee agreement. With the consent of the parties, the United States District Court for the • Northern District of Ohio took evidence on the motion at a hearing consolidated with the trial on the merits. The court found respondent guilty as charged on the basis of all the evidence. The court also found, however, that the Government discovered the guarantee agreement by exploiting a flagrantly illegal search that occurred on January 15, 1973. The court therefore suppressed “all evidence introduced in the case by the Government with the exception of Jack Payner’s 1972 tax return . . . and the related testimony.” 434 F. Supp. 113, 136 (1977). As the tax return alone was insufficient to demonstrate knowing falsification, the District Court set aside respondent’s conviction.
The events leading up to the 1973 search are not in dispute. In 1965, the Internal Revenue Service launched an investigation into the financial activities of American citizens in the Bahamas. The project, known as “Operation Trade Winds,” was headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla. Suspicion focused on the Castle Bank in 1972, when investigators learned that a suspected narcotics trafficker had an account there. Special Agent Richard Jaffe of the Jacksonville office asked Norman Casper, a private investigator and occasional informant, to learn what he could about the Castle Bank and its depositors. To that end, Casper cultivated his friendship with Castle Bank vice president Michael Wolstencroft. Casper introduced Wolstencroft to Sybol Kennedy, a private investigator and former employee. When Casper discovered that the banker intended to spend a few days in Miami in January 1973, he devised a scheme to gain access to the bank records he knew Wolstencroft would be carrying in his briefcase. Agent Jaffe approved the basic outline of the plan.
Wolstencroft arrived in Miami on January 15 and went directly to Kennedy’s apartment. At about 7:30 p. m., the two left for dinner at a Key Biscayne restaurant. Shortly thereafter, Casper entered the apartment using a key supplied by Kennedy. He removed the briefcase and delivered it to Jaffe.' While the agent supervised the copying of approximately 400 documents taken from the briefcase, a “lookout” observed Kennedy and Wolstencroft at dinner. The observer notified Casper when the pair left the restaurant, and the briefcase was replaced. The documents photographed that evening included papers evidencing a close working relationship between the Castle Bank and the Bank of Perrine, Fla. Subpoenas issued to the Bank of Perrine ultimately uncovered the loan guarantee agreement at issue in this case.
The District Court found that the United States, acting through Jaffe, “knowingly and willfully participated in the unlawful seizure of Michael Wolstencroft’s briefcase....” Id., at 120. According to that court, “the Government affirmatively counsels its agents that the Fourth Amendment standing limitation permits them to purposefully conduct an unconstitutional search and seizure of one individual in order to obtain evidence against third parties. . . .” Id., at 132-133. The District Court also found that the documents seized from Wolstencroft provided the leads that ultimately led to the discovery of the critical loan guarantee agreement. Id., at 123. Although the search did not impinge upon the respondent's Fourth Amendment rights, the District Court believed that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the inherent supervisory power of the federal courts required it to exclude evidence tainted by the Government’s “knowing and purposeful bad faith hostility to any person’s fundamental constitutional rights.” Id., at 129; see id., at 133, 134-135.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in a brief order endorsing the District Court’s use of its supervisory power. 590 F. 2d 206 (1979) (per curiam). The Court of Appeals did not decide the due process question. We granted certiorari, 444 U. S. 822 (1979), and we now reverse.
II
This Court discussed the doctrine of “standing to invoke the [Fourth Amendment] exclusionary rule” in some detail last Term. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 138 (1978). We reaffirmed the established rule that a court may not exclude evidence under the Fourth Amendment unless it finds that an unlawful search or seizure violated the defendant’s own constitutional rights. Id., at 133-140. See, e. g., Brown v. United States, 411 U. S. 223, 229-230 (1973); Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 171-172 (1969); Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377, 389 (1968). And the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded his legitimate expectation of privacy rather than that of a third party. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S., at 143; id., at 149-152 (Powell, J., concurring) ; Combs v. United States, 408 U. S. 224, 227 (1972); Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U. S. 364, 368 (1968).
The foregoing authorities establish, as the District Court recognized, that respondent lacks standing under the Fourth Amendment to suppress the documents illegally seized from Wolstencroft. 434 F. Supp., at 126. The Court of Appeals did not disturb the District Court’s conclusion that “Jack Payner possessed no privacy interest in the Castle Bank documents that were seized from Wolstencroft.” Ibid.; see 590 F. 2d, at 207. Nor do we. United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976), established that a depositor has no expectation of privacy and thus no “protectable Fourth Amendment interest” in copies of checks and deposit slips retained by his bank. Id., at 437; see id., at 442. Nothing in the record supports a contrary conclusion in this case.
The District Court and the Court of Appeals believed, however, that a federal court should use its supervisory power to suppress evidence tainted by gross illegalities that did not infringe the defendant’s constitutional rights. The United States contends that this approach- — as applied in this case— upsets the careful balance of interests embodied in the Fourth Amendment decisions of this Court. In the Government’s view, such an extension of the supervisory power would enable federal courts to exercise a standardless discretion in their application of the exclusionary rule to enforce the Fourth Amendment. We agree with the Government.
Ill
We certainly can understand the District Court’s commendable desire to deter deliberate intrusions into the privacy of persons who are unlikely to become defendants in a criminal prosecution. See 434 F. Supp., at 135. No court should condone the unconstitutional and possibly criminal behavior of those who planned and executed this “briefcase caper.” Indeed, the decisions of this Court are replete with denunciations of willfully lawless activities undertaken in the name of law enforcement. E. g., Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368, 386 (1964); see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandéis, J., dissenting). But our cases also show that these unexceptional principles do not command the exclusion of evidence in every case of illegality. Instead, they must be weighed against the considerable harm that would flow from indiscriminate application of an exclusionary rule.
Thus, the exclusionary rule “has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are most efficaciously served.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348 (1974). The Court has acknowledged that the suppression of probative but tainted evidence exacts a costly toll upon the ability of courts to ascertain the truth in a criminal case. E. g., Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S., at 137-138; United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268, 275-279 (1978); Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 489-491 (1976); see Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 450-451 (1974). Our cases have consistently recognized that unbending application of the exclusionary sanction to enforce ideals of governmental rectitude would impede unacceptably the truth-finding functions of judge and jury. E. g., Stone v. Powell, supra, at 485-489; United States v. Calandra, supra, at 348. After all, it is the defendant, and not the constable, who stands trial.
The same societal interests are at risk when a criminal defendant invokes the supervisory power to suppress evidence seized in violation of a third party’s constitutional rights. The supervisory power is applied with some caution even when the defendant asserts a violation of his own rights. In United States v. Caceres, 440 U. S. 741, 754-757 (1979), we refused to exclude all evidence tainted by violations of an executive department’s rules. And in Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 216 (1960), the Court called for a restrained application of the supervisory power.
“[A]ny apparent limitation upon the process of discovering truth in a federal trial ought to be imposed only upon the basis of considerations which outweigh the genera] need for untrammeled disclosure of competent and relevant evidence in a court of justice.” Ibid.
See also Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 340 (1939).
We conclude that the supervisory power does not authorize a federal court to suppress otherwise admissible evidence on the ground that it was seized unlawfully from a third party not before the court. Our Fourth Amendment decisions have established beyond any doubt that the interest in deterring illegal searches does not justify the exclusion of tainted evidence at the instance of a party who was not the victim of the challenged practices. Rakas v. Illinois, supra, at 137; Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S., at 174-175. The values assigned to the competing interests do not change because a court has elected to analyze the question under the supervisory power instead of the Fourth Amendment. In either case, the need to deter the underlying conduct and the detrimental impact of excluding the evidence remain precisely the same.
The District Court erred, therefore, when it concluded that “society’s interest in deterring [bad faith] conduct by exclusion outweigh [s] society’s interest in furnishing the trier of fact with all relevant evidence.” 434 F. Supp., at 135. This reasoning, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, amounts to a substitution of individual judgment for the controlling decisions of this Court. Were we to accept this use of the supervisory power, we would confer on the judiciary discretionary power to disregard the considered limitations of the law it is charged with enforcing. We hold that the supervisory power does not extend so far.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1001 provides in relevant part:
“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully . . . makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
The unusual sequence of rulings was a byproduct of the consolidated hearing conducted by the District Court. The court initially failed to enter judgment on the merits. At the close of the evidence, it simply granted respondent’s motion to suppress. After the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the Government’s appeal for want of jurisdiction, the District Court vacated the order granting the motion to suppress and entered a verdict of guilty. The court then reinstated its suppression order and set aside the verdict. Respondent does not challenge these procedures.
The United States argued in the District Court and the Court of Appeals that the guarantee agreement was discovered through an independent investigation untainted by the briefcase search. The Government also denied that its agents willfully encouraged Casper’s illegal behavior. For purposes of this opinion, we need not question the District Court’s contrary findings on either point.
We are not persuaded by respondent’s suggestion that the Bahamian law of bank secrecy creates an expectation of privacy not present in United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976). At the outset, it is not clear that secret information regarding this respondent’s account played any role in the investigation that led to the discovery of the critical loan guarantee agreement. See swpra, at 730. Even if the causal link were established, however, respondent’s claim lacks merit. He cites a provision, 1909 Bah. Acts, ch. 4, that is no longer in effect. Bank secrecy is now safeguarded by § 19 of the Banks Act, Bah. Islands Rev. Laws, ch. 96 (1965), as added, 1965 Bah. Acts, No. 65, which provides in relevant part:
“(1) Except for the purpose of the performance of his duties or the exercise of his functions under this Act or when lawfully required to do so by any court of competent jurisdiction within the Colony or under the provisions of any law, no person shall disclose any information relating to the affairs of . . . the customer of a bank which he has acquired in the performance of his duties or the exercise of his functions under this Act.” See also the Banks and Trust Companies Regulation Act, 1965 Bah. Acts, No. 64, § 10, as amended, 1968 Bah. Acts, No. 34, 1969 Bah. Acts, No. 20, 1971 Bah. Acts, No. 15. The statute is hardly a blanket guarantee of privacy. Its application is limited; it is hedged with exceptions; and we have been directed to no authority construing its terms. Moreover, American depositors know that their own country requires them to report relationships with foreign financial institutions. 31 U. S. C. §1121; 31 CFR §103.24 (1979). See generally California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21, 59-63, 71-76 (1974). We conclude that respondent lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Castle Bank records that documented his account.
“The security of persons and property remains a fundamental value which law enforcement officers must respect. Nor should those who flout the rules escape unscathed.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 175 (1969). We note that in 1976 Congress investigated the improprieties revealed in this record. See Oversight Hearings into the Operations of the IRS before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations (Operation Tradewinds, Project Haven, and Narcotics Traffickers Tax Program), 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975). As a result, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue “called off” Operation Trade Winds. Tr. of Oral Arg. 35. The Commissioner also adopted guidelines that require agents to instruct informants on the requirements of the law and to report known illegalities to a supervisory officer, who is in turn directed to notify appropriate state authorities. IR Manual §§ 9373.3 (3), 9373.4 (Manual Transmittal 9-21, Dec. 27, 1977). Although these measures appear on their face to be less positive than one might expect from an agency charged with upholding the law, they do indicate disapproval of the practices found to have been implemented in this case. We cannot assume that similar lawless conduct, if brought to the attention of responsible officials, would not be dealt with appropriately. To require in addition the suppression of highly probative evidence in a trial against a third party would penalize society unnecessarily.
See also Kaufman v. United States, 394 U. S. 217, 237-238 (1969) (Black, J., dissenting); Oaks, Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure, 37 U. Chi. L. Rev. 665, 736-746, 755-756 (1970).
Federal courts may use their supervisory power in some circumstances to exclude evidence taken from the defendant by “willful disobedience of law.” McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 345 (1943); see Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 223 (1960); Rea v. United States, 350 U. S. 214, 216-217 (1956); cf. Hampton v. United States, 425 U. S. 484, 495 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). This Court has never held, however, that the supervisory power authorizes suppression of evidence obtained from third parties in violation of Constitution, statute, or rule. The supervisory power merely permits federal courts to supervise “the administration of criminal justice” among the parties before the bar. McNabb v. United States, supra, at 340.
“The deterrent values of preventing the incrimination of those whose rights the police have violated have been considered sufficient to justify the suppression of probative evidence even though the case against the defendant is weakened or destroyed. We adhere to that judgment. But we are not convinced that the additional benefits of extending the exclusionary rule to other defendants would justify further encroachment upon the public interest in prosecuting those accused of crime and having them acquitted or convicted on the basis of all the evidence which exposes the truth.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S., at 174-175. See also Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 488-489 (1976); United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348 (1974).
The dissent, post, at 746, urges that the balance of interests under the supervisory power differs from that considered in Alderman and like cases, because the supervisory power focuses upon the “need to protect the integrity of the federal courts.” Although the District Court in this case relied upon a deterrent rationale, we agree that the supervisory power serves the “twofold” purpose of deterring illegality and protecting judicial integrity. See post, at 744. As the dissent recognizes, however, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule serves precisely the same purposes. Ibid., citing, inter alia, Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 218 (1979), and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 659-660 (1961). Thus, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, like the supervisory power, is applied in part “to protect the integrity of the court, rather than to vindicate the constitutional rights of the defendant. . . .” Post, at 747; see generally Stone v. Powell, supra, at 486; United States v. Calandra, supra, at 348.
In this case, where the illegal conduct did not violate the respondent’s rights, the interest in preserving judicial integrity and in deterring such conduct is outweighed by the societal interest in presenting probative evidence to the trier to fact. See the first paragraph, supra; see also, e. g., Stone v. Powell, supra, at 485-486. None of the cases cited by the dissent, post, at 7444745, supports a contrary view, since none of those cases involved criminal defendants who were not themselves the victims of the challenged practices. Thus, our decision today does not limit the traditional scope of the supervisory power in any way; nor does it render that power “superfluous.” Post, at 748. We merely reject its use as a substitute for established Fourth Amendment doctrine.
The same difficulty attends respondent’s claim to the protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Appeals expressly declined to consider the Due Process Clause. But even if we assume that the unlawful briefcase search was so outrageous as to offend fundamental “ ‘canons of decency and fairness/ ” Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 169 (1952), quoting Malinshi v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 417 (1945) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.), the fact remains that “[t]he limitations of the Due Process Clause . . . come into play only when the Government activity in question violates some protected right of the defendant,” Hampton v. United States, supra, at 490 (plurality opinion).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U. S. 134 (1985), we held that a participant in a disability plan that paid a fixed level of bénefits could not bring suit under § 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 891, 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(2), to recover consequential damages arising from delay in the processing of her claim. In this case we consider whether that statutory provision authorizes a participant in a defined contribution pension plan to sue a fiduciary whose alleged misconduct impaired the value of plan assets in the participant’s individual account. Relying on our decision in Russell, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that § 502(a)(2) “provides remedies only for entire plans, not for individuals. . . . Recovery under this subsection must ‘inure[ ] to the benefit of the plan as a whole,’ not to particular persons with rights under the plan.” 450 F. 3d 570, 572-573 (2006) (quoting Russell, 473 U. S., at 140). While language in our Russell opinion is consistent with that conclusion, the rationale for Russell’s holding supports the opposite result in this case.
I
Petitioner filed this action in 2004 against his former employer, DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. (DeWolff), and the ERISA-regulated 401(k) retirement savings plan administered by DeWolff (Plan). The Plan permits participants to direct the investment of their contributions in accordance with specified procedures and requirements. Petitioner alleged that in 2001 and 2002 he directed DeWolff to make certain changes to the investments in his individual account, but DeWolff never carried out these directions. Petitioner claimed that this omission “depleted” his interest in the Plan by approximately $150,000, and amounted to a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The complaint sought “ ‘make-whole’ or other equitable relief as allowed by [§ 502(a)(3)],” as well as “such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.” Civil Action No. 2:04-1747-18 (D. S. C.), p. 4, 2 Record, Doc. 1.
Respondents filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the complaint was essentially a claim for monetary relief that is not recoverable under § 502(a)(3). Petitioner countered that he “d[id] not wish for the court to award him any money, but . . . simply want[ed] the plan to properly reflect that which would be his interest in the plan, but for the breach of fiduciary duty.” Reply to Defendants Motion to Dismiss, p. 7, 3 id., Doc. 17. The District Court concluded, however, that since respondents did not possess any disputed funds that rightly belonged to petitioner, he was seeking damages rather than equitable relief available under § 502(a)(3). Assuming, arguendo, that respondents had breached a fiduciary duty, the District Court nonetheless granted their motion.
On appeal petitioner argued that he had a cognizable claim for relief under §§ 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Court of Appeals stated that petitioner had raised his § 502(a)(2) argument for the first time on appeal, but nevertheless rejected it on the merits.
Section 502(a)(2) provides for suits to enforce the liability-creating provisions of § 409, concerning breaches of fiduciary duties that harm plans. The Court of Appeals cited language from our opinion in Russell suggesting that these provisions “protect the entire plan, rather than the rights of an individual beneficiary.” 473 U. S., at 142. It then characterized the remedy sought by petitioner as “personal” because he “desires recovery to be paid into his plan account, an instrument that exists specifically for his benefit,” and concluded:
“We are therefore skeptical that plaintiff’s individual remedial interest can serve as a legitimate proxy for the plan in its entirety, as [§ 502(a)(2)] requires. To be sure, the recovery plaintiff seeks could be seen as accruing to the plan in the narrow sense that it would be paid into plaintiff’s personal plan account, which is part of the plan. But such a view finds no license in the statutory text, and threatens to undermine the careful limitations Congress has placed on the scope of ERISA relief.” 450 F. 3d, at 574.
The Court of Appeals also rejected petitioner’s argument that the make-whole relief he sought was “equitable” within the meaning of § 502(a)(3). Although our grant of certiorari, 551 U. S. 1130 (2007), encompassed the § 502(a)(3) issue, we do not address it because we conclude that the Court of Appeals misread § 502(a)(2).
II
As the case comes to us we must assume that respondents breached fiduciary obligations defined in § 409(a), and that those breaches had an adverse impact on the value of the Plan assets in petitioner’s individual account. Whether petitioner can prove those allegations and whether respondents may have valid defenses to the claim are matters not before us. Although the record does not reveal the relative size of petitioner’s account, the legal issue under § 502(a)(2) is the same whether his account includes 1% or 99% of the total assets in the Plan.
As we explained in Russell, and in more detail in our later opinion in Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U. S. 489, 508-512 (1996), § 502(a) of ERISA identifies six types of civil actions that may be brought by various parties. The second, which is at issue in this case, authorizes the Secretary of Labor as well as plan participants, beneficiaries, and fiduciaries, to bring actions on behalf of a plan to recover for violations of the obligations defined in § 409(a). The principal statutory duties imposed on fiduciaries by that section “relate to the proper management, administration, and investment of fund assets,” with an eye toward ensuring that “the benefits authorized by the plan” are ultimately paid to participants and beneficiaries. Russell, 473 U. S., at 142; see also Varity, 516 U. S., at 511-512 (noting that §409’s fiduciary obligations “re-latte] to the plan’s financial integrity” and “reflee[t] a special congressional concern about plan asset management”). The misconduct alleged by petitioner in this case falls squarely within that category.
The misconduct alleged in Russell, by contrast, fell outside this category. The plaintiff in Russell received all of the benefits to which she was contractually entitled, but sought consequential damages arising from a delay in the processing of her claim. 473 U. S., at 136-137. In holding that § 502(a)(2) does not provide a remedy for this type of injury, we stressed that the text of § 409(a) characterizes the relevant fiduciary relationship as one “with respect to a plan,” and repeatedly identifies the “plan” as the victim of any fiduciary breach and the recipient of any relief. See id., at 140. The legislative history likewise revealed that “the crucible of congressional concern was misuse and mismanagement of plan assets by plan administrators.” Id., at 141, n. 8. Finally, our review of ERISA as a whole confirmed that §§ 502(a)(2) and 409 protect “the financial integrity of the plan,” id., at 142, n. 9, whereas other provisions specifically address claims for benefits, see id., at 143-144 (discussing §§ 502(a)(1)(B) and 503). We therefore concluded:
“A fair contextual reading of the statute makes it abundantly clear that its draftsmen were primarily concerned with the possible misuse of plan assets, and with remedies that would protect the entire plan, rather than with the rights of an individual beneficiary.” Id., at 142.
Russell’s emphasis on protecting the “entire plan” from fiduciary misconduct reflects the former landscape of employee benefit plans. That landscape has changed.
Defined contribution plans dominate the retirement plan scene today. In contrast, when ERISA was enacted, and when Russell was decided, “the [defined benefit] plan was the norm of American pension practice.” J. Langbein, S. Stabile, & B. Wolk, Pension and Employee Benefit Law 58 (4th ed. 2006); see also Zelinsky, The Defined Contribution Paradigm, 114 Yale L. J. 451, 471 (2004) (discussing the “significant reversal of historic patterns under which the traditional defined benefit plan was the dominant paradigm for the provision of retirement income”). Unlike the defined contribution plan in this case, the disability plan at issue in Russell did not have individual accounts; it paid a fixed benefit based on a percentage of the employee’s salary. See Russell v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 722 F. 2d 482, 486 (CA9 1983).
The “entire plan” language in Russell speaks to the impact of §409 on plans that pay defined benefits. Misconduct by the administrators of a defined benefit plan will not affect an individual’s entitlement to a defined benefit unless it creates or enhances the risk of default by the entire plan. It was that default risk that prompted Congress to require defined benefit plans (but not defined contribution plans) to satisfy complex minimum funding requirements, and to make premium payments to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for plan termination insurance. See Zelinsky, 114 Yale L. J., at 475-478.
For defined contribution plans, however, fiduciary misconduct need not threaten the solvency of the entire plan to reduce benefits below the amount that participants would otherwise receive. Whether a fiduciary breach diminishes plan assets payable to all participants and beneficiaries, or only to persons tied to particular individual accounts, it creates the kind of harms that concerned the draftsmen of §409. Consequently, our references to the “entire plan” in Russell, which accurately reflect the operation of § 409 in the defined benefit context, are beside the point in the defined contribution context.
Other sections of ERISA confirm that the “entire plan” language from Russell, which appears nowhere in §409 or § 502(a)(2), does not apply to defined contribution plans. Most significant is § 404(c), which exempts fiduciaries from liability for losses caused by participants’ exercise of control over assets in their individual accounts. See also 29 CFR §2550.404c-l (2007). This provision would serve no real purpose if, as respondents argue, fiduciaries never had any liability for losses in an individual account.
We therefore hold that although § 502(a)(2) does not provide a remedy for individual injuries distinct from plan injuries, that provision does authorize recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a participant’s individual account. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Chief Justice Roberts,
with whom Justice Kennedy joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
In the decision below, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the loss to LaRue’s individual plan account did not permit him to “serve as a legitimate proxy for the plan in its entirety,” thus barring him from relief under § 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). 450 F. 3d 570, 574 (2006). The Court today rejects that reasoning. See ante, at 252, 255-256. I agree with the Court that the Fourth Circuit’s analysis was flawed, and join the Court’s opinion to that extent.
The Court, however, goes on to conclude that § 502(a)(2) does authorize recovery in cases such as the present one. See ante, at 255-256. It is not at all clear that this is true. LaRue’s right to direct the investment of his contributions was a right granted and governed by the plan. See ante, at 250-251. In this action, he seeks the benefits that would otherwise be due him if, as alleged, the plan carried out his investment instruction. LaRue’s claim, therefore, is a claim for benefits that turns on the application and interpretation of the plan terms, specifically those governing investment options and how to exercise them.
It is at least arguable that a claim of this nature properly lies only under § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA. That provision allows a plan participant or beneficiary “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). It is difficult to imagine a more accurate description of LaRue’s claim. And in fact claimants have filed suit under § 502(a)(1)(B) alleging similar benefit denials in violation of plan terms. See, e.g., Hess v. Reg-Ellen Machine Tool Corp., 423 F. 3d 653, 657 (CA7 2005) (allegation made under § 502(a)(1)(B) that a plan administrator wrongfully denied instruction to move retirement funds from employer’s stock to a diversified investment account).
If LaRue may bring his claim under § 502(a)(1)(B), it is not clear that he may do so under § 502(a)(2) as well. Section 502(a)(2) provides for “appropriate” relief. Construing the same term in a parallel ERISA provision, we have held that relief is not “appropriate” under § 502(a)(3) if another provision, such as § 502(a)(1)(B), offers an adequate remedy. See Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U. S. 489, 515 (1996). Applying the same rationale to an interpretation of “appropriate” in § 502(a)(2) would accord with our usual preference for construing the “same terms [to] have the same meaning in different sections of the same statute,” Barnhill v. Johnson, 503 U. S. 393, 406 (1992), and with the view that ERISA in particular is a “‘comprehensive and reticulated statute’” with “carefully integrated civil enforcement provisions,” Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U. S. 134, 146 (1985) (quoting Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 U. S. 359, 361 (1980)). In a variety of contexts, some Courts of Appeals have accordingly prevented plaintiffs from recasting what are in essence plan-derived benefit claims that should be brought under § 502(a)(1)(B) as claims for fiduciary breaches under § 502(a)(2). See, e. g., Coyne & Delany Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Va., Inc., 102 F. 3d 712, 714 (CA4 1996). Other Courts of Appeals have disagreed with this approach. See, e. g., Graden v. Conexant Systems Inc., 496 F. 3d 291, 301 (CA3 2007).
The significance of the distinction between a § 502(a)(1)(B) claim and one under § 502(a)(2) is not merely a matter of picking the right provision to cite in the complaint. Allowing a § 502(a)(1)(B) action to be recast as one under § 502(a)(2) might permit plaintiffs to circumvent safeguards for plan administrators that have developed under § 502(a)(1)(B). Among these safeguards is the requirement, recognized by almost all the Courts of Appeals, see Fallick v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 162 F. 3d 410, 418, n. 4 (CA6 1998) (citing cases), that a participant exhaust the administrative remedies mandated by ERISA § 503, 29 U. S. C. § 1133, before filing suit under § 502(a)(1)(B). Equally significant, this Court has held that ERISA plans may grant administrators and fiduciáries discretion in determining benefit eligibility and the meaning of plan terms, decisions that courts may review only for an abuse of discretion. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101, 115 (1989).
These safeguards encourage employers and others to undertake the voluntary step of providing medical and retirement benefits to plan participants, see Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U. S. 200, 215 (2004), and have no doubt engendered substantial reliance interests on the part of plans and fiduciaries. Allowing what is really a claim for benefits under a plan to be brought as a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under § 502(a)(2), rather than as a claim for benefits due “under the terms of the plan,” § 502(a)(1)(B), may result in circumventing such plan terms.
I do not mean to suggest that these are settled questions. They are not. Nor are we in a position to answer them. LaRue did not rely on § 502(a)(1)(B) as a source of relief, and the courts below had no occasion to address the argument, raised by an amicus in this Court, that the availability of relief under § 502(a)(1)(B) precludes LaRue’s fiduciary breach claim. See Brief for ERISA Industry Committee as Amicus Curiae 13-30. I simply highlight the fact that the Court’s determination that the present claim may be brought under § 502(a)(2) is reached without considering whether the possible availability of relief under § 502(a)(1)(B) alters that conclusion. See, e. g., United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U. S. 56, 60, n. 2 (1981) (noting general reluctance to consider arguments raised only by an amicus and not considered by the courts below). In matters of statutory interpretation, where principles of stare decisis have their greatest effect, it is important that we not seem to decide more than we do. I see nothing in today’s opinion precluding the lower courts on remand, if they determine that the argument is properly before them, from considering the contention that LaRue’s claim may proceed only under § 502(a)(1)(B). In any event, other courts in other cases remain free to consider what we have not — what effect the availability of relief under § 502(a)(1)(B) may have on a plan participant’s ability to proceed under § 502(a)(2).
As its names imply, a “defined contribution plan” or “individual account plan” promises the participant the value of an individual account at retirement, which is largely a function of the amounts contributed to that account and the investment performance of those contributions. A “defined benefit plan,” by contrast, generally promises the participant a fixed level of retirement income, which is typically based on the employee’s years of service and compensation. See §§ 3(34) — (35), 88 Stat. 838, 29 U. S. C. §§ 1002(34) — (35); R Schneider & B. Freedman, ERISA: A Comprehensive Guide § 3.02 (2d ed. 2003).
Section 409(a) provides:
“Any person who is a fiduciary with respect to a plan who breaches any of the responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon fiduciaries by
this title shall be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the plan resulting from each such breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of such fiduciary which have been made through use of assets of the plan by the fiduciary, and shall be subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate, including removal of such fiduciary. A fiduciary may also be removed for a violation of section 411 of this Act.” 88 Stat. 886, 29 U. S. C. § 1109(a).
For example, we do not decide whether petitioner made the alleged investment directions in accordance with the requirements specified by the Plan, whether he was required to exhaust remedies set forth in the Plan before seeking relief in federal court pursuant to § 502(a)(2), or whether he asserted his rights in a timely fashion.
The record does not reveal whether the alleged $150,000 injury represents a decline in the value of assets that DeWolff should have sold or an increase in the value of assets that DeWolff should have purchased. Contrary to respondents’ argument, however, § 502(a)(2) encompasses appropriate claims for “lost profits.” See Brief for Respondents 12-13. Under the common law of trusts, which informs our interpretation of ERISA’s fiduciary duties, see Varity, 516 U. S., at 496-497, trustees are “chargeable with . . . any profit which would have accrued to the trust estate if there had been no breach of trust,” including profits forgone because the trustee “fails to purchase specific property which it is his duty to purchase.” 1 Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 205, and Comment i (1957); § 211; see also 3 A. Scott, Law on Trusts §§ 205, 211 (3d ed. 1967).
See, e. g., D. Rajnes, An Evolving Pension System: Trends in Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) Issue Brief No. 249 (Sept. 2002), http://wrvw.ebri.org/pdf/ briefspdf/0902ib.pdf (all Internet materials as visited Jan. 28, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); Facts from EBRI: Retirement Trends in the United States Over the Past Quarter-Century (June 2007), http://www.ebri.org/pdf/publieations/facts/0607fact.pdf.
After our grant of certiorari respondents filed a motion to dismiss the writ, contending that the case is moot because petitioner is no longer a participant in the Plan. While his withdrawal of funds from the Plan may have relevance to the proceedings on remand, we denied their motion because the case is not moot. A plan “participant,” as defined by § 3(7) of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1002(7), may include a former employee with a color-able claim for benefits. See, e. g., Harzewski v. Guidant Corp., 489 F. 3d 799 (CA7 2007).
Sensibly, the Court leaves open the question whether exhaustion may be required of a claimant who seeks recovery for a breach of fiduciary duty under § 502(a)(2). See ante, at 253, n. 3.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, acting under Judicial Code § 239, 28 U. S. C. § 346, has certified the following question for our determination:
“(1) Is the United States a necessary party to a proceeding to determine the heirship of a deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes brought under the Act of June 19 [14], 1918, 40 Stat. 606?”
On January 4, 1935, the County Court of Cherokee County, Oklahoma, decreed that the sole and only heirs of Thompson Downing, a full-blood Cherokee, were his three daughters, the appellees below. Sometime thereafter Peggy Shade brought this suit in an Oklahoma court to claim, as the only heir of Downing’s second wife, an undivided one-fourth interest in Downing’s allotted lands. She attacked the 1935 decree on the ground, among others, that no notice of the pendency of the heirship proceedings had been served on the Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes under the Act of April 12, 1926, 44 Stat. 239, 240-241. Notice of the pendency of the present action was duly served upon the Superintendent and on his motion the cause was removed to the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Judgment was entered for defendants on June 6, 1945, the court holding that the United States was not a necessary party to the 1935 heirship proceedings, and that notice under the 1926 Act was not necessary to the validity of that decree. On appeal, the court below certified the above question for our determination.
The Act of June 14, 1918, 40 Stat. 606, 25 U. S. C. §§ 375, 355, vested in the Oklahoma courts jurisdiction to determine heirship of restricted Indian lands and to entertain proceedings to partition such lands. See §§ 1 and 2. It is a jurisdictional statute only (see United States v. Hellard, 322 U. S. 363, 365) and leaves open the question whether the United States is a necessary or indispensable party to proceedings under either section.
We held in United States v. Hellard, supra, that the United States is a necessary party to partition proceedings brought under § 2 of that Act. That holding was based upon the direct and important interests of the government in the course and outcome of partition proceedings, interests flowing from the statutory restrictions on alienation of allotted lands. Lands partitioned in kind to full-blood Indians remain restricted under § 2. Thus the United States, as guardian of the Indians, is directly interested in obtaining a partition in kind, where that course conforms to its policy of preserving restricted lands for the Indians, or, if a sale is desirable, in insuring that the best possible price is obtained. Moreover, if the lands are both restricted and tax-exempt, it has an interest in the reinvestment of the proceeds of the sale in similarly tax-exempt and restricted lands. Act of June 30, 1932, 47 Stat. 474, 25 U. S. C. § 409a. And there is a further interest in protecting the preferential right of the Secretary of the Interior to purchase the land for another Indian under § 2 of the Act of June 26, 1936, 49 Stat. 1967. For these reasons we held in United States v. Hellard, supra, that the United States was a necessary party to the partition proceedings, even absent a statutory requirement to that effect.
Heirship proceedings, however, present quite different considerations. They involve no governmental interests of the dignity of those involved in partition proceedings. Restrictions on alienation do not prevent inheritance. United States v. Hellard, supra, p. 365. Death of the allottee operates to remove the statutory restrictions on alienation; and the determination of heirship does not of itself involve a sale of land. The heirship proceeding involves only “a determination of the question of fact as to who are the heirs of any deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes.” As such, it is little more than an identification of those who by law are entitled to the lands in question and does not directly affect the restrictions on the land or the land itself. Important as these proceedings may be to the stability of Indian Land titles, they are of primary interest only to the immediate parties. The United States is, indeed, hardly more than a stakeholder in the litigation.
That is the distinction between partition and heirship proceedings which we recognized in United States v. Hellard, supra, pp. 365-366. We adhere to it. Accordingly the question certified is answered “No.”
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Jackson would answer the question in the affirmative because, in their view, the purpose of Congress was to permit the intervention of the United States in cases in which a restricted member of the Five Civilized Tribes is a party and therefore the United States is a necessary party to the proceedings.
-Sec. 3 of the Act, so far as material here, provides: “Any one or more of the parties to a suit in the United States courts in the State of Oklahoma or in the State courts of Oklahoma to which a restricted member of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma, or the restricted heirs or grantees of such Indian are parties, as plaintiff, defendant, or intervenor, and claiming or entitled to claim title to or an interest in lands allotted to a citizen of the Five Civilized Tribes or the proceeds, issues, rents, and profits derived from the same, may serve written notice of the pendency of such suit upon the Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes, and the United States may appear in said cause within twenty days thereafter, or within such extended time as the trial court in its discretion may permit, and after such appearance or the expiration of said twenty days or any extension thereof the proceedings and judgment in said cause shall bind the United States and the parties thereto to the same extent as though no Indian land or question were involved. . . . Provided, That within twenty days after the service of such notice on the Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes or within such extended time as the trial court in its discretion may permit the United States may be, and hereby is, given the right to remove any such suit pending in a State court to the United States district court by filing in such suit in the State court a petition for the removal of such suit into the said United States district court, to be held in the district where such suit is pending, together with the certified copy of the pleadings in such suit served on the Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes as hereinbefore provided. It shall then be the duty of the State court to accept such petition and proceed no further in said suit. . . .” See United States v. Rice, 327 U. S. 742, cf. 61 Stat. 731, 732, § 3 (c); H. R. Rep. No. 740, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4.
Sec. 1 provides: “That a determination of the question of fact as to who are the heirs of any deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians who may die or may have heretofore died, leaving restricted heirs, by the probate court of the State of Oklahoma having jurisdiction to settle the estate of said deceased, conducted in the manner provided by the laws of said State for the determination of heirship in closing up the estates of deceased persons, shall be conclusive of said question . . . .”
Sec. 2 provides: “That the lands of full-blood members of any of the Five Civilized Tribes are hereby made subject to the laws of the State of Oklahoma, providing for the partition of real estate. Any land allotted in such proceedings to a full-blood Indian, or conveyed to him upon his election to take the same at the appraisement, shall remain subject to all restrictions upon alienation and taxation obtaining prior to such partition. In case of a sale under any decree, or partition, the conveyance thereunder shall operate to relieve the land described of all restrictions of every character.”
It is well-settled that Congress has authority to select state agencies to perform such functions. United States v. Hellard, supra, p. 365.
The Act of April 12, 1926, provides in part: “The death of any allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes shall operate to remove all restrictions upon the alienation of said allottee’s land: Provided, That hereafter no conveyance by any full-blood Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes of any interest in lands restricted by section 1 of this Act acquired by inheritance or devise from an allottee of such lands shall be valid unless approved by the county court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of the deceased allottee or testator . . . .” See also 61 Stat. 731, § 1. We do not have before us the question as to whether or not the United States is a necessary party to a proceeding to obtain court approval of a deed under the 1926 Act.
See § 1 of the 1918 Act, note 2, swpra.
See Sen. Rep. No. 330, 65th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1.
Subsequent to the institution of these heirship proceedings, and after the decision in the Hellard case, Congress marked this distinction by providing that the Oklahoma state courts should have exclusive jurisdiction in all actions to determine heirship under § 1 of the 1918 Act and that the United States is not a necessary or indispensable party to such proceedings. 61 Stat. 731, 732, § 3 (a) and (b). Moreover, Congress by § 3 of the Act of July 2, 1945, 59 Stat. 313, 314, provided that no order, judgment or decree in partition made subsequent to the 1918 Act and prior to the 1945 Act and involving inherited restricted lands of enrolled and unenrolled members of the Five Civilized Tribes nor any conveyance pursuant thereto should be invalid because the United States was not a party or was not served with any notice or process in connection therewith.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
While Alaska was a Territory, the Territorial Legislature amended L. 1951, c. 116, its taxing statutes, to read, in-relevant part, as follows:
“Section 1. BUSINESSES IN ALASKA FISHERIES REQUIRING LICENSES: AMOUNTS THEREOF. Any person, firm or corporation prosecuting or attempting to prosecute any of the following lines of business in connection with Alaska’s commercial fisheries shall first apply for and obtain, on the conditions hereinafter set forth, a license so to do on the basis of the following license taxes which are hereby levied:
“(b) Freezer ships and other floating cold storages: An annual license tax equal to 4% of the value of the raw halibut, halibut livers and viscera, salmon and bottom fish, shellfish or other fishing resource bought or otherwise obtained for processing through freezing. The value of the raw material under this license shall be the actual price paid for same including indirect considerations such as fuel or supplies furnished by the processor or offsets to the cash value for gear furnished etc. Such value shall apply to the raw material herein mentioned which is procured in company owned or subsidized boats operated by employees of the processor or under lease or other arrangement.”
Respondents use freezer ships for the taking and preservation of salmon along Alaska’s shores. These freezer ships use “catcher boats” which respondénts own or have under contract and which catch salmon off Alaska. The freezer ships sometimes purchase salmon from independent fishermen.
Bristol Bay is a famous fishing ground for salmon. When operating in the Bristol Bay area, the freezer ships anchor more than three miles from the coast, because of the shallow waters in Bristol Bay. They serve as a base for their catcher boats that fish within the territorial waters. In other areas both the freezer ships and the catcher boats stay within the territorial waters.
When the catcher boats — which are shallow-draft and known as gillnetters — have a load or desire to discontinue fishing or when the open season ends, they return to the “mother” ship and unload. The salmon are usually dumped into quick-freezing brine tanks. At other times they are placed in freezing compartments and frozen by blasts of air. The freezer ships eventually return to Puget Sound in the State of Washington where the salmon are canned.
Alaska, when a Territory, brought these suits in the District Court of Alaska for taxes claimed to be due and owing under the foregoing Act. The District Court entered judgments for the plaintiff. 140 F. Supp. 190. It held that the .taking of the fish was the taxable event, not the freezing of the fish.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held that respondents were taxable for fish caught by their catcher boats within territorial waters, even though the freezer ships remained outside the three-mile limit. In its view the catcher boats “operated by the freezer ship itself are but an extension of that ship’s operations.” It held, however, that respondents were not responsible for taxes on fish taken “by independent catcher boats but purchased by the freezer ships” outside territorial waters. There was a rehearing en banc and on the rehearing the Court of Appeals held that the tax incident was not taking fish but “the freezing and cold storage of fish aboard freezer ships.” It held that the tax could not be levied even if the freezer ships received the salmon in territorial waters. It reasoned that the freezing and storage of the fish was an inseparable part of interstate commerce and could not be taxed locally any more than the loading and unloading of interstate carriers. Cf. Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Co., 330 U. S. 422; Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board, 329 U. S. 69. Accordingly it reversed the District Court. 277 F. 2d 120. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the ruling to the new State of Alaska. 364 U. S. 811.
We put to one side the specialized cases such as Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board, supra, which arise under the Export-Import Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, § 10, cl: 2), because none of the salmon involved in these cases was destined to. a foreign country. We also consider irrelevant cases such as Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Co., supra, where a state tax was laid on the gross receipts of a stevedore who was loading and unloading vessels engaged in interstate commerce. A tax on an integral part of an interstate movement might be imposed by other States “with the net effect of prejudicing or unduly burdening commerce” as the Court said in Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Calvert, 347 U. S. 157, 166.
We have no such problem here. This tax is one imposed on those “prosecuting or attempting to prosecute . . . lines of business in connection with Alaska’s commercial fisheries.” The business in question is the one specified in subsection (b): “Freezer ships and other floating cold storages.” To be sure, the tax is computed on the “value” of the fish “bought or otherwise obtained for processing through freezing.” That, however, is the measure of the tax, not the taxable event. The taxable event is “prosecuting” the “business” of “Freezer ships and other floating cold storages.” Part of the business is, of course, transporting frozen fish interstate. Yet it is plain that a freezer ship is more — much more — than an interstate carrier. Part of its business is freezing fish. Yet these ships do more than freeze fish and transport them interstate. Taking the fish directly through their own catcher boats or obtaining them from other fishermen is also a part of respondents’ business. Without the taking or obtaining of the fish, the freezer ship would have no function to perform.
It is clear that Alaska has power to regulate and control activity within her territorial waters, at least in the absence of conflicting federal legislation. Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U. S. 69, 75. That case involved a state law forbidding the use of certain equipment in taking sponges in waters two marine leagues from mean low tide off Florida’s coast. We upheld Florida’s power to regulate sponge fishing in that manner and in that area, as Congress had not adopted any inconsistent regulation. See also Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 393. Alaska’s jurisdiction to tax respondents’ operations within her territorial waters — whether those activities are taking fish or purchasing fish taken by others — is equally clear. See Wisconsin v. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 444; Ott v. Mississippi Barge Line, 336 U. S. 169, 174.
If the fish were taken or purchased outside Alaska’s territorial waters, all of respondents’ business in the Bristol Bay area would be beyond Alaska/s reach. But since some of the fish in all of the cases before us were taken in Alaska’s waters or otherwise acquired there, respondents are engaged in business in Alaska when they operate their “freezer ships.” For we know from this record that in this particular business taking and freezing are practically inseparable. Fish are highly perishable and cannot be kept fresh very long even in Alaska’s latitude. The process of gathering fish either through the catcher boats that are part of respondents’ fleet or through independent operators is a “local activity” (Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Calvert, supra, 166) in a vivid sense of the term. We see no reason why our cases involving the taking of shrimp (Toomer v. Witsell, supra) and the extraction of ore (Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Lord, 262 U. S. 172) are not dispositive of this controversy. The Oliver Iron case is indeed a first cousin of the present case. Here, as there, the tax is an occupation tax. Here, as there, the market for the product obtained locally is interstate, the taking being a step in a process leading to an interstate market. In both the local product is promptly loaded for interstate shipment. But in each there is a preliminary local business being conducted— an occupation, máde up of a series of local activities which the State can constitutionally reach. Catching the fish or obtaining them in other ways from the local market is but an extension of the freezer ship’s operations within Alaska’s waters.
It is claimed that there was no tax on salmon caught and frozen in Alaska and destined for canning in Alaska, and that therefore this law is discriminatory against freezer ships. Alaskan canneries, however, paid a six-percent tax on the value of salmon obtained for canning; and local fish processors, which sell to the fresh-frozen consumer market, paid a one-percent tax. The freezer ships do not compete with those who freeze fish for the retail market. The freezer ships take their catches south for canning. Their competitors are the Alaskan canners; and we know from the record that fish canned locally usually are not frozen. When we look at the tax laid on local canners and those laid on “freezer ships,” there is no discrimination in favor of the former and against the latter. For no matter how the tax on “freezer ships” is computed, it did not exceed the six-percent tax on the local canners. Hence cases such as Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553, 595-596, which hold invalid state laws that prefer local sales over interstate sales, are inapposite. If there is a difference between the taxes imposed on these freezer ships and the taxes imposed on their competitors, they are not so “palpably disproportionate” (Harvester Co. v. Evatt, 329 U. S. 416, 422) as to run afoul of the Commerce Clause. No “iron rule of equality” between taxes laid by a State on different types of business is necessary. Caskey Baking Co. v. Virginia, 313 U. S. 117, 119-121; Morf v. Bingaman, 298 U. S. 407, 414; Capitol Greyhound Lines v. Brice, 339 U. S. 542, 546-547.
The judgment is reversed. Since we do not know how many fish, if any, were obtained outside Alaska’s territorial waters, we remand the cause to the Court of Appeals for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.
One of the respondents is a Washington corporation. Four remaining respondents are partnerships all of whose members are citizens of the United States and residents of either California or Washington. The Pacific Reefer Co. is the owner of the ship Reefer II, as to which a tax lien is asserted to exist by virtue of. the activities of a previous owner. It too is a foreign corporation.
L. 1949, c. 82, § 1 (a), as amended, L. 1951, c. 113, § 1.
L. 1949, c. 97, § 1 (a), as amended, L. 1951, c. 116, § 1.
Fish are sometimes frozen for local canneries when the run is more than the canneries can take care of; but that freezing is merely an adjunct of the local canning industry.
Alaska contends that its territorial waters in the Bristol Bay area reach beyond the usual three-mile limit. That is a claim on the merits of which we express no opinion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Given our decisions today in No. 2, Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; No. 7, Samuels v. Mackell, and No. 9, Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66; No. 4, Boyle v. Landry, ante, p. 77; No. 83, Byrne v. Karalexis, post, p. 216; and No. 41, Dyson v. Stein, post, p. 200, in which we have determined when it is appropriate for a federal court to intervene in the administration of a State’s criminal laws, the disposition of this case should not be difficult.
I
Ledesma and the other appellees- operated a newsstand in the Parish of St. Bernard, Louisiana, where they displayed for sale allegedly obscene magazines, books, and playing cards. As a result of this activity, appellees were charged in four informations filed in state court with violations of Louisiana statute, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:106 (Supp. 1970), and St. Bernard Parish Ordinance 21-60. After the state court proceedings had commenced by the filing of the informations, appellees instituted the instant suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division. Since the appellees sought a judgment declaring a state statute of statewide application unconstitutional, together with an injunction against pending or future prosecutions under the statute, a three-judge court was convened. That court held the Louisiana statute constitutional on its face, but ruled that the arrests of appellees and the seizure of the allegedly obscene materials were invalid for lack of a prior adversary hearing on the character of the seized materials. Although the three-judge court declined to issue an injunction against the pending or any future prosecutions, it did enter a suppression order and require the return of all the seized material to the appellees. 304 F. Supp. 662, 667-670 (1969). The local district attorney and other law enforcement officers appealed and we set the case for argument but postponed the question of jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 399 U. S. 924 (1970).
It is difficult to imagine a more disruptive interference with the operation of the state criminal process short of an injunction against all state proceedings. Even the three-judge court recognized that its judgment would effectively stifle the then-pending state criminal prosecution.
“In view of our holding that the arrests and seizures in these cases are invalid for want of a prior adversary judicial determination of obscenity, which holding requires suppression and return of the seized materials, the 'prosecutions should be effectively terminated.” 304 F. Supp., at 670. (Emphasis added.)
Moreover, the District Court retained jurisdiction “for the purposes of hereafter entering any orders necessary to enforce” its view of the proper procedures in the then-pending state obscenity prosecution. According to our holding in Younger v. Harris, supra, such federal interference with a state prosecution is improper. The propriety of arrests and the admissibility of evidence in state criminal prosecutions are ordinarily matters to be resolved by state tribunals, see Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117 (1951), subject, of course, to review by certi-orari or appeal in this Court or, in a proper case, on federal habeas corpus. Here Ledesma was free to present his federal constitutional claims concerning arrest and seizure of materials or other matters to the Louisiana courts in the manner permitted in that State. Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate. See Younger v. Harris, supra; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908). There is nothing in the record before us to suggest that Louisiana officials undertook these prosecutions other than in a good-faith attempt to enforce the State’s criminal laws. We therefore hold that the three-judge court improperly intruded into the State’s own criminal process and reverse its orders suppressing evidence in the pending state prosecution and directing the return of all seized materials.
II
After crippling Louisiana’s ability to enforce its criminal statute against Ledesma, the three-judge court expressed the view that the Parish of St. Bernard Ordinance 21-60 was invalid. Although the court below recognized that “it is not the function of a three-judge federal district court to determine the constitutionality or enjoin the enforcement of a local ordinance,” the court nevertheless seized the “opportunity to express its views on the constitutionality of the ordinance.” 304 F. Supp. 662, 670 n. 31 (1969). Judge Boyle, the District Judge who initially referred the action to the three-judge court, adopted that court’s view and declared the parish ordinance invalid. There is considerable question concerning the propriety of issuing a declaratory judgment against a criminal law in the circumstances of this case.
Ill
We are, however, unable to review the decision concerning the local ordinance because this Court has no jurisdiction to review on direct appeal the validity of a declaratory judgment against a local ordinance, such as St. Bernard Parish Ordinance 21-60. Even if an order granting a declaratory judgment against the ordinance had been entered by the three-judge court below (which it had not), that court would have been acting in the capacity of a single-judge court. We held in Moody v. Flowers, 387 U. S. 97 (1967), that a three-judge court was not properly convened to consider the constitutionality of a statute of only local application, similar to a local ordinance. Under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 we have jurisdiction to consider on direct appeal only those civil actions “required ... to be heard and determined” by a three-judge court. Since the constitutionality of this parish ordinance was not “required ... to be heard and determined” by a three-judge panel, there is no jurisdiction in this Court to review that question.
The fact that a three-judge court was properly convened in this case to consider the injunctive relief requested against the enforcement of the state statute, does not give this Court jurisdiction on direct appeal over other controversies where there is no independent jurisdictional base. Even where a three-judge court is properly convened to consider one controversy between two parties, the parties are not necessarily entitled to a three-judge court and a direct appeal on other controversies that may exist between them. See Public Service Comm’n v. Brashear Freight Lines, 306 U. S. 204 (1939).
In this case, the order granting the declaratory judgment was not issued by a three-judge court, but rather by Judge Boyle, acting as a single district judge. The three-judge court stated:
“The view expressed by this court concerning the constitutionality of the ordinance is shared by the initiating federal district judge and is adopted by reference in his opinion issued contemporaneously herewith.” 304 F. Supp., at 670 n. 31. (Emphasis added.)
The last clause of the quoted sentence indicates what, under Moody v. Flowers, must be the case: The decision granting declaratory relief against the Parish of St. Bernard Ordinance 21-60 was the decision of a single federal judge. This fact is confirmed by the orders entered by the two courts. The three-judge court entered the following order at the end of its opinion.
“Accordingly, for the reasons assigned, it is ordered that judgment in both cases be entered decreeing:
“1. That all seized materials be returned, instanter, to those from whom they were seized,
“2. That said materials be suppressed as evidence in any pending or future prosecutions of the plaintiffs,
“3. That the preliminary and permanent injunctions prayed for be denied, and
“4. That jurisdiction be retained herein for the issuance of such further orders as may be necessary and proper.”
The order of the single-judge District Court is as follows:
“For the reasons assigned in the foregoing 3-Judge Court opinion, it is ordered that judgment be entered herein decreeing:
“1. That St. Bernard Parish Ordinance No. 21-60 is unconstitutional.
“2. That jurisdiction be retained herein for the issuance of such further orders as may be necessary and proper.” 304 F. Supp., at 670-671.
The fact that the clerk of the District Court merged these orders into one judgment does not confer jurisdiction upon this Court. In the first place, our jurisdiction cannot be made to turn on an inadvertent error of a court clerk. Second, the jurisdictional statute by its own terms grants a direct appeal from “an order granting or denying” an injunction. 28 U. S. C. § 1253. (Emphasis added.) Since the order entered by the three-judge court omits any reference to declaratory relief, the discussion of such relief in the court’s opinion is dictum.
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it grants injunctive relief. In all other respects the judgment is vacated and the case remanded to the United States District Court with instructions to enter a fresh decree from which the parties may take an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit if they so desire.
It is so ordered.
Under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 an aggrieved party in any civil action required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges “may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying ... an interlocutory or permanent injunction.” The orders directing the suppression of evidence and the return of the seized material were injunctive orders against the appellants. Thus, we have jurisdiction to review those orders.
At the time the instant federal court suit was filed, there was pending in Louisiana state court a criminal prosecution under the parish ordinance. In Samuels v. Mackell, supra, we held that interference with pending state criminal prosecutions by declaratory judgments is subject to the same restrictions curbing federal interference by injunction. Id., at 73. As indicated above, there are no facts present in this record to show that appellees would suffer irreparable injury of the kind necessary to justify federal injunctive interference with the state criminal processes.
Aside from the limited local application of the ordinance, which bars a direct appeal under Moody v. Flowers, 387 U. S. 97 (1967), there is a question whether a successful party can properly maintain an appeal. The statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1253, permits a direct appeal only from an order granting or denying an injunction. The State successfully opposed an injunction against the enforcement of the parish ordinance in the court below and now cannot appeal from its victory. See Gunn v. University Committee to End the War in Viet Nam, 399 U. S. 383, 391 (1970) (White, J., concurring).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Trial of this case should have been before a three-judge District Court convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2282, 2284, as petitioner requested. Her complaint explicitly-sought an -“injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of . . . [an] Act of Congress” — § 352 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U. S. C. § 1484 (a)(1), which provides that a naturalized American citizen shall lose his nationality by “having a continuous residence for three years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated . . . .” The District Court concluded that petitioner’s complaint presented no substantial constitutional issue and denied petitioner’s motion to convene a three-judge court, relying on Lapides v. Clark, 85 U. S. App. D. C. 101, 176 F. 2d 619 (1949), cert. denied, 338 U. S. 860, in which the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had directly upheld the predecessor of a companion provision, § 352 (a)(2) of the 1952 Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1484 (a)(2), which deprived the naturalized American of his citizenship for residing for five years in any foreign state. The Court of Appeals’ per curiam affirmance was also based on Lapides. Although no view is here intimated as to the merits of the constitutional question in the present case, we disagree with the conclusion of the courts below as to the substan-tiality of that issue. The intervening decisions of this Court in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U. S. 44, and Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, reveal that the constitutional questions involving deprivation of nationality which were presented to the district judge were not plainly insubstantial. The single-judge District Court was therefore powerless to dismiss the action on the merits, and should have convened a three-judge court. Ex parte Northern Pac. B. Co., 280 U. S. 142, 144; Stratton v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 282 U. S. 10, 15; Ex parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30; Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713. The judgments below are vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for expeditious action consistent with the views here expressed.
So ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are asked to decide whether the President was acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation’s steel mills. The mill owners argue that the President’s order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative function which the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress and not to the President. The Government’s position is that the order was made on findings of the President that his action was necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitably result from a stoppage of steel production, and that in meeting this grave emergency the President was acting within the aggregate of his constitutional powers as the Nation’s Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. The issue emerges here from the following series of events:
In the latter part of 1951, a dispute arose between the steel companies and their employees over terms and conditions that should be included in new collective bargaining agreements. Long-continued conferences failed to resolve the dispute. On December 18,1951, the employees’ representative, United Steelworkers of America, C. I. O., gave notice of an intention to strike when the existing bargaining agreements expired on December 31. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service then intervened in an effort to get labor and management to agree. This failing, the President on December 22, 1951, referred the dispute to the Federal Wage Stabilization Board to investigate and make recommendations for fair and equitable terms of settlement. This Board’s report resulted in no settlement. On April 4, 1952, the Union gave notice of a nation-wide strike called to begin at 12:01 a. m. April 9. The indispensability of steel as a component of substantially all weapons and other war materials led the President to believe that the proposed work stoppage would immediately jeopardize our national defense and that governmental seizure of'the steel mills was necessary in order to assure the continued availability of steel. Reciting these considerations for his action, the President, a few hours before the strike was to begin, issued Executive Order 10340, a copy of which is attached as an appendix, post, p. 589. The order directed the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of most of the steel mills and keep them running. The Secretary immediately issued his own possessory orders, calling upon the presidents of the various seized companies to serve as operating managers for the United States. They were directed to carry on their activities in accordance with regulations and directions of the Secretary. The next morning the President sent a message to Congress reporting his action. Cong. Rec., April 9, 1952, p. 3962. Twelve days later he sent a second message. Cong. Rec., April 21, 1952, p. 4192. Congress has taken no action.
Obeying the Secretary’s orders under protest, the companies brought proceedings against him in the District Court. Their complaints charged that the seizure was not authorized by an act of Congress or by any constitutional provisions. The District Court was asked to declare the orders of the President and the Secretary invalid and to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions r¿straining their enforcement. Opposing the motion for preliminary injunction, the United States asserted that a strike disrupting steel production for even a brief period would so endanger the well-being and safety of the Nation that the President had “inherent power” to do what he had done — power “supported by the Constitution, by historical precedent, and by court decisions.” The Government also contended that in any event no preliminary injunction should be issued because the companies had made no showing that their available legal remedies were inadequate or that their injuries from seizure would be irreparable. Holding against the Government on all points, the District Court on April 30 issued a preliminary injunction restraining the Secretary from “continuing the seizure and possession of the plants . . . and from acting under the purported authority of Executive Order No. 10340.” 103 F. Supp. 569. On the same day the Court of Appeals stayed the District Court’s injunction. 90 U. S. App. D. C. -, 197 F. 2d 582. Deeming it best that the issues raised be promptly decided by this Court, we granted certiorari on May 3 and set the cause for argument on May 12. 343 U. S. 937.
Two crucial issues have developed: First. Should final determination of the constitutional validity of the President’s order be made in this case which has proceeded no further than the preliminary injunction stage? Second. If so, is the seizure order within the constitutional power of the President?
I.
It is urged that there were non-constitutional grounds upon which the District Court could have denied the preliminary injunction and thus have followed the customary judicial practice of declining to reach and decide constitutional questions until compelled to do so. On this basis it is argued that equity’s extraordinary injunc-tive relief should have been denied because (a) seizure of the companies’ properties did not inflict irreparable damages, and (b) there were available legal remedies adequate to afford compensation for any possible damages which they might suffer. While separately argued by the Government, these two contentions are here closely related, if not identical. Arguments as to both rest in large part on the Government’s claim that should the seizure ultimately be held unlawful, the companies could recover full compensation in the Court of Claims for the unlawful taking. Prior cases in this Court have cast doubt on the right to recover in the Court of Claims on account of properties unlawfully taken by government officials for public use as these properties were alleged to have been. See e. g., Hooe v. United States, 218 U. S. 322, 335-336; United States v. North American Co., 253 U. S. 330, 333. But see Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Corp., 337 U. S. 682, 701-702. Moreover, seizure and governmental operation of these going businesses were bound to result in many present and future damages of such nature as to be difficult, if not incapable, of measurement. Viewing the case this way, and in the light of the facts presented, the District Court saw no reason for delaying decision of the constitutional validity of the orders. We agree with the District Court and can see no reason why that question was not ripe for determination on the record presented. We shall therefore consider and determine that question now.
II.
The President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. There is no statute that expressly authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here. Nor is there any act of Congress to which our attention. has been directed from which such a power can fairly be implied. Indeed, we do not understand the Government to rely on statutory authorization for this seizure. There are two statutes which do authorize the President to take both personal and real property under certain conditions. However, the Government admits that these conditions were not met and that the President’s order was not rooted in either of the statutes. The Government refers to the seizure provisions of one of these statutes (§ 201 (b) of the Defense Production Act) as “much too cumbersome, involved, and time-consuming for the crisis which was at hand.”
Moreover, the use of the seizure technique to solve labor disputes in order to prevent work stoppages was not only unauthorized by any congressional enactment; prior to this controversy, Congress had refused to adopt that method of settling labor disputes. When the Taft-Hartley Act was under consideration in 1947, Congress rejected an amendment which would have authorized such governmental seizures in cases of emergency. Apparently it was thought that the technique of seizure, like that of compulsory arbitration, would interfere with the process of collective bargaining. Consequently, the plan Congress adopted in that Act did not provide for seizure under any circumstances. Instead, the plan sought to bring about settlements by use of the customary devices of mediation, conciliation, investigation by boards of inquiry, and public reports. In some instances temporary injunctions were authorized to provide cooling-off periods. All this failing, unions were left free to strike after a secret vote by employees as to whether they wished to accept their employers’ final settlement offer.
It is clear that if the President had authority to issue the order he did, it must be found in some provision of the Constitution. And it is not claimed that express constitutional language grants this power to the President. The contention is that presidential power should be implied from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution. Particular reliance is placed on provisions in Article II which say that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President . . .”; that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”; and that he “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”
The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President’s military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Government attempts to do so by citing a number of cases upholding broad powers in military commanders engaged in day-to-day fighting in a theater of war. Such cases need not concern us here. Even though “theater of war” be an expanding concept, we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the Nation’s lawmakers, not for its military authorities.
Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President. In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The first section of the first article says that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . . After granting many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The President’s order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress- — it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President. The preamble of the order itself, like that of many statutes, sets out reasons why the President believes certain policies should be adopted, proclaims these policies as rules of conduct to be followed, and again, like a statute, authorizes a government official to promulgate additional rules and regulations consistent with the policy proclaimed and needed to carry that policy into execution. The power of Congress to adopt such public policies as those proclaimed by the order is beyond question. It can authorize the taking of private property for public use. It can make laws regulating the relationships between employers and employees, prescribing rules designed to settle labor disputes, and fixing wages and working conditions in certain fields of our economy. The Constitution does not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.
It is said that other Presidents without congressional authority have taken possession of private business enterprises in order' to settle labor disputes. But even if this be true, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution “in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof.”
The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand.
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
Although the considerations relevant to the legal enforcement of the principle of separation of powers seem to me more complicated and flexible than may appear from what Mr. Justice Black has written, I join his opinion because I thoroughly agree with the application of the principle to the circumstances of this case. Even though such differences in attitude toward this principle may be merely differences in emphasis and nuance, they can hardly be reflected by a single opinion for the Court. Individual expression of views in reaching a common result is therefore important.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Executive Order
Directing the Secretary of Commerce to Take Possession of and Operate the Plants and Facilities of Certain Steel Companies
WHEREAS on December 16, 1950, I proclaimed the existence of a national emergency which requires that the military, naval, air, and civilian defenses of this country be strengthened as speedily as possible to the end that we may be able to repel any and all threats against our national security and to fulfill our responsibilities in the efforts being made throughout the United Nations and otherwise to bring about a lasting peace; and
WHEREAS American fighting men and fighting men of other nations of the United Nations are now engaged in deadly combat with the forces of aggression in Korea, and forces of the United States are stationed elsewhere overseas for the purpose of participating in the defense of the Atlantic Community against aggression; and
WHEREAS the weapons and other materials needed by our armed forces and by those joined with us in the defense of the free world are produced to a great extent in this country, and steel is an indispensable component of substantially all of such weapons and materials; and
WHEREAS steel is likewise indispensable to the carrying out of programs of the Atomic Energy Commission of vital importance to our defense efforts; and
WHEREAS a continuing and uninterrupted supply of steel is also indispensable to the maintenance of the economy of the United States, upon which our military strength depends; and
WHEREAS a controversy has arisen between certain companies in the United States producing and fabricating steel and the elements thereof and certain of their workers represented by the United Steel Workers of America, CIO, regarding terms and conditions of employment; and
WHEREAS the controversy has not been settled through the processes of collective bargaining or through the efforts of the Government, including those of the Wage Stabilization Board, to which the controversy was referred on December 22, 1951, pursuant to Executive Order No. 10233, and a strike has been called for 12:01 A. M., April 9, 1952; and
WHEREAS a work stoppage would immediately jeopardize and imperil our national defense and the defense of those joined with us in resisting aggression, and would add to the continuing danger of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen engaged in combat in the field; and
WHEREAS in order to assure the continued availability of steel and steel products during the existing emergency, it is necessary that the United States take possession of and operate the plants, facilities, and other property of the said companies as hereinafter provided:
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. The Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized and directed to take possession of all or such of the plants, facilities, and other property of the companies named in the list attached hereto, or any part thereof, as he may deem necessary in the interests of national defense; and to operate or to arrange for the operation thereof and to do all things necessary for, or incidental to, such operation.
2. In carrying out this order the Secretary of Commerce may act through or with the aid of such public or private instrumentalities or persons as he may designate; and all Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Commerce to the fullest extent possible in carrying out the purposes of this order.
3. The Secretary of Commerce shall determine and prescribe terms and conditions of employment under which the plants, facilities, and other properties possession of which is taken pursuant to this order shall be operated. The Secretary of Commerce shall recognize the rights of workers to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, adjustment of grievances, or other mutual aid or protection, provided that such activities do not interfere with the operation of such plants, facilities, and other properties.
4. Except so far as the Secretary of Commerce shall otherwise provide from time tó time, the managements of the plants, facilities, and other properties possession of which is taken pursuant to this order shall continue their functions, including the collection and disbursement of funds in the usual and ordinary course of business in the names of their respective companies and by means of any instrumentalities used by such companies.
5. Except so far as the Secretary of Commerce may otherwise direct, existing rights and obligations of such companies shall remain in full force and effect, and there may be made, in due course, payments of dividends on stock, and of principal, interest, sinking funds, and all other distributions upon bonds, debentures, and other obligations, and expenditures may be made for other ordinary corporate or business purposes.
6. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of Commerce further possession and operation by him of any plant, facility, or other property is no longer necessary or expedient in the interest of national defense, and the Secretary has reason to believe that effective future operation is assured, he shall return the possession and operation of such plant, facility, or other property to the company in possession and control thereof at the time possession was taken under this order.
7. The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to prescribe and issue such regulations and orders not inconsistent herewith as he may deem necessary or desirable for carrying out the purposes of this order; and he may delegate and authorize subdelegation of such of his functions under this order as he may deem desirable.
Harry S. Truman.
The White House, April 8, 1952.
This Board was established under Executive Order 10233, 16 Fed. Reg. 3503.
The Selective Service Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 604, 625-627, 50 U. S. C. App. (Supp. IV) § 468; the Defense Production Act of 1950, Tit. II, 64 Stat. 798, as amended, 65 Stat. 132.
93 Cong. Rec. 3637-3645.
93 Cong. Rec. 3835-3836.
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, 152-156, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) §§ 141, 171-180.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | M | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Douglas,,
announced by
Mr. Justice Reed.
This case was brought in the District Court for Mississippi on the grounds of diversity of citizenship. Respondent, a Tennessee corporation, sued petitioner, a resident of Mississippi, for a. broker’s commission alleged to be due for the sale of real estate of petitioner in Mississippi. The District Court found on motion for summary judgment that the contract was void under Mississippi law, since respondent was doing business in Mississippi without qualifying .under a Mississippi statute. It therefore dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The. Court of. Appeals reversed. It reviewed the Mississippi decisions under the Mississippi Statute and concluded that the contract was not void but only unen-, forcible in the Mississippi courts. It held in reliance on David Lupton’s Sons Co. v. Automobile Club, 225 U. S. 489, that the fact that respondent could not sue in the Mississippi courts did not close the doors of the federal court sitting in. that State. Accordingly it reversed the judgment; of the District Court. 168 F. 2d 701. It granted rehearing, 170 F. 2d 74, and reaffirmed its reversal, 170 F. 2d 694.
The case is here on a petition for writ of certiorari which we granted because of the seeming conflict of that holding with our.recent ruling in Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183.
If the Lupton’s Sons case controls, it is clear that the Court of Appeals was right in allowing the action to be maintained in the federal court. In that case, a New York statute provided that no foreign corporation could “maintain any action in this state” without a certificate that it had qualified to do business there. The Court held that a contract on which the corporation could not sue .in the courts of New York by reason of that statute nevertheless could be enforced in the federal court in a diversity suit. The Court said, 225 U. S. p. 500,
“The State could not prescribe the qualifications of suitors in the courts of the United States, and could not deprive of their privileges those who were entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States to resort to the Federal courts for the enfprcement of a valid contract.”
We said in Angel v. Bullington that the case of Lupton’s Sons had become “obsolete” insofar as it was “based on a view, of diversity jurisdiction which came to an end with Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64.” 330 U. S. p. 192. Bullington had sued Angel in a North Carolina court for a deficiency judgment on the sale of realty under a deed of trust. The Supreme Court of North Carolina dismissed the action because of a North Carolina statute which disallowed a deficiency judgment in such a case and which the North Carolina Supreme Court construed to be “a limitation of the jurisdiction of the courts of this State.” 220 N. C. 18, 20, 16 S. E. 2d 411, 412. Thereafter Bullington sued in the federal court of North Carolina by reason of diversity of citizenship. We held that that suit could not be maintained because (1) the prior suit was res judicata; and (2) the policy of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins precluded maintenance in the federal court in diversity cases of suits to which the ■State had closed- its courts.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the latter reason was argumentatory, the real basis of the decision being that Bullington was denied recovery on the doctrine of res judicata. But where a decision rests on two or more grounds, none can be relegated to the category of obiter dictum. United States v. Title Ins. Co., 265 U. S. 472, 486; Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U. S. 611, 623.
Angel v. Bullington in its alternative ground followed the viewof Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99, 108, that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction a federal court is, “in effect, only another court of the State . . . .” In that case we required the federal court in a diversity case to apply the statute of limitations of the State in equity actions and thus to follow local law; as had previously been done in cases involving burden of proof (Cities Service Co. v. Dunlap, 308 U. S. 208; cf. Stoner v. New York Life Ins. Co., 311 U. S. 464); contributory negligence (Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U. S. 109, 117); conflict of laws (Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co., 313 U. S. 487; Griffin v. McCoach, 313 U. S. 498); and accrual of the cause of action (West v. American Tel. & T. Co., 311 U. S. 223). The York case was premised on the theory that a right which local law creates but which it does not supply with a remedy is no right at all for purposes of enforcement in a federal court in a diversity case; that where in such cases one is barred from recovery in the state court, he should likewise be barred in the federal court. The contrary result would create discriminations against citizens of the State in favor of those authorized to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. It was that element of discrimination that Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins was designed to eliminate.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Rutledge dissents. See his dissenting opinion in Nos. 442 and 512, Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., post, p. 557.
Miss.. Code 1942, § 5319, requires a .foreign corporation doing business in the State to file a written power of attorney designating an agent on whom service of process may be had. It also provides, “Any foreign corporation failing to comply with the above provisions shall hot be permitted to bring or maintain any action or suit in any of the courts of this state.” .
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Cour.t.
The issue in this case is whether First Amendment rights were abridged when respondents denied petitioner the use of a municipal facility in Chattanooga, Tenn., for the showing of the controversial rock musical “Hair.” It is established, of course, that the Fourteenth Amendment has made applicable to the States the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, 162 (1943).
I
Petitioner, Southeastern Promotions, Ltd., is a New York corporation engaged in the business of promoting and presenting theatrical productions for profit. On October 29, 1971, it applied for the use of the Tivoli, a privately owned Chattanooga theater under long-term lease to the city, to present “Hair” there for six days beginning November 23. This was to be a road company showing of the musical that had played for three years on Broadway, and had appeared in over 140 cities in the United States.
Respondents are the directors of the Chattanooga Memorial Auditorium, a municipal theater. Shortly after receiving Southeastern's application, the directors met, and, after a brief discussion, voted to reject it. None of them had seen the play or read the script, but they understood from outside reports that the musical, as produced elsewhere, involved nudity and obscenity on stage. Although no conflicting engagement was scheduled for the Tivoli, respondents determined that the production would not be “in the best interest of the community.” Southeastern was so notified but no written statement of reasons was provided.
On November 1 petitioner, alleging that respondents' action abridged its First Amendment rights, sought a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Respondents did not then file an answer to the complaint. A hearing was held on November 4. The District Court took evidence as to the play's content, and respondent Conrad gave the following account of the board’s decision:
“We use the general terminology in turning down the request for its use that we felt it was not in the best interest of the community and I can’t speak beyond that. That was the board’s determination.
“Now, I would have to speak for myself, the policy to which I would refer, as I mentioned, basically indicates that we will, as a board, allow those productions which are clean and healthful and culturally uplifting, or words to that effect. They are quoted in the original dedication booklet of the Memorial Auditorium.” App. 25.
The court denied preliminary relief, concluding that petitioner had failed to show that it would be irreparably harmed pending a final judgment since scheduling was “purely a matter of financial loss or gain” and was compensable.
Southeastern some weeks later pressed for a permanent injunction permitting it to use the larger auditorium, rather than the Tivoli, on Sunday, April 9, 1972. The District Court held three days of hearings beginning April 3. On the issue of obscenity vel non, presented to an advisory jury, it took evidence consisting of the full script and libretto, with production notes and stage instructions, a recording of the musical numbers, a souvenir program, and the testimony of seven witnesses who had seen the production elsewhere. The jury returned a verdict that “Hair” was obscene. The District Court agreed. It concluded that conduct in the production— group nudity and simulated sex — would violate city ordinances and state statutes making public nudity and obscene .acts criminal offenses. This criminal conduct, the court reasoned, was neither speech nor symbolic .speech, and was to be viewed separately from the musical’s speech elements. Being pure conduct, comparable to rape or murder, it was not entitled to First Amendment protection. Accordingly, the court denied the injunction. 341 F. Supp. 465 (1972).
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, by a divided vote, affirmed. 486 F. 2d 894 (1973). The majority relied primarily on the lower court’s reasoning. Neither the judges of the Court of Appeals nor the District Court saw the musical performed. Because of the First Amendment overtones, we granted certiorari. 415 U. S. 912 (1974).
Petitioner urges reversal on the grounds that (1) respondents’ action constituted an unlawful prior restraint, (2) the courts below applied an incorrect standard for the determination of the issue of obscenity vel non, and (3) the record does not support a finding that “Hair” is obscene. We do not reach the latter two contentions, for we agree with the first. We hold that respondents’ rejection of petitioner’s application to use this public forum accomplished a prior restraint under a system lacking in constitutionally required minimal procedural safeguards. Accordingly, on this narrow ground, we reverse.
II
Respondents’ action here is indistinguishable in its censoring effect from the official actions consistently identified as prior restraints in a long line of this Court’s decisions. See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 150-151 (1969); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 322 (1958); Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 293-294 (1951); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 161-162 (1939); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 451-452 (1938). In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the courts to provide relief where public officials had forbidden the plaintiffs the use of public places to say what they wanted to say. The restraints took a variety of forms, with officials exercising control over different kinds of public places under the authority of particular statutes. All, however, had this in common: they gave public officials the power to deny use of a forum in advance of actual expression.
Invariably, the Court has felt obliged to condemn systems in which the exercise of such authority was not bounded by precise and clear standards. The reasoning has been, simply, that the danger of censorship and of abridgment of our precious First Amendment freedoms is too great where officials have unbridled discretion over a forum’s use. Our distaste for censorship — reflecting the natural distaste of a free people — is deep-written in our law.
In each of the cited cases the prior restraint was embedded in the licensing system itself, operating without acceptable standards. In Shuttlesworth the Court held unconstitutional a Birmingham ordinance which conferred upon the city commission virtually absolute power to prohibit any “parade,” “procession,” or “demonstration” on streets or public ways. It ruled that “a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional.” 394 U. S., at 150-151. In Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496 (1939), a Jersey City ordinance that forbade public assembly in the streets or parks without a permit from the local director of safety, who was empowered to refuse the permit upon his opinion that he would thereby prevent “ 'riots, disturbances or disorderly assemblage/ ” was held void on its face. Id., at 516 (opinion of Roberts, J.).
In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940), a unanimous Court held invalid an act which proscribed the solicitation of money or any valuable thing for "any alleged religious, charitable or philanthropic cause” unless that cause was approved by the secretary of the public welfare council. The elements of the prior restraint were clearly set forth:
“It will be noted, however, that the Act requires an application to the secretary of the public welfare council of the State; that he is empowered to determine whether the cause is a religious one, and that the issue of a certificate depends upon his affirmative action. If he finds that the cause is not that of religion, to solicit for it becomes a crime. He is not to issue a certificate as a matter of course. His decision to issue or refuse it involves appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion.” Id., at 305.
The elements of prior restraint identified in Cantwell and other cases were clearly present in the system by which the Chattanooga board regulated the use of its theaters. One seeking to use a theater was required to apply to the board. The board was empowered to determine whether the applicant should be granted permission — in effect, a license or permit — on the basis of its review of the content of the proposed production. Approval of the application depended upon the board's affirmative action. Approval was not a matter of routine; instead, it involved the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion” by the board.
The board's judgment effectively kept the musical off stage. Respondents did not permit the show to go on and rely on law enforcement authorities to prosecute for anything illegal that occurred. Rather, they denied the application in anticipation that the production would violate the law. See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, 735-738 (1971) (White, J., concurring).
Respondents’ action was no less a prior restraint because the public facilities under their control happened to be municipal theaters. The Memorial Auditorium and the Tivoli were public forums designed for and dedicated to expressive activities. There was no question as to the usefulness of either facility for petitioner’s production. There was no contention by the board that these facilities could not accommodate a production of this size. None of the circumstances qualifying as an established exception to the doctrine of prior restraint was present. Petitioner was not seeking to use a facility primarily serving a competing use. See, e. g., Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611 (1968); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U. S. 131 (1966). Nor was rejection of the application based on any regulation of time, place, or manner related to the nature of the facility or applications from other users. See Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 574 (1941); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395, 408 (1953). No rights of individuals in surrounding areas were violated by noise or any other aspect of the production. See Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949). There was no captive audience. See Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298, 304, 306-308 (1974); Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451, 467-468 (1952) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
Whether petitioner might have used some other, privately owned, theater in the city for the production is of no consequence. There is reason to doubt on this record whether any other facility would have served as well as these, since none apparently had the seating capacity, acoustical features, stage equipment, and electrical service that the show required. Even if a privately owned forum had been available, that fact alone would not justify an otherwise impermissible prior restraint. “[0]ne is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.” Schneider v. State, 308 U. S., at 163.
Thus, it does not matter for purposes of this case that the board’s decision might not have had the effect of total suppression of the musical' in the community. Denying use of the municipal facility under the circumstances present here constituted the prior restraint. That restraint was final. It was no mere temporary bar while necessary judicial proceedings were under way.
Only if we were to conclude that live drama is unprotected by the First Amendment — or subject to a totally different standard from that applied to other forms of expression- — could we possibly find no prior restraint here. Each medium of expression, of course, must be assessed for First Amendment purposes by standards suited to it, for each may present its own problems. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 503 (1952); see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969). By its nature, theater usually is the acting out — or singing out— of the written word, and frequently mixes speech with live action or conduct. But that is no reason to hold theater subject to a drastically different standard. For, as was said in Burstyn, supra, at 503, when the Court was faced with the question of what First Amendment standard applies to films:
“[T]he basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary. Those principles, as they have frequently been enunciated by this Court, make freedom of expression the rule. There is no justification in this case for making an exception to that rule.”
Ill
Labeling respondents’ action a prior restraint does not end the inquiry. Prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 n. 10 (1963). See Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 716 (1931); Times Film Corp. v. Chicago, 365 U. S. 43 (1961). We have rejected the contention that the First Amendment’s protection “includes complete and absolute freedom to exhibit, at least once, any and every kind of motion picture . . . 'even if this film contains the basest type of pornography, or incitement to riot, or forceful overthrow of orderly government... .” Id., at 46-47.
Any system of prior restraint, however, “comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S., at 70; New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S., at 714; Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 419 (1971); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U. S. 175, 181 (1968); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S., at 716. The presumption against prior restraints is heavier — and the degree of protection broader — than that against limits on expression imposed by criminal penalties. Behind the distinction is a theory deeply etched in our law; a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand. It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958).
In order to be held lawful, respondents’ action, first, must fit within one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the prohibition against prior restraints, and, second, must have been accomplished with procedural safeguards that reduce the danger of suppressing constitutionally protected speech. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S., at 71. We do not decide whether the performance of “Hair” fits within such an exception or whether, as a substantive matter, the board’s standard for resolving that question was correct, for we conclude that the standard, whatever it may have been, was not implemented by the board under a system with appropriate and necessary procedural safeguards.
The settled rule is that a system of prior restraint “avoids constitutional infirmity only if it takes place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate the dangers of a censorship system.” Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 58 (1965). See United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U. S. 363, 367 (1971); Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U. S. 410, 419-421 (1971); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U. S. 139, 141-142 (1968). See also Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 489-490 (1973); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S., at 70-71; Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436 (1957). In Freedman the Court struck down a state scheme for the licensing of motion pictures, holding “that, because only a judicial determination in an adversary proceeding ensures the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression, only a procedure requiring a judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint.” 380 U. S., at 58. We held in Freedman, and we reaffirm here, that a system of prior restraint runs afoul of the First Amendment if it lacks certain safeguards: First, the burden of instituting judicial proceedings, and of proving that the material is unprotected, must rest on the censor. Second, any restraint prior to judicial review can be imposed only for a specified brief period and only for the purpose of preserving the status quo. Third, a prompt final judicial determination must be assured.
Although most of our cases have pertained to motion picture licensing or censorship, this Court has applied Freedman to the system by which federal customs agents seize imported materials, United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, supra, and to that by which postal officials restrict use of the mails, Blount v. Rizzi, supra. In Blount we held unconstitutional provisions of the postal laws designed to control use of the mails for commerce in obscene materials. The provisions enabled the Postmaster General to halt delivery of mail to an individual and prevent payment of money orders to him. The administrative order became effective without judicial approval, and the burden of obtaining judicial review was placed upon the user.
If a scheme that restricts access to the mails must furnish the procedural safeguards set forth in Freedman, no less must be expected of a system that regulates use of a public forum. Respondents here had the same powers of licensing and censorship exercised by postal officials in Blount, and by boards and officials in other cases.
The theory underlying the requirement of safeguards is applicable here with equal if not greater force. An administrative board assigned to screening stage productions — and keeping off stage anything not deemed culturally uplifting or healthful — may well be less responsive than a court, an independent branch of government, to constitutionally protected interests in free expression. And if judicial review is made unduly onerous, by reason of delay or otherwise, the board's determination in practice may be final.
Insistence on rigorous procedural safeguards under these circumstances is “but a special instance of the larger principle that the freedoms of expression must be ringed about with adequate bulwarks.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S., at 66. Because the line between unconditionally guaranteed speech and speech that may be legitimately regulated is a close one, the “separation of legitimate from illegitimate speech calls for . . . sensitive tools.” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S., at 525. The perils of prior restraint are well illustrated by this case, where neither the Board nor the lower courts could have known precisely the extent of nudity or simulated sex in the musical, or even that either would appear, before the play was actually performed.
Procedural safeguards were lacking here in several respects. The board's system did not provide a procedure for prompt judicial review. Although the District Court commendably held a hearing on petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction within a few days of the board's decision, it did not review the merits of the decision at that time. The question at the hearing was whether petitioner should receive preliminary relief, i. e., whether there was likelihood of success on the merits and whether petitioner would suffer irreparable injury pending full review. Effective review on the merits was not obtained until more than five months later. Throughout, it was petitioner, not the board, that bore the burden of obtaining judicial review. It was petitioner that had the burden of persuasion at the preliminary hearing if not at the later stages of the litigation. Respondents did not file a formal answer to the complaint for five months after petitioner sought review. During the time prior to judicial determination, the restraint altered the status quo. Petitioner was forced to forgo the initial dates planned for the engagement and to seek to schedule the performance at a later date. The delay and uncertainty inevitably discouraged use of the forum.
The procedural shortcomings that form the basis for our decision are unrelated to the standard that the board applied. Whatever the reasons may have been for the board’s exclusion of the musical, it could not escape the obligation to afford appropriate procedural safeguards. We need not decide whether the standard of obscenity applied by respondents or the courts below was sufficiently precise or substantively correct, or whether the production is in fact obscene. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 (1974); Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153 (1974); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972). The standard, whatever it may be, must be implemented under a system that assures prompt judicial review with a minimal restriction of First Amendment rights necessary under the circumstances.
Reversed.
Twice previously, petitioner informally had asked permission to use the Tivoli, and had been refused. In other cities, it had encountered similar resistance and had successfully sought injunctions ordering local officials to permit use of municipal facilities. See Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Mobile, 457 F. 2d 340 (CA5 1972); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of West Palm Beach, 457 F. 2d 1016 (CA5 1972); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Oklahoma City, 459 F. 2d 282 (CA10 1972); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Charlotte, 333 F. Supp. 345 (WDNC 1971) ; Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 334 F. Supp. 634 (ND Ga. 1971). See also P. B. I. C., Inc. v. Byrne, 313 F. Supp. 757 (Mass. 1970), vacated and remanded for further consideration, 413 U. S. 905 (1973). But see Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Oklahoma City, Civil Action No. 72-105 (WD Okla. Mar. 27, 1972), rev’d, 459 F. 2d 282, supra.
The musical had been presented in two Tennessee cities, Memphis and Nashville.
Code of the city of Chattanooga § 2-238. The board’s members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city’s board of commissioners. § 2-237. The chairman, respondent Conrad, is commissioner of public utilities, grounds, and buildings. § 2-236.
Neither did it file at that time a formal motion to dismiss. That motion was made later, on November 22, some time after the initial hearing. An answer was finally filed, pursuant to court order, on March 31, 1972.
The Memorial Auditorium, completed in 1924, was dedicated to the memory of Chattanooga citizens who had “offered their lives” in World War I. The booklet referred to is entitled Souvenir of Dedication of Soldiers & Sailors Auditorium Chattanooga, Tenn. It contains the following:
“It will be [the board's] endeavor to make [the auditorium] the community center of Chattanooga; where civic, educational, religious, patriotic and charitable organizations and associations may have a common meeting place to discuss and further the upbuilding and general welfare of the city and surrounding territory.
“It will not be operated for profit, and no effort to obtain financial returns above the actual operating expenses will be permitted. Instead its purpose will be devoted for cultural advancement, and for clean, healthful, entertainment which will make for the upbuild-ing of a better citizenship.” Exhibit 2, p. 40.
Chattanooga Code:
“Sec. 6-4. Offensive, indecent entertainment.
“It shall be unlawful for any person to hold, conduct or carry on, or to cause or permit to be held, conducted or carried on any motion picture exhibition or entertainment of any sort which is offensive to decency, or which is of an obscene, indecent or immoral nature, or so suggestive as to be offensive to the moral sense, or which is calculated to incite crime or riot.”
“Sec. 25-28. Indecent exposure and conduct.
“It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to appear in a public place in a state of nudity, or to bathe in such state in the daytime in the river or any bayou or stream within the city within sight of any street or occupied premises; or to appear in public in an indecent or lewd dress, or to do any lewd, obscene or indecent act in any public place.”
Tennessee Code Ann. (Supp. 1971):
“39-1013. Sale or loan of material to minor — Indecent exhibits. — It shall be unlawful:
“(a) for any person knowingly to sell or loan for monetary consideration or otherwise exhibit or make available to a minor:
“(1) any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body, which depicts nudity, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors;
“(2) any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter, however reproduced, or sound recording, which contains any matter enumerated in paragraph (1) hereof above, or which contains explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors;
“(b) for any person knowingly to exhibit to a minor for a monetary consideration, or knowingly to sell to a minor an admission ticket or pass or otherwise to admit a minor to premises whereon there is exhibited a motion picture, show or other presentation which, in whole or in part, depicts nudity, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors.” “39-3003. Obscene material — Knowingly selling, distributing or exhibiting — Penalty.—It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly sell, distribute, display, exhibit, possess with the intent to sell, distribute, display or exhibit; or to publish, produce, or otherwise create with the intent to sell, distribute, display or exhibit any obscene material.”
Subsequent to our grant of the petition for certiorari in this case, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that § 39-3007 of the Tennessee Code, which defined “obscene material,” as those words were used in § 39-3003 and related sections, was unconstitutional for failure to satisfy the specificity requirements of Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973). Art Theater Guild, Inc. v. State ex rel. Rhodes, 510 S. W. 2d 258 (1974). Thereafter, a new obscenity statute, Acts 1974 (Adj. S), c. 510, was enacted by the Tennessee Legislature; § 14 of that act specifically repealed the above quoted § 39-3003.
Respondents also contended that production of the musical would violate the standard lease that petitioner would be required to sign. The relevant provision of that lease reads:
“This agreement is made and entered into upon the following express covenants and conditions, all and every one of which the lessee hereby covenants and agrees to and with the lessor to keep and perform:
“1. That said lessee will comply with all laws of the United States and of the State of Tennessee, all ordinances of the City of Chattanooga, and all rules and requirements of the police and fire departments or other municipal authorities of the City of Chattanooga.” Exhibit 3.
With respect to petitioner’s musical, respondents’ determination was that the production would not be "in the best interest of the community.” That determination may have been guided by other criteria: (1) their own requirement, in the words of respondent Conrad, that a production be “clean and healthful and culturally uplifting,” App. 25; or (2) the provisions of the statutes and ordinances prohibiting public nudity and obscenity. Whether or not their exercise of discretion was sufficiently controlled by law, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147 (1969), there can be no doubt that approval of an application required some judgment as to^ the content and quality of the production.
Also important, though unessential to our conclusion, are the classificatory aspects of the board’s decision. A licensing system need not effect total suppression in order to create a prior restraint. In Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, 390 U. S. 676, 688 (1968), it was observed that the evils attendant on prior restraint “are not rendered less objectionable because the regulation of expression is one of classification rather than direct suppression.” In that case, the Court held that a prior restraint was created by a system whereby an administrative board in Texas classified films as “suitable for young persons” or “not suitable for young persons.” The “not suitable” films were not suppressed, but exhibitors were required to have special licenses and to advertise their classification in order to show them. Similarly, in Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58 (1963), the Court held that a system of “informal censorship” working by exhortation and advice sufficiently inhibited expression to constitute a prior restraint and warrant injunctive relief. There, the Court held unconstitutional a system in which a commission was charged with reviewing material “manifestly tending to the corruption of the youth”; it did not have direct regulatory or suppressing functions, but operated by persuasion and intimidation, and these informal methods were found effective.
In the present ease, the board classified the musical as unfit for showing in municipal facilities. It did not make a point of publicizing its finding that “Hair” was not in the “best interest” of the public, but the classification stood as a warning to all concerned, private theater owners and general public alike. There is little in the record to indicate the extent to which the board's action may have affected petitioner’s ability to obtain a theater and attract an audience. The board’s classification, whatever the magnitude of its effect, was not unlike that in Interstate Circuit and Bantam Books.
This case is clearly distinguishable from Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483 (1973). There, state authorities seized a copy of a film, temporarily, in order to preserve it as evidence. Id,., at 490. The Court held that there was not “any form of ‘final restraint,’ in the sense of being enjoined from, exhibition or threatened with destruction.” Ibid. Here, the board did not merely detain temporarily a copy of the script or libretto for the musical. Respondents reached a final decision to bar performance.
See Monaghan, First Amendment “Due Process,” 83 Harv. L. Rev. 518, 522-524 (1970); Emerson, The Doctrine of Prior Restraint, 20 Law & Contemp. Prob. 648, 656-659 (1955).
There was testimony that the musical as performed differed “substantially” from the script, App. 79-80, and that the show was varied to fit the anticipated tastes of different audiences in different parts of the country. Id., at 93. The musical's nude scene, apparently the most controversial portion, was played under varying conditions. No actor was under contractual obligation to perform it, and the number doing so changed from one performance to another, as did the lighting, and the duration of the scene. Id., at 97-98, 23.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question here is whether the interpretation of a so-called patent claim, the portion of the patent document that defines the scope of the patentee’s rights, is a matter of law reserved entirely for the court, or subject to a Seventh Amendment guarantee that a jury will determine the meaning of any disputed term of art about which expert testimony is offered. We hold that the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court.
I
The Constitution empowers Congress “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Art. I, §8, cl. 8. Congress first exercised this authority in 1790, when it provided for the issuance of “letters patent,” Act of Apr. 10, 1790, ch. 7, § 1,1 Stat. 109, which, like their modern counterparts, granted inventors “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented invention,” in exchange for full disclosure of an invention, H. Schwartz, Patent Law and Practice 1, 33 (2d ed. 1995). It has long been understood that a patent must describe the exact scope of an invention and its manufacture to “secure to [the patentee] all to which he is entitled, [and] to apprise the public of what is still open to them.” McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 424 (1891). Under the modern American system, these objectives are served by two distinct elements of a patent document. First, it contains a specification describing the invention “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art... to make and use the same.” 35 U. S. C. § 112; see also 3 E. Lipscomb, Walker on Patents § 10:1, pp. 183-184 (3d ed. 1985) (Lipscomb) (listing the requirements for a specification). Second, a patent includes one or more “claims,” which “particularly poin[t] out and distinctly clai[m] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U. S. C. § 112. “A claim covers and secures a process, a machine, a manufacture, a composition of matter, or a design, but never the function or result of either, nor the scientific explanation of their operation.” 6 Lipscomb §21:17, at 315-316. The claim “define[s] the scope of a patent grant,” 3 id., § 11:1, at 280, and functions to forbid not only exact copies of an invention, but products that go to “the heart of an invention but avoids the literal language of the claim by making a noncritical change,” Schwartz, supra, at 82. In this opinion, the word “claim” is used only in this sense peculiar to patent law.
Characteristically, patent lawsuits charge what is known as infringement, Schwartz, supra, at 75, and rest on allegations that the defendant “without authority ma[de], use[d] or [sold the] patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor_” 35 U. S. C. § 271(a). Victory in an infringement suit requires a finding that the patent claim “covers the alleged infringer’s product or process,” which in turn necessitates a determination of “what the words in the claim mean.” Schwartz, supra, at 80; see also 3 Lipscomb § 11:2, at 288-290.
Petitioner in this infringement suit, Markman, owns United States Reissue Patent No. 33,054 for his “Inventory Control and Reporting System for Drycleaning Stores.” The patent describes a system that can monitor and report the status, location, and movement of clothing in a dry-cleaning establishment. The Markman system consists of a keyboard and data processor to generate written records for each transaction, including a bar code readable by optical detectors operated by employees, who log the progress of clothing through the dry-cleaning process. Respondent Westview's product also includes a keyboard and processor, and it lists charges for the dry-cleaning services on bar-coded tickets that can be read by portable optical detectors.
Markman brought an infringement suit against Westview and Althon Enterprises, an operator of dry-cleaning establishments using Westview’s products (collectively, West-view). Westview responded that Markman’s patent is not infringed by its system because the latter functions merely to record an inventory of receivables by tracking invoices and transaction totals, rather than to record and track an inventory of articles of clothing. Part of the dispute hinged upon the meaning of the word “inventory,” a term found in Markman’s independent claim 1, which states that Mark-man’s product can “maintain an inventory total” and “detect and localize spurious additions to inventory.” The case was tried before a jury, which heard, among others, a witness produced by Markman who testified about the meaning of the claim language.
After the jury compared the patent to Westview’s device, it found an infringement of Markman’s independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10. The District Court nevertheless granted Westview’s deferred motion for judgment as a matter of law, one of its reasons being that the term “inventory” in Markman’s patent encompasses “both cash inventory and the actual physical inventory of articles of clothing.” 772 F. Supp. 1535, 1537-1538 (ED Pa. 1991). Under the trial court’s construction of the patent, the production, sale, or use of a tracking system for dry cleaners would' not infringe Markman’s patent unless the product was capable of tracking articles of clothing throughout the cleaning process and generating reports about their status and location. Since West-view’s system cannot do these things, the District Court directed a verdict on the ground that Westview’s device does not have the “means to maintain an inventory total” and thus cannot “ ‘detect and localize spurious additions to inventory as well, as spurious deletions therefrom,’” as required by claim 1. Id., at 1537.
Markman appealed, arguing it was error for the District Court to substitute its construction of the disputed claim term ‘inventory’ for the construction the jury had presumably given it. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the interpretation of claim terms to be the exclusive province of the court and the Seventh Amendment to be consistent with that conclusion. 52 F. 3d 967 (1995). Markman sought our review on each point, and we granted certiorari. 515 U. S. 1192 (1995). We now affirm.
II
The Seventh Amendment provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved....” U. S. Const., Arndt. 7. Since Justice Story’s day, United States v. Wonson, 28 F. Cas. 745, 750 (No. 16,750) (CC Mass. 1812), we have understood that “[t]he right of trial by jury thus preserved is the right which existed under the English common law when the Amendment was adopted.” Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654, 657 (1985). In keeping with our longstanding adherence to this “historical test,” Wolfram, The Constitutional History of the Seventh Amendment, 57 Minn. L. Rev. 639, 640-643 (1973), we ask, first, whether we are dealing with a cause of action that either was tried at law at the time of the founding or is at least analogous to one that was, see, e. g., Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 417 (1987). If the action in question belongs in the law category, we then ask whether the particular trial decision must fall to the jury in order to preserve the substance of the common-law right as it existed in 1791. See infra, at 377-378.
A
As to the first issue, going to the character of the cause of action, “[t]he form of our analysis is familiar. ‘First we compare the statutory action to 18th-century actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of the courts of law and equity.’” Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 42 (1989) (citation omitted). Equally familiar is the descent of today’s patent infringement action from the infringement actions tried at law in the 18th century, and there is no dispute that infringement cases today must be tried to a jury, as their predecessors were more than two centuries ago. See, e.g., Bramah v. Hardcastle, 1 Carp. P. C. 168 (K. B. 1789).
B
This conclusion raises the second question, whether a particular issue occurring within a jury trial (here the construction of a patent claim) is itself necessarily a jury issue, the guarantee being essential to preserve the right to a jury’s resolution of the ultimate dispute. In some instances the answer to this second question may be easy because of clear historical evidence that the very subsidiary question was so regarded under the English practice of leaving the issue for a jury. But when, as here, the old practice provides no clear answer, see infra, at 378-380, we are forced to make a judgment about the scope of the Seventh Amendment guarantee without the benefit of any foolproof test.
The Court has repeatedly said that the answer to the second question “must depend on whether the jury must shoulder this responsibility as necessary to preserve the ‘substance of the common-law right of trial by jury.’ ” Tull v. United States, supra, at 426 (emphasis added) (quoting Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U. S. 149, 157 (1973)); see also Baltimore & Carolina Line, supra, at 657. ““‘Only those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.’”” Tull v. United States, supra, at 426 (citations omitted); see also Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372, 392 (1943).
The “substance of the common-law right” is, however, a pretty blunt instrument for drawing distinctions. We have tried to sharpen it, to be sure, by reference to the distinction between substance and procedure. See Baltimore & Carolina Line, supra, at 657; see also Galloway v. United States, supra, at 390-391; Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 309 (1920); Walker v. New Mexico & Southern Pacific R. Co., 165 U. S. 593, 596 (1897); but see Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U. S. 717, 727 (1988). We have also spoken of the line as one between issues of fact and law. See Baltimore & Carolina Line, supra, at 657; see also Ex parte Peterson, supra, at 310; Walker v. New Mexico & Southern Pacific R. Co., supra, at 597; but see Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U. S. 273, 288 (1982).
But the sounder course, when available, is to classify a mongrel practice (like construing a term of art following receipt of evidence) by using the historical method, much as we do in characterizing the suits and actions within which they arise. Where there is no exact antecedent, the best hope lies in comparing the modern practice to earlier ones whose allocation to court or jury we do know, cf. Baltimore & Carolina Line, supra, at 659, 660; Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474, 477, 482 (1935), seeking the best analogy we can draw between an old and the new, see Tull v. United States, supra, at 420-421 (we must search the English common law for “appropriate analogies” rather than a “precisely analogous common-law cause of action”).
C
“Prior to 1790 nothing in the nature of a claim had appeared either in British patent practice or in that of the American states,” Lutz, Evolution of the Claims of U. S. Patents, 20 J. Pat. Off Soc. 134 (1938), and we have accordingly found no direct antecedent of modern claim construction in the historical sources. Claim practice did not achieve statutory recognition until the passage of the Act of July 4, 1836, ch. 367, § 6, 5 Stat. 119, and inclusion of a claim did not become a statutory requirement until 1870, Act of July 8,1870, eh. 230, § 26,16 Stat. 201; see 1 A. Deller, Patent Claims § 4, p. 9 (2d ed. 1971). Although, as one historian has observed, as early as 1850 “judges were... beginning to express more frequently the idea that in seeking to ascertain the invention ‘claimed’ in a patent the inquiry should be limited to interpreting the summary, or ‘claim,’ ” Lutz, supra, at 145, “[t]he idea that the claim is just as important if not more important than the description and drawings did not develop until the Act of 1870 or thereabouts.” Deller, supra, §4, at 9.
At the time relevant for Seventh Amendment analogies, in contrast, it was the specification, itself a relatively new development, H. Dutton, The Patent System and Inventive Activity During the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1852, pp. 75-76 (1984), that represented the key to the patent. Thus, patent litigation in that early period was typified by so-called novelty actions, testing whether “any essential part of [the patent had been] disclosed to the public before,” Huddart v. Grimshaw, Dav. Pat. Cas. 265, 298 (K. B. 1803), and “enablement” cases, in which juries were asked to determine whether the specification described the invention well enough to allow members of the appropriate trade to reproduce it, see, e. g., Arkwright v. Nightingale, Dav. Pat. Cas. 37, 60 (C. P. 1785).
The closest 18th-century analogue of modern claim construction seems, then, to have been the construction of specifications, and as to that function the mere smattering of patent cases that we have from this period shows no established jury practice sufficient to support an argument by analogy that today’s construction of a claim should be a guaranteed jury issue. New of the case reports even touch upon the proper interpretation of disputed terms in the specifications at issue, see, e. g., Bramah v. Hardcastle, 1 Carp. P. C. 168 (K. B. 1789); King v. Else, 1 Carp. P. C. 103, Dav. Pat. Cas. 144 (K. B. 1785); Dollond’s Case, 1 Carp. P. C. 28 (C. P. 1758); Administrators of Calthorp v. Waymans, 3 Keb. 710, 84 Eng. Rep. 966 (K. B. 1676), and none demonstrates that the definition of such a term was determined by the jury. This absence of an established practice should not surprise us, given the primitive state of jury patent practice at the end of the 18th century, when juries were still new to the field. Although by 1791 more than a century had passed since the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies, which provided that the validity of any monopoly should be determined in accordance with the common law, patent litigation had remained within the jurisdiction of the Privy Council until 1752 and hence without the option of a jury trial. E. Walterscheid, Early Evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents (Part 3), 77 J. Pat. & Tm. Off. Soc. 771, 771-776 (1995). Indeed, the state of patent law in the common-law courts before 1800 led one historian to observe that “the reported cases are destitute of any decision of importance.... At the end of the eighteenth century, therefore, the Common Law Judges were left to pick up the threads of the principles of law without the aid of recent and reliable precedents.” Hulme, On the Consideration of the Patent Grant, Past and Present, 13 L. Q. Rev. 313,318 (1897). Earlier writers expressed similar discouragement at patent law’s amorphous character, and, as late as the 1830’s, English commentators were irked by enduring confusion in the field. See Dutton, supra, at 69-70.
Markman seeks to supply what the early case reports lack in so many words by relying on decisions like Turner v. Winter, 1 T. R. 602, 99 Eng. Rep. 1274 (K. B. 1787), and Arkwright v. Nightingale, Dav. Pat. Cas. 37 (C. P. 1785), to argue that the 18th-century juries must have acted as definers of patent terms just to reach the verdicts we know they rendered in patent cases turning on enablement or novelty. But the conclusion simply does not follow. There is no more reason to infer that juries supplied plenary interpretation of written instruments in patent litigation than in other cases implicating the meaning of documentary terms, and we do know that in other kinds of cases during this period judges, not juries, ordinarily construed written documents. The probability that the judges were doing the same thing in the patent litigation of the time is confirmed by the fact that as soon as the English reports did begin to describe the construction of patent documents, they show the judges construing the terms of the specifications. See Bovill v. Moore, Dav. Pat. Cas. 361, 399, 404 (C. P. 1816) (judge submits question of novelty to the jury only after explaining some of the language and “stat[ing] in what terms the specification runs”); cf. Russell v. Cowley & Dixon, Webs. Pat. Cas. 457, 467-470 (Exch. 1834) (construing the terms of the specification in reviewing a verdict); Haworth v. Hardcastle, Webs. Pat. Cas. 480, 484-485 (1834) (same). This evidence is in fact buttressed by cases from this Court; when they first reveal actual practice, the practice revealed is of the judge construing the patent. See, e. g., Winans v. New York & Erie R. Co., 21 How. 88, 100 (1859); Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330, 338 (1854); Hogg v. Emerson, 6 How. 437, 484 (1848); cf. Parker v. Hulme, 18 F. Cas. 1138 (No. 10,740) (CC ED Pa. 1849). These indications of our patent practice are the more impressive for being all of a piece with what we know about the analogous contemporary practice of interpreting terms within a land patent, where it fell to the judge, not the jury, to construe the words.
D
Losing, then, on the contention that juries generally had interpretive responsibilities during the 18th century, Mark-man seeks a different anchor for analogy in the more modest contention that even if judges were charged with construing most terms in the patent, the art of defining terms of art employed in a specification fell within the province of the jury. Again, however, Markman has no authority from the period in question, but relies instead on the later case of Neilson v. Harford, Webs. Pat. Cas. 828 (Exch. 1841). There, an exchange between the judge and the lawyers indicated that although the construction of a patent was ordinarily for the court, id., at 349 (Alderson, B.), judges should “leav[e] the question of words of art to the jury,” id., at 350 (Alderson, B.); see also id., at 370 (judgment of the court); Hill v. Evans, 4 De. G. F. & J. 288, 293-294, 45 Eng. Rep. 1195,1197 (Ch. 1862). Without, however, in any way disparaging the weight to which Baron Alderson’s view is entitled, the most we can say is that an English report more than 70 years after the time that concerns us indicates an exception to what probably had been occurring earlier. In place of Markman’s inference that this exceptional practice existed in 1791 there is at best only a possibility that it did, and for anything more than a possibility we have found no scholarly authority.
Ill
Since evidence of common-law practice at the time of the framing does not entail application of the Seventh Amendment’s jury guarantee to the construction of the claim document, we must look elsewhere to characterize this determination of meaning in order to allocate it as between court or jury. We accordingly consult existing precedent and consider both the relative interpretive skills of judges and juries and the statutory policies that ought to be furthered by the allocation.
A
The two elements of a simple patent case, construing the patent and determining whether infringement occurred, were characterized by the former patent practitioner, Justice Curtis. “The first is a question of law, to be determined by the court, construing the letters-patent, and the description of the invention and specification of claim annexed to them. The second is a question of fact, to be submitted to a jury.” Winans v. Denmead, supra, at 338; see Winans v. New York & Erie R. Co., supra, at 100; Hogg v. Emerson, supra, at 484; cf. Parker v. Hulme, supra, at 1140.
In arguing for a different allocation of responsibility for the first question, Markman relies primarily on two cases, Bischoff v. Wethered, 9 Wall. 812 (1870), and Tucker v. Spalding, 13 Wall. 453 (1872). These are said to show that evidence of the meaning of patent terms was offered to 19th-century juries, and thus to imply that the meaning of a documentary term was a jury issue whenever it was subject to evidentiary proof. That is not what Markman’s cases show, however.
In order to resolve the Bischoff suit implicating the construction of rival patents, we considered “whether the court below was bound to compare the two specifications, and to instruct the jury, as a matter of law, whether the inventions therein described were, or were not, identical.” 9 Wall., at 813 (statement of the case). We said it was not bound to do that, on the ground that investing the court with so disposi-tive a role would improperly eliminate the jury’s function in answering the ultimate question of infringement. On that ultimate issue, expert testimony had been admitted on “the nature of the various mechanisms or manufactures described in the different patents produced, and as to the identity or diversity between them.” Id., at 814. Although the jury’s consideration of that expert testimony in resolving the question of infringement was said to impinge upon the well-established principle “that it is the province of the court, and not the jury, to construe the meaning of documentary evidence,” id., at 815, we decided that it was not so. We said:
“[T]he specifications... profess to describe mechanisms and complicated machinery, chemical compositions and other manufactured products, which have their existence in pais, outside of the documents themselves; and which are commonly described by terms of the art or mystery to which they respectively belong; and these descriptions and terms of art often require peculiar knowledge and education to understand them aright.... Indeed, the whole subject-matter of a patent is an embodied conception outside of the patent itself.... This outward embodiment of the terms contained in the patent is the thing invented, and is to be properly sought, like the explanation of all latent ambiguities arising from the description of external things, by evidence in pais.” Ibid.
Bischoff does not then, as Markman contends, hold that the use of expert testimony about the meaning of terms of art requires the judge to submit the question of their construction to the jury. It is instead a case in which the Court drew a line between issues of document interpretation and product identification, and held that expert testimony was properly presented to the jury on the latter, ultimate issue, whether the physical objects produced by the patent were identical. The Court did not see the decision as bearing upon the appropriate treatment of disputed terms. As the opinion emphasized, the Court’s “view of the case is not intended to, and does not, trench upon the doctrine that the construction of written instruments is the province of the court alone. It is not the construction of the instrument, but the character of the thing invented, which is sought in questions of identity and diversity of inventions.” Id., at 816 (emphasis added). Tucker, the second case proffered by Markman, is to the same effect. Its reasoning rested expressly on Bischoff, and it just as clearly noted that in addressing the ultimate issue of mixed fact and law, it was for the court to “lay down to the jury the law which should govern them.” Tucker, supra, at 455.
If the line drawn in these two opinions is a fine one, it is one that the Court has drawn repeatedly in explaining the respective roles of the jury and judge in patent cases, and one understood by commentators writing in the aftermath of the cases Markman cites. Walker, for example, read Bischoff as holding that the question of novelty is not decided by a construction of the prior patent, “but depends rather upon the outward embodiment of the terms contained in the [prior patent]; and that such outward embodiment is to be properly sought, like the explanation of latent ambiguities arising from the description of external things, by evidence in pais.” A. Walker, Patent Laws §75, p. 68 (3d ed. 1895). He also emphasized in the same treatise that matters of claim construction, even those aided by expert testimony, are questions for the court:
“Questions of construction are questions of law for the judge, not questions of fact for the jury. As it cannot be expected, however, that judges will always possess the requisite knowledge of the meaning of the terms of art or science used in letters patent, it often becomes necessary that they should avail themselves of the light furnished by experts relevant to the significance of such words and phrases. The judges are not, however, obliged to blindly follow such testimony.” Id., § 189, at 173 (footnotes omitted).
Virtually the same description of the court’s use of evidence in its interpretive role was set out in another contemporary treatise:
“The duty of interpreting letters-patent has been committed to the courts. A patent is a legal instrument, to be construed, like other legal instruments, according to its tenor.... Where technical terms are used, or where the qualities of substances or operations mentioned or any similar data necessary to the comprehension of the language of the patent are unknown to the judge, the testimony of witnesses may be received upon these subjects, and any other means of information be employed. But in the actual interpretation of the patent the court proceeds upon its own responsibility, as an arbiter of the law, giving to the patent its true and final character and force.” 2 W. Robinson, Law of Patents §782, pp. 481-483 (1890) (emphasis added; footnotes omitted).
In sum, neither Bischoff nor Tucker indicates that juries resolved the meaning of terms of art in construing a patent, and neither case undercuts Justice Curtis’s authority.
B
Where history and precedent provide no clear answers, functional considerations also play their part in the choice between judge and jury to define terms of art. We said in Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 114 (1985), that when an issue “falls somewhere between a pristine legal standard and a simple historical fact, the fact/law distinction at times has turned on a determination that, as a matter of the sound administration of justice, one judicial actor is better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.” So it turns out here, for judges, not juries, are the better suited to find the acquired meaning of patent terms.
The construction of written instruments is one of those things that judges often do and are likely to do better than jurors unburdened by training in exegesis. Patent construction in particular “is a special occupation, requiring, like all others, special training and practice. The judge, from his training and discipline, is more likely to give a proper interpretation to such instruments than a jury; and he is, therefore, more likely to be right, in performing such a duty, than a jury can be expected to be.” Parker v. Hulme, 18 F. Cas., at 1140. Such was the understanding nearly a century and a half ago, and there is no reason to weigh the respective strengths of judge and jury differently in relation to the modern claim; quite the contrary, for “the claims of patents have become highly technical in many respects as the result of special doctrines relating to the proper form and scope of claims that have been developed by the courts and the Patent Office.” Woodward, Definiteness and Particularity in Patent Claims, 46 Mich. L. Rev. 755, 765 (1948).
Markman would trump these considerations with his argument that a jury should decide a question of meaning peculiar to a trade or profession simply because the question is a subject of testimony requiring credibility determinations, which are the jury’s forte. It is, of course, true that credibility judgments have to be made about the experts who testify in patent cases, and in theory there could be a case in which a simple credibility judgment would suffice to choose between experts whose testimony was equally consistent with a patent’s internal logic. But our own experience with document construction leaves us doubtful that trial courts will run into many cases like that. In the main, we expect, any credibility determinations will be subsumed within the necessarily sophisticated analysis of the whole document, required by the standard construction rule that a term can be defined only in a way that comports with the instrument as a whole. See Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 38 (1878); 6 Lipscomb § 21:40, at 393; 2 Robinson, supra, § 734, at 484; Woodward, supra, at 765; cf. U S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Co., 315 U. S. 668, 678 (1942); cf. 6 Lipscomb § 21:40, at 393. Thus, in these cases a jury’s capabilities to evaluate demeanor, cf. Miller, supra, at 114, 117, to sense the “mainsprings of human conduct,” Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U. S. 278, 289 (1960), or to reflect community standards, United States v. McConney, 728 F. 2d 1195, 1204 (CA9 1984) (en banc), are much less significant than a trained ability to evaluate the testimony in relation to the overall structure of the patent. The decisionmaker vested with the task of construing the patent is in the better position to ascertain whether an expert’s proposed definition fully comports with the specification and claims and so will preserve the patent’s internal coherence. We accordingly think there is sufficient reason to treat construction of terms of art like many other responsibilities that we cede to a judge in the normal course of trial, notwithstanding its evidentiary underpinnings.
C
Finally, we see the importance of uniformity in the treatment of a given patent as an independent reason to allocate all issues of construction to the court. As we noted in General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U. S. 364, 369 (1938), “[t]he limits of a patent must be known for the protection of the patentee, the encouragement of the inventive genius of others and the assurance that the subject of the patent will be dedicated ultimately to the public.” Otherwise, a “zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims would discourage invention only a little less than unequivocal foreclosure of the field,” United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U. S. 228, 236 (1942), and “[t]he public [would] be deprived of rights supposed to belong to it, without being clearly told what it is that limits these rights.” Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U. S. 568, 573 (1877). It was just for the sake of such desirable uniformity that Congress created the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as an exclusive appellate court for patent cases, H. R. Rep. No. 97-312, pp. 20-23 (1981), observing that increased uniformity would “strengthen the United States patent system in such a way as to foster technological growth and industrial innovation.” Id., at 20.
Uniformity would, however, be ill served by submitting issues of document construction to juries. Making them jury issues would not, to be sure, necessarily leave eviden-tiary questions of meaning wide open in every new court in which a patent might be litigated, for principles of issue preclusion would ordinarily foster uniformity. Cf. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of III. Foundation, 402 U. S. 313 (1971). But whereas issue preclusion could not be asserted against new and independent infringement defendants even within a given jurisdiction, treating interpretive issues as purely legal will promote (though it will not guarantee) intrajurisdictional certainty through the application of stare decisis on those questions not yet subject to interjurisdictional uniformity under the authority of the single appeals court.
* * *
Accordingly, we hold that the interpretation of the word “inventory” in this case is an issue for the judge, not the jury, and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
It is so ordered.
Thus, for example, a claim for a ceiling fan with three blades attached to a solid rod connected to a motor would not only cover fans that take precisely this form, but would also cover a similar fan that includes some additional feature, e. g., such a fan with a cord or switch for turning it on and off, and may cover a product deviating from the core design in some noncritical way, e. g., a three-bladed ceiling fan with blades attached to a hollow rod connected to a motor. H. Schwartz, Patent Law and Practice 81-82 (2d ed. 1995).
Dependent claim 10 specifies that, in the invention of claim 1, the input device is an alpha-numeric keyboard in which single keys may be used to enter the attributes of the items in question.
Our formulations of the historical test
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Brennan, Justice White, and Justice Marshall joined.
In Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979), this Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated by a jury instruction that “the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts.” Id., at 512. We expressly left open in that case the question whether, if a jury is so instructed, the error can ever be harmless. Id., at 526-527. Since Sandstrom, courts have taken different approaches to the harmless-error problem. We therefore granted certiorari in this litigation to resolve the conflict. 455 U. S. 937 (1982).
HH
A
Respondent Lindsay B. Johnson was accused in a four-count information of attempted murder, kidnaping in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and sexual assault in the first degree. His jury trial in Connecticut Superior Court concluded with a verdict of guilty on all counts.
The evidence at trial revealed the following sequence of events: At approximately 11 p. m. on December 20, 1975, respondent and three male companions were in an automobile in Norwalk, Conn. A young woman who had lost her way stopped her car and asked them for directions. Respondent offered to ride with her to show her the way. She agreed, and the two drove off. Respondent’s companions followed in the other car.
When the woman reached a location familiar to her, she stopped and waited for respondent to get out of the car. Instead, respondent pulled her over to the passenger side of the car, and one of his companions entered on the other side and started to drive. The woman was told that the men needed a car. Shortly thereafter the second car was abandoned, and its two occupants got into the woman’s car. The four men verbally abused her, threatened her with bodily harm, displayed a knife, and told her that the driver had a gun. The group stopped again in Norwalk to pick up a fifth man. During still another stop, one of the men placed a fully loaded, semiautomatic rifle in the trunk. When the woman asked the group to take the car and leave her alone, they replied that she would be given money and left near her home at the end of the evening.
The men then drove the car eastward on the Connecticut Turnpike to New Haven. Respondent, who is black, remarked that he had “never had a white woman before.” Tr. 50, 262. The group arrived in New Haven in the early morning and stopped for gas. Respondent then directed the driver to a large apartment complex, where he pulled the woman from the car and into a lavatory on the first floor of the building. There, all five men sexually assaulted her.
When the woman was returned to the car, respondent bound her hands with telephone cord. Respondent told her that she would be left with a dime near a telephone booth so she could call home while they made their getaway. After directing the driver to a bridge, respondent pulled the woman out of the car and forced her to run with him to the middle of the bridge. They struggled and respondent threw her over the railing. She landed on a large pipe but jumped into the river when she saw respondent pursuing her. She then eluded respondent by hiding under the bridge; she was able to untie her hands. She remained hidden for a while because she heard voices shouting, but eventually she sought refuge from the cold. Shortly after 4 a.m., the residents of a nearby house admitted her when they heard her moaning, “please let me in . . . they were trying to kill me.” Id., at 390.
Relying on information provided by the woman, police arrested respondent and the other four men in Norwalk a few hours later. Two days thereafter, the victim identified all five from an array of 15 photographs. She also identified respondent in court, describing him as the most vicious and violent of her assailants.
The defense theory, as indicated by the cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, apparently was that the woman had consented to travel with the group and to have sex with them, and that respondent did not plan to keep the woman’s car or to kill her. For example, respondent’s attorney asked the woman whether any mention had been made of going to a motel or having sex, whether she had consented to the sexual acts, and whether any of the men had said that the car would be returned in the morning with a full tank of gas. When the woman stated that she was behind the wheel after the car became stuck in a snowbank on the turnpike, counsel asked how many of the men had got out of the car to push it or, indeed, whether all of them had done so. Cross-examination also revealed that when the woman went to the hospital on December 21, she told the examining physician that she had had sexual relations with her boyfriend the previous morning. According to the doctor, this might have accounted for sperm observed in gynecological tests. Finally, police descriptions of the bridge were arguably contrary to the victim’s description of the area as “secluded.”
B
The trial court’s charge to the jury began with general instructions on applicable principles of law. The jury was told to accept the court’s pronouncements of the law but to be the sole judge of the facts. The court explained the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving the existence of every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The court then described intent as
“a question of fact that is solely within your province as jurors. However, you should be aware of a rule of law that will be helpful to you and that is that a person’s intention may be inferred from his conduct and every person is conclusively presumed to intend the natural and necessary consequences of his act.” App. 22A-23A.
The court then gave specific instructions on the elements of each crime. With respect to attempted murder, the court again spoke of a conclusive presumption. The charge on kidnaping in the second degree, on the other hand, referred to intent as “very largely a matter of inference.” The instructions on robbery in the first degree and sexual assault in the first degree did not contain any further discussion of intent. The charge concluded with a reminder as to the State’s burden of proof and the jury’s duty to base its verdict on the evidence presented and on the law given by the court.
C
Respondent filed a timely appeal in December 1976, but because of problems with the reporter in obtaining a complete transcript the appeal was not briefed and argued until February 1981. In the interim, this Court decided Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979). Respondent argued on appeal that the “conclusively presumed” language in the jury instructions on intent rendered the instructions unconstitutional under Sandstrom. The State argued that the error, if any, was harmless.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed respondent’s convictions for kidnaping and sexual assault, but reversed the convictions for attempted murder and robbery on the basis of the instructions regarding intent. 185 Conn. 163, 440 A. 2d 858 (1981). In accordance with Scmdstrom, the court analyzed the charge as a whole to determine how the jury might have interpreted it; the court balanced other portions of the charge against the challenged language essentially to determine whether “the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 147 (1973). The court first found that the general instructions were infirm, because the inferential language in that portion of the charge was not “sufficient to prevent the jury from interpreting the [conclusive] presumption in the way it was expressed to them.” 185 Conn., at 171, 440 A. 2d, at 863. The court then turned to the specific instructions “to determine whether the Sandstrom error in the general instructions was repeated, incorporated, or possibly cured by the specific language used.” Id., at 172, 440 A. 2d, at 863.
The specific instruction on attempted murder had repeated the erroneous-presumption language, so the court reversed respondent’s conviction on that count. Id., at 173, 440 A. 2d, at 863. The kidnaping instruction, however, had been couched in the permissive language of inference. Finding that this language had a “significant curative effect,” id., at 174, 440 A. 2d, at 864, the court affirmed respondent’s kid-naping conviction. With respect to the robbery count, the court refused to assume that the jury had applied the permissive inferences contained in the instruction on kidnaping, rather than the conclusive presumption earlier described as applicable to all the offenses. It thus reversed that conviction. Id., at 174-176, 440 A. 2d, at 864-865. Finally, the court upheld respondent’s conviction for sexual assault; it ruled that sexual assault was not a specific-intent crime, and thus that the jury was not influenced by the erroneous general instruction. Id., at 176, 440 A. 2d, at 865.
The court did not discuss the State’s argument that the Sandstrom violation was harmless, seemingly relying on its recent decision in State v. Truppi, 182 Conn. 449, 438 A. 2d 712 (1980), cert, denied, 451 U. S. 941 (1981). In its petition for certiorari, the State claimed that the Sandstrom error should have been analyzed for harmlessness under Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967).
I — I I — I
A
In Chapman, this Court noted that “there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.” Id., at 23, and n. 8 (citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963) (right to counsel); Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560 (1958) (coerced confession); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927) (impartial judge)). Resolving the question reserved three years earlier in Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85, 86 (1963), the Court held that some constitutional errors may be considered harmless if the beneficiary of the error “prove[s] beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” 386 U. S., at 24. See also Milton v. Wcdnwright, 407 U. S. 371 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969).
Chapman continued a trend away from the practice of appellate courts in this country and in England of “reversing] judgments for the most trivial errors.” R. Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error 13 (1970) (hereafter Traynor). Even with the enactment of harmless-error statutes designed to eliminate reversals based on technical errors, it was assumed well into this century that “automatic reversal was required in any case involving the violation of a right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.” Note, Harmless Error: The Need for a Uniform Standard, 53 St. John’s L. Rev. 541, 544 (1979). Before that assumption was altered in Chapman, however, the Court had decided certain cases that remain instructive here.
In Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U. S. 607 (1946), the jury returned a guilty verdict just five minutes after receiving a supplemental instruction containing an improper presumption. This Court reversed the conviction, noting that to “say that the lay jury will know enough to disregard the judge’s bad law if in fact he misguides them . . . would transfer to the jury the judge’s function in giving the law and transfer to the appellate court the jury’s function of measuring the evidence by appropriate legal yardsticks.” Id., at 613-614. The Court rejected the Government’s contention that the error was harmless in view of the abundant evidence on the issue in question, stating:
“This is to disregard the vital fact that for seven hours the jury was unable to find guilt in the light of the main charge, but reached a verdict of guilty under the conspiracy count five minutes after their inquiry was answered by an untenable legal proposition. It would indeed be a long jump at guessing to be confident that the jury did not rely on the erroneous ‘presumption’ given them as a guide. . . . [T]he question is not whether guilt may be spelt out of a record, but whether guilt has been found by a jury according to the procedure and standards appropriate for criminal trials in the federal courts.” Id., at 614.
The following year the Court decided Carpenters v. United States, 330 U. S. 395 (1947). In that case the defendants, who were unions charged with conspiracy to violate the Sherman Act, unsuccessfully had requested an instruction that a union can be found guilty for its agents’ unlawful acts only if the union actually participated in, authorized, or ratified the acts. This Court held that the requested instruction correctly stated the law, and refused to find the error harmless even though there was evidence showing the unions’ participation in the conspiracy:
“[A] judge may not direct a verdict of guilty no matter how conclusive the evidence. There is no way of knowing here whether the jury’s verdict was based on facts within the condemned instructions ... or on actual authorization or ratification of such acts .... A failure to charge correctly is not harmless, since the verdict might have resulted from the incorrect instruction.” Id., at 408-409 (footnotes omitted).
B
We agree with the State that, in light of Chapman, these cases cannot be read for the broad proposition that instructional error of constitutional dimensions may never be harmless. This is not to say, however, that any form of instructional error should be analyzed for harmlessness. The question here is whether a charge that might reasonably have been interpreted to require a conclusive presumption on the issue of intent may be considered harmless.
The Court consistently has held that “a trial judge is prohibited from entering a judgment of conviction or directing the jury to come forward with such a verdict. . . regardless of how overwhelmingly the evidence may point in that direction.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564, 572-573 (1977); see Carpenters v. United States, 330 U. S., at 408; Sparf & Hansen v. United States, 156 U. S. 51, 105 (1895). And Sandstrom makes it clear, we think, that a conclusive presumption on the issue of intent is the functional equivalent of a directed verdict on that issue.
In Sandstrom the jury was instructed that “the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts.” 442 U. S., at 512. We held that instruction unconstitutional because a reasonable juror might have viewed it as creating a conclusive or burden-shifting presumption on intent. Rather than evaluating the evidence to determine if the State had overcome the presumption of innocence and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had intended to kill, the jurors might have believed that, upon finding certain preliminary facts, “they were directed to find against defendant on the element of intent.” Id., at 523.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut, in holding the charge at issue unconstitutional under Sandstrom, found that respondent’s jurors, like Sandstrom’s, reasonably could have interpreted the court’s charge as a conclusive presumption on the issue of intent. Such an interpretation would have led them to ignore the evidence in finding that the State had proved respondent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, the jury conclusively could have presumed that respondent intended to kill the victim once it found that the natural consequence of his acts was to cause the victim’s death. The jury thus would have failed to consider whether there was any evidence tending to cast doubt on this element of the crime of attempted murder, such as the victim’s own testimony that she had been told she would be left near a phone booth at the end of the evening.
Because a conclusive presumption eases the jury’s task, “there is no reason to believe the jury would have deliberately undertaken the more difficult task” of evaluating the evidence of intent. Sandstrom, 442 U. S., at 526, n. 13; see Note, Presumptive Intent Jury Instructions After Sandstrom, 1980 Wis. L. Rev. 366, 388. Given the uncon-troverted evidence of respondent’s participation in the events that occurred on December 20 and 21, his most likely defense was that he intended to borrow rather than steal the car, and that he did not intend to kill the victim. The trial court’s instruction removed this defense from the jury and directed it to find that the State had proved the intent element of the offenses.
An erroneous presumption on a disputed element of the crime renders irrelevant the evidence on the issue because the jury may have relied upon the presumption rather than upon that evidence. If the jury may have failed to consider evidence of intent, a reviewing court cannot hold that the error did not contribute to the verdict. The fact that the reviewing court may view the evidence of intent as overwhelming is then simply irrelevant. To allow a reviewing court to perform the jury’s function of evaluating the evidence of intent, when the jury never may have performed that function, would give too much weight to society’s interest in punishing the guilty and too little weight to the method by which decisions of guilt are to be made. The Court in Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U. S., at 614-615, stated: “All law is technical if viewed solely from concern for punishing crime without heeding the mode by which it is accomplished.” See County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U. S. 140, 160 (1979) (“[It is] irrelevant in analyzing a mandatory presumption . . . that there is ample evidence in the record other than the presumption to support a conviction”).
There may be rare situations in which the reviewing court can be confident that a Sandstrom error did not play any role in the jury’s verdict. For example, if the erroneous instruction was given in connection with an offense for which the defendant was acquitted and if the instruction had no bearing on the offense for which he was convicted, it would be appropriate to find the error harmless. See, e. g., Hearn v. James, 677 F. 2d 841, 843 (CA11 1982); State v. Sheldon, 301 N. W. 2d 604, 613 (N. D. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 1002 (1981). In addition, a Sandstrom error may be harmless if the defendant conceded the issue of intent. See, e. g., Krzeminski v. Perini, 614 F. 2d 121, 125 (CA6), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 866 (1980). See also Washington v. Harris, 650 F. 2d 447, 453-454 (CA2 1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 951 (1982). In presenting a defense such as alibi, insanity, or self-defense, a defendant may in some cases admit that the act alleged by the prosecution was intentional, thereby sufficiently reducing the likelihood that the jury applied the erroneous instruction as to permit the appellate court to consider the error harmless. See Traynor 73. We leave it to the lower courts to determine whether, by raising a particular defense or by his other actions, a defendant himself has taken the issue of intent away from the jury.
Such an exception, regardless of its precise boundaries, does not apply here. Respondent did not concede the issue of intent with respect to either of the counts at issue. As noted above, the instruction was not “so ill-suited to both the theory on which the case was tried and the evidence that was presented,” United States v. Winter, 663 F. 2d 1120, 1145 (CA1 1981), cert. pending, No. 81-1392, that it can be deemed harmless. The conclusive presumption the jury was instructed to apply permitted the jury to convict respondent without ever examining the evidence concerning an element of the crimes charged. Such an error deprived respondent of “constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.” Chapman v. California, 386 U. S., at 23.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Several state and federal courts have assumed or held that Sandstrom errors may well be harmless, and have then gone on to decide whether the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. See, e. g., Lamb v. Jemigan, 683 F. 2d 1332, 1342-1343 (CA11 1982), cert. pending, No. 82-5768; Jacks v. Duckworth, 651 F. 2d 480, 487 (CA7 1981), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 1147 (1982); People v. Wright, 408 Mich. 1, 30-32, 289 N. W. 2d 1, 10-12 (1980); State v. McKenzie, 186 Mont. 481, 533-535, 608 P. 2d 428, 458-459, cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1050 (1980). Other courts have taken a narrower view, holding that whether an unconstitutional presumption is harmless depends on whether intent was a disputed issue in the case. See, e. g., United States v. Winter, 663 F. 2d 1120, 1144-1145 (CA11981), cert. pending, No. 81-1392; McGuinn v. Crist, 657 F. 2d 1107, 1108-1109 (CA9 1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 990 (1982); Washington v. Harris, 650 F. 2d 447, 453-454 (CA2 1981) (dictum), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 951 (1982); see also People v. Thomas, 50 N. Y. 2d 467, 477, 407 N. E. 2d 430, 436 (1980) (concurring opinion). Still other courts have suggested that Sandstrom errors can never be harmless. See, e. g., Hammontree v. Phelps, 605 F. 2d 1371, 1380 (CA5 1979); State v. Truppi, 182 Conn. 449, 466, 438 A. 2d 712, 721 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U. S. 941 (1981). See also Dietz v. Solem, 640 F. 2d 126, 131 (CA8 1981).
For the period between midnight and 4:30 a. m. on December 21, the National Weather Service in Bridgeport reported an air-temperature range of 23°-28° F, a wind-chill factor of — 10° F, and a water temperature of 46° F. Approximately four inches of snow had accumulated from a snowfall that began on December 20.
Respondent was tried alone. His companions were named in the information as coparticipants, but pleaded guilty to various charges before trial.
Respondent did not testify at his trial. The defense called one witness, a detective who testified only about the accuracy of a stenographic transcription of a taped interview of the victim. The record does not reflect how the attorneys presented the facts to the jury in summation. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-61 (Supp. 1982), the arguments of counsel were not recorded.
The specific charge on attempted murder was:
“Now, [no] one can look into a man’s mind and see what his intention is. The only way to decide that question is to infer from the accused’s conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances. But as previously stated, every person is conclusively presumed to intend the natural and necessary consequences of his act.” App. 25A.
The jury was told that if it believed the victim’s testimony about respondent’s conduct at the bridge, it might “presume [respondent] intended what would be the natural and necessary consequences of his actions, under the prevailing circumstances and conditions; for example, the temperature of air and water and the force used against her person.” Ibid.
Specifically, the court stated:
“I have already instructed you that what a man’s intention has been is necessarily very largely a matter of inference. . . . The only way in which you can determine in a case such as this what a man’s intention was at any given time is by determining what his conduct was and what the circumstances were surrounding that conduct and from those infer what his intention was.
“As stated before, to draw such an inference is not only the privilege but also the duty of a juror provided, of course, the inference to draw is a reasonable inference.” Id., at28A.
Respondent also argued, unsuccessfully, that he was denied his right to self-representation and that the trial judge failed properly to instruct the jury on a defense to the kidnaping charge. These issues are not now before us, because respondent’s own petition for a writ of certiorari was denied. Johnson v. Connecticut, 454 U. S. 1101 (1981).
Although respondent had not objected to the charge, the Connecticut Supreme Court accepted the issue for resolution on the merits under its “exceptional circumstances” rule expounded in State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69-70, 327 A. 2d 576, 581 (1973). The decision on the merits is therefore properly before us. Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 135, n. 44 (1982); County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U. S. 140, 147-154 (1979).
In Truppi the court, citing Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 23 (1967), held that infringements of the rights at issue in Sandstrom can never be harmless because those rights are essential to a fair trial. 182 Conn., at 465, 438 A. 2d, at 721. That conclusion was based on federal rather than state law. This Court held in Chapman that whether a federal constitutional error can be harmless is a federal question. 386 U. S., at 21. State courts, of course, are free to interpret their own constitutions and laws to permit fewer applications of the harmless-error rule than does the Federal Constitution. See PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74, 81 (1980); Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 719 (1975); Cooper v. California, 386 U. S. 58, 62 (1967). We do not read Truppi, however, as having taken this approach.
The State did not seek review of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision that the charge as a whole was unconstitutional under Sandstrom. That issue, accordingly, is not before us.
The federal harmless-error statute provides: “On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” 28 U. S. C. § 2111.
The Supreme Court of Montana on the remand of Sandstrom found that the error was not harmless. State v. Sandstrom, 184 Mont. 391, 603 P. 2d 244 (1979).
“The pivotal concept of Sandstrom is that the possibility that the jury-reached its decision in an impermissible manner requires reversal even though the jury may also have reached the same result in a constitutionally acceptable fashion.” Schmolesky, County Court of Ulster County v. Allen and Sandstrom v. Montana: The Supreme Court Lends an Ear but Turns its Face, 33 Rutgers L. Rev. 261, 272 (1981) (emphasis in original); see id., at 295, and n. 193.
Chief Justice Traynor notes in his monograph on harmless error: “In the absence of definitive studies to the contrary, we must assume that juries for the most part understand and faithfully follow instructions. The concept of a fair trial encompasses a decision by a tribunal that has understood and applied the law to all material issues in the case.” Traynor 73-74 (footnote omitted). If a jury followed instructions it reasonably interpreted as calling for a conclusive presumption on the issue of intent, the jury would not consider the evidence on that issue.
Apparently, the dissent believes that a jury first evaluates the evidence of intent and then decides whether to apply the conclusive presumption; it assumes that the jury turns to the presumption only when the evidence is not overwhelming. Because we lack the dissent’s confidence in predicting the sequence of a jury’s deliberations, we find it impossible to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a conscientious jury, following its instructions, will evaluate the evidence of intent and reach a conclusion on that issue before considering the applicability of the conclusive presumption about which it has been instructed. As we note in the text, if the jury simply applies the presumption at the point in its deliberations when it has determined that the defendant committed the acts in question, it will have no need to consider the evidence of intent.
Justice Powell’s dissent suggests that when “the character and quality” of the defendant’s acts “are themselves dispositive of intent, the presumption becomes unnecessary to the jury’s task of finding intent.” Post, at 97. See also post, at 101 (“The jury, consistent with its instructions, could have regarded these facts as dispositive of intent and not relied on the presumption”). We agree that the presumption was “unnecessary” here, in the sense that the evidence was sufficient for a properly instructed jury to find that respondent acted with the requisite intent. A reviewing court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that the jury based its finding of intent on that evidence. The jury might well have believed that respondent’s acts, as a matter of law, were accompanied by the requisite intent.
We note that a defendant in a criminal trial is justified, of course, in defending solely in reliance on the presumption of his innocence and the State’s burden of proof.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U. S. 953 (1986), we held that for purposes of setting intrastate retail rates a State may not differ from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s allocations of wholesale power by imposing its own judgment of what would be just and reasonable. Last Term, in Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U. S. 354 (1988), we held that FERC’s allocation of the $3 billion-plus cost of the Grand Gulf 1 nuclear reactor among the operating companies that jointly agreed to finance its construction and operation pre-empted Mississippi’s inquiry into the prudence of a utility retailer’s decision to participate in the joint venture. Today we confront once again a legal issue arising from the question of who must pay for Grand Gulf 1. Here the state ratemaking authority deferred to FERC’s implicit finding that New Orleans Public Service, Inc.’s decision to participate in the Grand Gulf venture was reasonable, but determined that the costs incurred thereby should not be completely reimbursed because, it asserted, the utility’s management was negligent in failing later to diversify its supply portfolio by selling a portion of its Grand Gulf power. Whether the State’s decision to provide less than full reimbursement for the FE Reallocated wholesale costs conflicts with our holdings in Nantahala and Mississippi Poiver & Light is not at issue in this case. Rather, we address the threshold question whether the District Court, which the utility petitioned for declaratory and injunctive relief from the state ratemaking authority’s order, properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction in deference to the state review process.
hH
Because the abstention questions at stake here have little to do with the intricacies of the factual and procedural history underlying the controversy, we may sketch the background of this case in brief. Petitioner New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (NOPSI), a producer, wholesaler, and retailer of electricity that provides retail electrical service to the city of New Orleans, is one of four wholly owned operating subsidiaries of Middle South Utilities, Inc. Middle South operates an integrated “power pool” in which each of the four operating companies transmits produced electricity to a central dispatch center and draws back from the dispatch center the power it needs to meet customer demand. In 1974, NOPSI and its fellow operating companies entered a contract with Middle South Energy, Inc. (MSE), another wholly owned Middle South subsidiary, whereby the operating companies agreed to finance MSE’s construction and operation of two 1250 megawatt nuclear reactors, Grand Gulf 1 and 2, in return for the right to the reactors’ electrical output. The estimated cost of completing the two reactors was $1.2 billion.
During the late 1970’s, consumer demand turned out to be far lower than expected, and regulatory delays, enhanced construction requirements, and high inflation led to spiraling costs. As a result, construction of Grand Gulf 2 was suspended, and the cost of completing Grand Gulf 1 alone eventually exceeded $3 billion. Not surprisingly, the cost of the electricity produced by the reactor greatly exceeded that of power generated by Middle South’s conventional facilities.
Acting pursuant to its exclusive regulatory authority over interstate wholesale power transactions, 49 Stat. 847, as amended, 16 U. S. C. §824 et seq., FERC conducted extensive proceedings to determine “just and reasonable” rates for Grand Gulf 1 power and to prescribe a “just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” allocation of Grand Gulf’s costs and output. In June 1985, the Commission issued a final order, Middle South Energy, Inc., 31 FERC ¶61,305, rehearing denied, 32 FERC ¶ 61,425 (1985), aff’d sub nom. Mississippi Industries v. FERC, 257 U. S. App. D. C. 244, 808 F. 2d 1525, rehearing granted and vacated in part, 262 U. S. App. D. C. 42, 822 F. 2d 1104, cert. denied, 484 U. S. 985 (1987), in which it concluded that, because the planned nuclear reactors had been designed “to meet overall System needs and objectives,” 31 FERC, p. 61,655, the Middle South subsidiaries should pay for the Grand Gulf project “roughly in proportion to each company’s share of System demand,” id., at 61,655-61,656. The Commission allocated 17 percent of Grand Gulf costs (approximately $13 million per month) to NOPSI, rejecting Middle South’s proposal of 29.8 percent as well as the 9 percent figure favored by the respondent here, the New Orleans City Council.
“Although it did not expressly discuss the ‘prudence’ of constructing Grand Gulf and bringing it on line, FERC implicitly accepted the uncontroverted testimony of [Middle South] executives who explained why they believed the decisions to construct and to complete Grand Gulf 1 were sound, and approved the finding that ‘continuing construction of Grand Gulf Unit No. 1 was prudent because Middle South’s executives believed Grand Gulf would enable the Middle South system to diversify its base load fuel mix and, it was projected, at the same time, produce power for a total cost (capacity and energy) which would be less than existing alternatives on the system.’” Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U. S., at 363, quoting Middle South Energy, Inc., 26 FERC ¶63,044, pp. 65, 112-65, 113 (1984).
When NOPSI sought from the New Orleans City Council (Council) — the local ratemaking body with final authority over the utility’s retail rates, see 16 U. S. C. § 824(b); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§33:4405, 33:4495 (West 1988); Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans §4-1604 (1986), as amended by Ordinance No. 8264 M. C. S., as amended by Ordinance No. 10340 M. C. S.— a rate increase to cover the increase in wholesale rates resulting from FERC’s allocation of Grand Gulf costs, the Council denied an immediate rate adjustment, explaining that a public hearing was necessary to explore “‘the legality and prudency [sic] of the [contracts relating to Grand Gulf 1, and] the prudency [sic] and reasonableness of the said expenses.’” Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 5, quoting Council Resolution R-85-423. NOPSI responded by filing an action for injunctive and declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, asserting that federal law required the Council to allow it to recover, through an increase in retail rates, its FERC-allocated share of the Grand Gulf expenses.
The District Court granted the Council’s motion to dismiss, holding that pursuant to the Johnson Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1342, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the action, and that even if it had jurisdiction it would be compelled by Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315 (1943), to abstain. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit initially reversed on both grounds, but later, on its own motion, vacated its earlier opinion in part and held that abstention was proper both under Burford and under Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. New Orleans, 782 F. 2d 1236, modified, 798 F. 2d 858 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U. S. 1023 (1987) (NOPSI I).
By resolution of October 10, 1985, while NOPSI I was still pending before the Fifth Circuit, the Council initiated an investigation into the prudence of NOPSI’s involvement in Grand Gulf 1. Resolution R-85-636 stated the Council’s intention to examine all aspects of NOPSI’s relationship with Grand Gulf, including NOPSPs “‘efforts to minimize its total cost exposure for the purchase,’” and Grand Gulf’s “‘impact on its other power supply opportunities,”’ “‘for the purpose of determining what portion, if any, of NOPSI’s Grand Gulf 1 expense shall be assumed by [NOPSPs] shareholders.’” App. 113-114. The resolution specifically provided, however, that in setting the appropriate retail rate, the Council would “‘not seek to invalidate any of the agreements surrounding Grand Gulf 1 or to order NOPSI to pay MSE a rate other than that approved by the FERC.’” Id., at 114.
In November 1985, NOPSI filed a second suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking to preclude the Council from requiring NOPSI or its shareholders to absorb any of NOPSPs FERC-allocated share of the Grand Gulf costs. The District Court dismissed the suit as unripe, but held in the alternative that abstention was appropriate. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment on ripeness grounds. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 833 F. 2d 583 (1987).
The Council completed its prudence review on February 4, 1988, and immediately entered a final order disallowing $135 million of the Grand Gulf costs. The order was based on the Council’s determinations that “NOPSPs... oversight and review of its Grand Gulf obligation... was uncritical and severely deficient,” App. 24, and that NOPSI acted imprudently in failing to reduce the risk of its Grand Gulf commitment, in the wake of the Three Mile Island nuclear incident in March 1979, “by selling all or part of its share off-system,” id., at 24-25.
Upon receipt of the Council’s decree, NOPSI turned once again to the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that, in light of this Court’s recent decision in Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U. S. 953 (1986), the Council’s rate order was pre-empted by federal law. Although the District Court expressed considerable doubt as to the merits of the Council’s position on the pre-emption question, it concluded that, notwithstanding Nantahala, it should still abstain from deciding the suit.
Anticipating that the District Court might again abstain, NOPSI had filed a petition for review of the Council’s order in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana. As filed, NOPSI’s petition raised only state-law claims and federal due process and takings claims, but NOPSI informed the state court by letter that it would amend to raise its federal pre-emption claim if the federal court once again dismissed its complaint. When that happened, it did so.
In the parallel federal proceedings, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal, agreeing that the case was effectively controlled by NOPSI I, i. e., that Burford and Younger abstention applied. 850 F. 2d 1069 (1988). We granted certiorari. 488 U. S. 1003 (1989).
* — 1 | — i
Before proceeding to the merits of the abstention issues, it bears emphasis that the Council does not dispute the District Court’s jurisdiction to decide NOPSI’s pre-emption claim. Our cases have long supported the proposition that federal courts lack the authority to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that has been conferred. For example: “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821). “ *[T]he courts of the United States are bound to proceed to judgment and to afford redress to suitors before them in every case to which their jurisdiction extends. They cannot abdicate their authority or duty in any case in favor of another jurisdiction.’” Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 529, 534 (1893) (citations omitted). “When a Federal court is properly appealed to in a case over which it has by law jurisdiction, it is its duty to take such jurisdiction.... The right of a party plaintiff to choose a Federal court where there is a choice cannot be properly denied.” Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19, 40 (1909) (citations omitted). Underlying these assertions is the undisputed constitutional principle that Congress, and not the Judiciary, defines the scope of federal jurisdiction within the constitutionally permissible bounds. Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226, 234 (1922).
That principle does not eliminate, however, and the categorical assertions based upon it do not call into question, the federal courts’ discretion in determining whether to grant certain types of relief — a discretion that was part of the common-law background against which the statutes conferring jurisdiction were enacted. See Shapiro, Jurisdiction and Discretion, 60 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 543, 570-577 (1985). Thus, there are some classes of cases in which the withholding of authorized equitable relief because of undue interference with state proceedings is “the normal thing to do,” Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S., at 45. We have carefully defined, however, the areas in which such “abstention” is permissible, and it remains “‘the exception, not the rule.’” Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, 236 (1984), quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 813 (1976). As recently as last Term we described the federal courts’ obligation to adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction as “‘virtually unflagging.’” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193, 203 (1988) (citation omitted).
With these principles in mind, we address the question whether the District Court, relying on Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315 (1943), and Younger v. Hams, supra, properly declined to exercise its jurisdiction in the present case. While we acknowledge that “[t]he various types of abstention are not rigid pigeonholes into which federal courts must try to fit cases,” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U. S. 1, 11, n. 9 (1987), the policy considerations supporting Bur- ford and Younger are sufficiently distinct to justify independent analyses.
A
In Burford v. Sun Oil Co., supra, a Federal District Court sitting in equity was confronted with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the reasonableness of the Texas Railroad Commission’s grant of an oil drilling permit. The constitutional challenge was of minimal federal importance, involving solely the question whether the commission had properly applied Texas’ complex oil and gas conservation regulations. Id., at 331, and n. 28. Because of the intricacy and importance of the regulatory scheme, Texas had created a centralized system of judicial review of commission orders, which “permit[ted] the state courts, like the Railroad Commission itself, to acquire a specialized knowledge” of the regulations and industry, id., at 327. We found the state courts’ review of commission decisions “expeditious and adequate,” id., at 334, and, because the exercise of equitable jurisdiction by comparatively unsophisticated Federal District Courts alongside state-court review had repeatedly led to “[djelay, misunderstanding of local law, and needless federal conflict with the state policy,” id., at 327, we concluded that “a sound respect for the independence of state action requir[ed] the federal equity court to stay its hand,” id., at 334.
We applied these same principles in Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Southern R. Co., 341 U. S. 341 (1951), where a railroad sought to enjoin enforcement of an order of the Alabama Public Service Commission refusing permission to discontinue unprofitable rail lines. According to the railroad, requiring continued operation of the lines amounted to confiscation of property in violation of federal due process rights. Under Alabama law, a party dissatisfied with a final order of the Public Service Commission had an absolute right of appeal to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, which was “empowered to set aside any Commission order found to be contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.” Id., at 348. This right of statutory-appeal “concentrated in one circuit court” which exercised “supervisory” powers was, we found, “an integral part of the regulatory process under the Alabama Code.” Ibid. Taking account of the unified nature of the state regulatory process, and emphasizing that “adequate state court review of [the] administrative order [was] available,” id., at 349, and that the success of the railroad’s constitutional challenge depended upon the “predominantly local factor of public need for the service rendered,” id., at 347, we held that the District Court ought to have abstained from exercising its jurisdiction, id., at 350.
From these cases, and others on which they relied, we have distilled the principle now commonly referred to as the “Burford doctrine.” Where timely and adequate state-court review is available, a federal court sitting in equity must decline to interfere with the proceedings or orders of state administrative agencies: (1) when there are “difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar”; or (2) where the “exercise of federal review of the question in a case and in similar cases would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, supra, at 814.
The present case does not involve a state-law claim, nor even an assertion that the federal claims are “in any way entangled in a skein of state law that must be untangled before the federal case can proceed,” McNeese v. Board Of Education for Community Unit School Dist. 187, Cahokia, 373 U. S. 668, 674 (1963). The Fifth Circuit acknowledged as much in NOPSI I, but found “the absence of a state law claim... not fatal” because, it thought, “[t]he motivating force behind Burford abstention is... a reluctance to intrude into state proceedings where there exists a complex state regulatory system.” 798 F. 2d, at 861-862. Finding that this case involved a complex regulatory scheme of “paramount local concern and a matter which demands local administrative expertise,” id., at 862, it held that the District Court appropriately applied Burford.
While Burford is concerned with protecting complex state administrative processes from undue federal interference, it does not require abstention whenever there exists such a process, or even in all cases where there is a “potential for conflict” with state regulatory law or policy. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist., 424 U. S., at 815-816. Here, NOPSI’s primary claim is that the Council is prohibited by federal law from refusing to provide reimbursement for FERC-allocated wholesale costs. Unlike a claim that a state agency has misapplied its lawful authority or has failed to take into consideration or properly weigh relevant state-law factors, federal adjudication of this sort of pre-emption claim would not disrupt the State’s attempt to ensure uniformity in the treatment of an “essentially local problem,” Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm’n, supra, at 347.
That Burford abstention is not justified in these circumstances is strongly suggested by our decision in Public Util. Comm’n of Ohio v. United Fuel Gas Co., 317 U. S. 456 (1943), decided just four months prior to Burford, in which a District Court had enjoined on federal pre-emption grounds a State’s attempt to fix interstate gas rates. After determining that the State’s order impinged on the authority Congress had vested solely in the Federal Power Commission, we addressed the State’s contention that the District Court had nonetheless abused its discretion by granting injunctive relief:
“It is perhaps unnecessary at this late date to repeat the admonition that the federal courts should be wary of interrupting the proceedings of state administrative tribunals by use of the extraordinary writ of injunction. But this, too, is a rule of equity and not to be applied in blind disregard of fact. And what are the commanding circumstances of the present case? First, and most important, the orders of the state Commission are on their face plainly invalid. No inquiry beyond the orders themselves and the undisputed facts which underlie them is necessary in order to discover that they are in conflict with the federal Act” 317 U. S., at 468-469 (emphasis added).
Similarly in the case at bar, no inquiry beyond the four corners of the Council’s retail rate order is needed to determine whether it is facially pre-empted by FERC’s allocative decree and relevant provisions of the Federal Power Act. Such an inquiry would not unduly intrude into the processes of state government or undermine the State’s ability to maintain desired uniformity. It may, of course, result in an injunction against enforcement of the rate order, but “there is... no doctrine requiring abstention merely because resolution of a federal question may result in the overturning of a state policy.” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 380, n. 6 (1978).
It is true that in its initial complaint, NOPSI asserted, as an alternative to its facial pre-emption challenge, that the rate order’s nominal emphasis on NOPSI’s failure in 1979-1980 to diversify its power supply by selling off a portion of its Grand Gulf allocation was merely a cover for the determination that the original Grand Gulf investment was itself unwise. Unlike the facial challenge, this claim cannot be resolved on the face of the rate order, because it hinges largely on the plausibility of the Council’s finding that NOPSI should have, and could have, diversified its supply portfolio and thereby lowered its average wholesale costs. See n. 2, supra. Analysis of this pretext claim requires an inquiry into industry practice, wholesale rates, and power availability during the relevant time period, an endeavor that demands some level of industry-specific expertise. But since, as the facts of this case amply demonstrate, wholesale electricity is not bought and sold within a predominantly local market, it does not demand significant familiarity with, and will not disrupt state resolution of, distinctively local regulatory facts or policies. The principles underlying Burford are therefore not implicated.
B
In Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), which involved a facial First Amendment-based challenge to the California Criminal Syndicalism Act, we held that absent extraordinary circumstances federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions. That far-from-novel holding was based partly on traditional principles of equity, id., at 43-44, but rested primarily on the “even more vital consideration” of comity, id., at 44. As we explained, this includes “a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways.” Ibid.
The state-court proceeding at issue here is not a criminal prosecution, and one of the issues in the present case is whether the principle of Younger can properly be extended to this type of suit. NOPSI argues that that issue does not have to be reached, however, for several reasons. First, NOPSI argues that Younger does not require abstention in the face of a substantial claim that the challenged state action is completely pre-empted by federal law. Such a claim, NOPSI contends, calls into question the prerequisite of Younger abstention that the State have a legitimate, substantial interest in its pending proceedings, Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U. S. 423, 432 (1982). Thus, it contends, a district court presented with a pre-emption-based request for equitable relief should take a quick look at the merits; and if upon that look the claim appears substantial, the court should endeavor to resolve it.
We disagree. There is no greater federal interest in enforcing the supremacy of federal statutes than in enforcing the supremacy of explicit constitutional guarantees, and constitutional challenges to state action, no less than preemption-based challenges, call into question the legitimacy of the State’s interest in its proceedings reviewing or enforcing that action. Yet it is clear that the mere assertion of a substantial constitutional challenge to state action will not alone compel the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See Younger, 401 U. S., at 53. That is so because when we inquire into the substantiality of the State’s interest in its proceedings we do not look narrowly to its interest in the outcome of the particular case — which could arguably be offset by a substantial federal interest in the opposite outcome. Rather, what we look to is the importance of the generic proceedings to the State. In Younger, for example, we did not consult California’s interest in prohibiting John Harris from distributing handbills, but rather its interest in “carrying out the important and necessary task” of enforcing its criminal laws. Id., at 51-52. Similarly, in Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U. S. 619 (1986), we looked not to Ohio’s specific concern with Dayton Christian Schools’ firing of Linda Hoskinson, but to its more general interest in preventing employers from engaging in sex discrimination. Id., at 628. Because pre-emption-based challenges merit a similar focus, the appropriate question here is not whether Louisiana has a substantial, legitimate interest in reducing NOPSI’s retail rate below that necessary to recover its wholesale costs, but whether it has a substantial, legitimate interest in regulating intrastate retail rates. It clearly does. “[T]he regulation of utilities is one of the most important of the functions traditionally associated with the police power of the States.” Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 461 U. S. 375, 377 (1983). Accord, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190, 205-206 (1983); Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Sen. Comm’n of New York, 447 U. S. 567, 569 (1980).
NOPSI attempts to avoid this conclusion by stressing that it challenges not only the result of the Council’s deliberations, but the very right of the Council to conduct those deliberations. (This argument assumes, of course, that enjoining the Louisiana state courts can be equated with enjoining the Council proceedings, a point we shall address in due course.) But that is simply not true, if the reference to “the Council’s deliberations” is as generic as it should be. NOPSI does not deny that the State has an interest affirmatively protected by federal law in conducting proceedings to set intrastate retail electricity rates; rather, it contends that under the particular facts of the present case its FERC-allocated wholesale costs are not a proper subject for such proceedings. That is no different from the contention in Younger that the defendant’s violation of the particular (allegedly unconstitutional) state statute was not a proper subject of prosecution. In other words, this argument of NOPSI ultimately reduces once again to insistence upon too narrow an analytical focus.
NOPSI’s second argument to the effect that abstention is improper even assuming the state proceedings here are the sort to which Younger applies rests upon the principle that abstention is not appropriate if the federal plaintiff will “suffer irreparable injury” absent equitable relief. Younger, 401 U. S., at 43-44; see also id., at 48. Irreparable injury may possibly be established, Younger suggested, by a showing that the challenged state statute is “ ‘flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions...,’” id., at 53-54, quoting Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387, 402 (1941). Relying on Public Util. Comm’n of Ohio v. United Fuel Gas Co., 317 U. S. 456 (1943), where we upheld the order of a District Court enjoining the State Public Utilities Commission from attempting directly to regulate interstate gas prices because such actions were “on their face plainly invalid,” id., at 469 (emphasis added), NOPSI asserts that Younger’s posited exception for state statutes “flagrantly and patently vio-lative of express constitutional prohibitions” ought to apply equally to state proceedings and orders flagrantly and patently violative of federal pre-emption (which is unlawful only because it violates the express constitutional prescription of the Supremacy Clause). Thus, NOPSI argues, even if a substantial claim of federal pre-emption is not sufficient to render abstention inappropriate, at least a facially conclusive claim is. Perhaps so. But we do not have to decide the matter here, since the proceeding and order at issue do not meet that description. The Council has not sought directly to regulate interstate wholesale rates; nor has it questioned the validity of the FERC-prescribed allocation of power within the Grand Gulf system, or the FERC-prescribed wholesale rates; nor has it reexamined the prudence of NOPSI’s agreement to participate in Grand Gulf 1 in the first place. Rather, the Council maintains that it has examined the prudence of NOPSPs failure, after the risks of nuclear power became apparent, to diversify its supply portfolio, and that finding that failure negligent, it has taken the normal ratemaking step of making NOPSPs shareholders rather than the ratepayers bear the consequences. Nothing in this is directly or even indirectly foreclosed by the federal statute, the regulations implementing it, or the case law applying it. There may well be reason to doubt the Council’s necessary factual finding that NOPSI would have saved money had it diversified. See n. 2, supra. But we cannot conclusively say it is wrong without further factual inquiry — and what requires further factual inquiry can hardly be deemed “flagrantly” unlawful for purposes of a threshold abstention determination.
We conclude, therefore, that NOPSPs challenge must stand or fall upon the answer to the question whether the Louisiana court action is the type of proceeding to which Younger applies. Viewed in isolation, it plainly is not. Although our concern for comity and federalism has led us to expand the protection of Younger beyond state criminal prosecutions, to civil enforcement proceedings, Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592, 604 (1975); Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434, 444 (1977); Moore v. Sims, 442 U. S. 415, 423 (1979), and even to civil proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions, see Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327, 336, n. 12 (1977) (civil contempt order); Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U. S. 1, 13 (1987) (requirement for the posting of bond pending appeal), it has never been suggested that Younger requires abstention in deference to a state judicial proceeding reviewing legislative or executive action. Such a broad abstention requirement would make a mockery of the rule that only exceptional circumstances justify a federal court’s refusal to decide a case in deference to the States. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S., at 817; Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 25 (1983); cf. Moore v. Sims, supra, at 423, n. 8 (“[W]e do not remotely suggest ‘that every pending proceeding between a State and a federal plaintiff justifies abstention unless one of the exceptions to Younger applies’ ” (citation omitted)).
In asserting that Younger is applicable, however, respondents focus not upon the Louisiana court action in isolation, but upon that action as a mere continuation of the Council proceeding. Their contention is that “[t]he Council’s own ratemaking and prudence inquiry, even though complete, constitutes an ‘ongoing proceeding’ because it is subject to state judicial review.” Brief for Respondents 31. The proper question, they contend, is whether the Council proceeding qualified for Younger treatment — because if it did, the proceeding is not complete until judicial review is concluded. Respondents argue by analogy to the treatment of court proceedings, for Younger purposes, as an uninter-ruptible whole. When, in a proceeding to which Younger applies, a state trial court has entered judgment, the losing party cannot, of course, pursue equitable remedies in federal district court while concurrently challenging the trial court’s judgment on appeal. For Younger purposes, the State’s trial-and-appeals process is treated as a unitary system, and for a federal court to disrupt its integrity by intervening in midprocess would demonstrate a lack of respect for the State as sovereign. For the same reason, a party may not procure federal intervention by terminating the state judicial process prematurely — forgoing the state appeal to attack the trial court’s judgment in federal court. “[A] necessary concomitant of Younger is that a party [wishing to contest in federal court the judgment of a state judicial tribunal] must exhaust his state appellate remedies before seeking relief in the District Court.” Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., supra, at 608. Respondents urge that these principles apply equally where the initial adjudicatory tribunal is an agency — i. e., that the litigation, from agency through courts, is to be viewed as a unitary process that should not be disrupted, so that federal intervention is no more permitted at the conclusion of the administrative stage than during it.
We will assume, without deciding, that this is correct. Respondents’ case for abstention still requires, however, that the Council proceeding be the sort of proceeding entitled to Younger treatment. We think it is not. While we have expanded Younger beyond criminal proceedings, and even beyond proceedings in courts, we have never extended it to proceedings that are not “judicial in nature.” See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U. S., at 433-434 (“It is clear beyond doubt that the New Jersey Supreme Court considers its bar disciplinary proceedings as ‘judicial in nature.’ As such, the proceedings are of a character to warrant federal-court deference”). See also Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U. S., at 627 (“Because we found that the administrative proceedings in Middlesex were ‘judicial in nature’ from the outset,... it was not essential to the decision that they had progressed to state-court review by the time we heard the federal injunction case”). The Council’s proceedings in the present case were not judicial in nature.
In Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210 (1908), several railroads requested a Federal Circuit Court “to enjoin... the Virginia State Corporation Commission from publishing or taking any steps to enforce a certain order fixing passenger rates,” on the ground that the proposed rates were confiscatory. Id., at 223. To
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Minton join.
Petitioners were indicted in July, 1948, for violation of the conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act, 54 Stat. 671, 18 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 11, during the period of April, 1945, to July, 1948. The pretrial motion to quash the indictment on the grounds, inter alia, that the statute was unconstitutional was denied, United States v. Foster, 80 F. Supp. 479, and the case was set for trial on January 17, 1949. A verdict of guilty as to all the petitioners was returned by the jury on October 14, 1949. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 183 F. 2d 201. We granted certiorari, 340 U. S. 863, limited to the following two questions: (1) Whether either § 2 or § 3 of the Smith Act, inherently or as construed and applied in the instant case, violates the First'Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights; (2) whether either § 2 or § 3 of the Act, inherently or as construed and applied in the instant case, violates the First and Fifth Amendments because of indefiniteness.
Sections 2 and 3 of the Smith Act, 54 Stat. 671, 18 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) §§ 10, 11 (see present 18 U. S. C. § 2385), provide as follows:
“Sec. 2. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person— “(1) to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or by the assassination of-any officer of any such government;
“(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any government in the United States, to print, publish, edit, issue, circulate,.sell, distribute, or publicly display any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence;
“(3) to organize or help to.organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any government in the United States by force or violence; or to be or become a member of, or affiliate with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.
“(b) For the purposes of this section, the term ‘government in the United States’ means the Government of the United States, the government of any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, the government of the District of Columbia, or the government of any political subdivision of any of them.
“Sec. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, or to conspire to commit, any of the acts prohibited by the provisions of this title.”
The indictment charged the petitioners with wilfully and knowingly conspiring (1) to organize as the Communist Party of the United States of America a society, group and assembly of persons who teach and advocate the overthrow and destruction of the Government of the United States by force and violence, and (2) knowingly and wilfully to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing and destroying the Government of the United States by force and violence. The indictment further alleged that § 2 of the Smith Act proscribes these acts and that any conspiracy to take such action is a violation of § 3 of the Act.
The trial of the case extended over nine months, six of which were devoted to the taking of evidence, resulting in a record of 16,000 pages. Our limited grant of the writ of certiorari has removed from our consideration any question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s determination that petitioners are guilty of the offense charged. Whether on this record petitioners did in fact advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and violence is not before us, and we must base any discussion of this point upon the conclusions stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, which treated the issue in great detail. That court held that the record in this case amply supports the necessary finding of the jury that petitioners, the leaders of the Communist Party in this country, were unwilling to work within our framework of democracy, but intended to initiate a violent revolution whenever the propitious occasion appeared. Petitioners dispute the meaning to be drawn from the evidence, contending that the Marxist-Leninist doctrine they advocated taught that force and violence to achieve a Communist form of government in an existing democratic state would be necessary only because the ruling classes of that state would never permit the transformation to be accomplished peacefully, but would use force and violence to defeat any peaceful political and economic gain the Communists could achieve. But the Court of Appeals held that the record supports the following broad conclusions: By virtue of their control over the political apparatus of the Communist Political Association, petitioners were able to transform that organization into the Communist Party; that the policies of the Association were changed from peaceful cooperation with the United States and its economic and political structure to a policy which had existed before the United States and the Soviet Union were fighting a common enemy, namely, a policy which worked for the overthrow of the Government by force and violence; that the Communist Party is a highly disciplined organization, adept at infiltration into strategic positions, use of aliases, and double-meaning language; that the Party is rigidly controlled; that Communists, unlike other political parties, tolerate no dissension from the policy laid down by the guiding forces, but that the approved program is slavishly followed by the members of the Party; that the literature of the Party and the statements and activities of its leaders, petitioners here, advocate, and the general goal of the Party was, during the period in question, to achieve a successful overthrow of the existing order by force and violence.
I.
It will be helpful in clarifying the issues to treat next the contention that the trial judge improperly interpreted the statute by charging that the statute required an unlawful intent before the jury could convict. More specifically, he charged that the jury could not find the petitioners guilty under the indictment unless they found that petitioners had the intent to “overthrow... the Government of the United States by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit.”
Section 2 (a) (1) makes it unlawful “to knowingly or willfully advocate-,... or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence....”; Section 2 (a) (3), “to organize or help to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow....” Because of the fact that § 2 (a) (2) expressly requires a specific intent to overthrow the Government, and because of the absence of precise language in the foregoing subsections, it is claimed that Congress deliberately omitted any such requirement. We do not agree. It would require a far greater indication of congressional desire that intent not be made an element of the crime than the use of the disjunctive “knowingly or willfully” in § 2 (a) (1), or the omission of exact language in § 2 (a) (3). The structure and purpose of the statute demand the inclusion of intent as an element of the crime. Congress was concerned with those who advocate and organize for the overthrow of the Government. Certainly those who recruit and combine for the purpose of advocating overthrow intend to bring about that overthrow. We hold that the statute requires as an essential element of the crime proof of the intent of those who are charged with its violation to overthrow the Government by force and violence. See Williams v. United States, 341 U. S. 97, 101-102 (1951); Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 101-105 (1945); Cramer v. United States, 325 U. S. 1, 31 (1945).
Nor does the fact that there must be an investigation of a state of mind under this interpretation afford any basis for rejection of that meaning. A survey of Title 18 of the U. S. Code indicates that the vast majority of the crimes designated by that Title require, by express language, proof of the existence of a certain mental state, in words such as “knowingly,” “maliciously,” “wilfully,” “with' the purpose of,” “with intent to,” or combinations or permutations of these and synonymous terms. The existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence. See American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 411 (1950).
It has been suggested that the presence of intent makes a difference in the law when an “act otherwise excusable or carrying minor penalties” is'accompanied by such an evil intent. Yet the existence of such an intent made the killing condemned in Screws, supra, and the beating in Williams, supra, both clearly and severely punishable under state law, offenses constitutionally punishable by the Federal Government. In those cases, the Court required the Government to prove that the defendants intended to deprive the victim of a constitutional right. If that precise mental state may be an essential element of a crime, surely an intent to overthrow the Government of the United States, by advocacy thereof is equally susceptible of proof.
II.
The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to' the Constitution.
One of the bases for the contention that the means which Congress has employed are invalid takes the form of an attack on the face of the statute on the grounds that by its terms it prohibits academic discussion of the merits of Marxism-Leninism, that it stifles ideas and is contrary to all concepts of a free speech and a free press. Although we do not agree that the language itself has that significance, we must bear in mind that it is the duty of the federal courts to interpret federal legislation in a manner not inconsistent with the demands of the Constitution. American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 407 (1950). We are not here confronted with cases similar to Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242 (1937); and De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353 (1937), where a state court had given a meaning to a state statute which was inconsistent with the Federal Constitution. This is a federal statute which we must interpret as well as judge. Herein lies the fallacy of reliance upon the manner in which this Court has treated judgments of state courts. Where the statute as construed by the state court transgressed the First Amendment, we could not but invalidate the judgments of conviction.
The very language of the Smith Act negates the interpretation which petitioners would have us impose on that Act. It is directed at advocacy, not discussion. Thus, the trial judge properly charged the jury that they could not convict if they found that petitioners did “no more than pursue peaceful studies and discussions or teaching and advocacy in the realm of ideas.” He further charged that it was not unlawful “to conduct in an American college or university a course explaining the philosophical theories set forth in the books which have been placed in evidence.” Such a charge is in strict accord with the statutory language, and illustrates the meaning to be placed on those words. Congress did not intend to eradicate the free discussion of political theories, to destroy the traditional rights of Americans to discuss and evaluate ideas without fear of governmental sanction. Rather Congress was concerned with the very kind of activity in which the evidence showed.these petitioners engaged.
III.
But although the statute is not directed at the hypothetical cases which petitioners have conjured, its application in this case has resulted in convictions for the teaching and advocacy of the overthrow of the Government by force and violence, which, even though coupled with the intent to accomplish that overthrow, contains an element of speech. For this reason, we must pay special heed to the demands of the First Amendment marking out the boundaries of speech.
We pointed out in Douds, supra, that the basis of the First Amendment is the hypothesis that speech can rebut speech, propaganda will answer propaganda, free debate of ideas will result in the wisest governmental policies. It is for this reason that this Court has recognized the inherent value of free discourse. An analysis of the leading cases in this Court which have involved direct limitations on speech, however, will demonstrate that both the majority of the Court and the dissenters in particular cases have recognized that this is not an unlimited, unqualified right, but that the societal value of speech must, on occasion, be subordinated to other values and considerations.
No important case involving free speech was decided by this Court prior to Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47 (1919). Indeed, the summary treatment accorded an argument based upon an individual’s claim that the First Amendment protected certain utterances indicates that the Court at earlier dates placed no unique emphasis upon that right. It was not until the classic dictum of Justice Holmes in the Schenck case that speech per se received that emphasis in a majority opinion. That case involved a conviction under the Criminal Espionage Act, 40 Stat. 217. The question the Court faced was whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Holmes stated that the “question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” 249 U. S. at 52. But the force of even this expression is considerably weakened by the reference at the end of the opinion to Goldman v. United States, 245 U. S. 474 (1918), a prosecution under the same statute. Said Justice Holmes, “Indeed [Goldman] might be said to dispose of the present contention if the precedent covers all media concludendi. But as the right to free speech was not referred to specially, we have thought fit to add a few words.” 249 U. S. at 52. The fact is inescapable, too, that the phrase bore no connotation that the danger was to be any threat to the safety of the Republic. The charge was causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military forces and obstruct recruiting. The objectionable document denounced conscription and its most inciting sentence was, “You must do your share to maintain, support and uphold the rights of the people of this country.” 249 U. S. at 51. Fifteen thousand copies were printed and some circulated. This insubstantial gesture toward insubordination in 1917 during war was held to be a clear and present danger of bringing about the evil of military insubordination.
In several later cases involving convictions under the Criminal Espionage Act; the nub of the evidence the Court held sufficient to meet the “clear and present danger” test enunciated in Schenck was as follows: Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U. S. 204 (1919) — publication of twelve newspaper articles attacking the war; Debs v. United States, 249 U. S. 211 (1919) — one speech attacking United States’ participation in the war; Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616 (1919) — circulation of copies of two different socialist circulars attacking the war; Schaefer v. United States, 251 U. S. 466 (1920) — publication of a German-language newspaper with allegedly false articles, critical of capitalism and the war; Pierce v. United States, 252 U. S. 239 (1920) — circulation of copies of a four-page pamphlet written by a clergyman, attacking the purposes of the war and United States’ participation therein. Justice Holmes wrote the opinions for a unanimous Court in Schenck, Frohwerk and Debs. He and Justice Brandéis dissented in Abrams, Schaefer and Pierce. The basis of these dissents was that, because of the protection which the First Amendment gives to speech, the evidence in each case was insufficient to show that the defendants had created the requisite danger under Schenck. But these dissents did not mark a change of principle. The dissenters doubted only the probable effectiveness of the puny efforts toward subversion. In Abrams, they wrote, “I do not doubt for a moment that by the same reasoning that would justify punishing persuasion to murder, the United States constitutionally may punish speech that produces or is intended to produce a clear and imminent danger that it will bring about forthwith certain substantive evils that the United States constitutionally may seek to prevent.” 250 U. S. at 627. And in Schaefer the test was said to be one of “degree,” 251 U. S. at 482, although it is not clear whether “degree” refers to clear and present danger or evil. Perhaps both were meant.
The rule we deduce from these cases is that where an offense is specified by a statute in nonspeech or nonpress terms, a conviction relying upon speech or press as evidence of violation may be sustained only when the speech or publication created a “clear and present danger” of attempting or accomplishing the prohibited crime, e. g., interference with enlistment. The dissents, we repeat, in emphasizing the value of speech, were addressed to the argument of the sufficiency of the evidence.
The next important case before the Court in which free speech was the crux of the conflict was Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652 (1925). There New York had made it a crime to advocate “the necessity or propriety of overthrowing... organized government by force....” The evidence of violation of the statute was that the defendant had published a Manifesto attacking the Government and capitalism. The convictions were sustained, Justices Holmes and Brandéis dissenting. The majority refused to apply the “clear and present danger” test to the specific utterance. Its reasoning was as follows: The “clear and present danger” test was applied to the utterance itself in Schenck because the question was merely one of sufficiency of evidence under an admittedly constitutional statute. Gitlow, however, presented a different question. There a legislature had found that a certain kind of speech was, itself, harmful and unlawful. The constitutionality of such a state statute had to be adjudged by this Court just as it determined the constitutionality of any state statute, namely, whether the statute was “reasonable.” Since it was entirely reasonable for a state to attempt to protect itself from violent overthrow, the statute was perforce reasonable. The only question remaining in.the case became whether there was evidence to support the conviction, a question which gave the majority no difficulty. Justices Holmes and Brandéis refused to accept this approach, but insisted that wherever speech was the evidence of the violation, it was necessary to show that the speech created the “clear and present danger” of the substantive evil which the legislature had the right to prevent. Justices Holmes and Brandéis, then, made no distinction between a federal statute which made certain acts unlawful, the evidence to support the conviction being speech, and a statute which made speech itself the crime. This approach was emphasized in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927), where the Court was confronted with a conviction under the California Criminal Syndicalist statute. The Court sustained the conviction, Justices Brandéis and Holmes concurring in the result. In their concurrence they repeated that even though the legislature had designated certain speech as criminal, this could not prevent the defendant from showing that there was no danger that the substantive evil would be brought about.
Although no case subsequent to Whitney and Gitlow has expressly overruled the majority opinions in those cases, there is little doubt that subsequent opinions have inclined toward the Holmes-Brandeis rationale. And in American Communications Assn. v. Douds, supra, we were called upon to decide the validity of § 9 (h) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. That section required officials of unions which desired to avail themselves of the facilities of the National Labor Relations Board to take oaths that they did not belong to the Communist Party and that they did not believe in the overthrow of the Government by force and violence. We pointed out that Congress did not intend to punish belief, but rather intended to regulate the conduct of union affairs. We therefore held that any indirect sanction on speech which might arise from the oath requirement did not present a proper case for the “clear and present danger” test, for the regulation was aimed at conduct rather than speech. In discussing the proper measure of evaluation of this kind of legislation, we suggested that the Holmes-Brandeis philosophy insisted that where there was a direct restriction upon speech, a “clear and present danger” that the substantive evil would be caused was necessary before the statute in question could be constitutionally applied. And we stated, “[The First] Amendment requires that one be permitted to believe what he will. It requires that one be permitted to advocate what he will unless there is a clear and present danger that a substantial public evil will result therefrom.” 339 U. S. at 412. But we further suggested that neither Justice Holmes nor Justice Brandéis ever envisioned that a shorthand phrase should be crystallized into a rigid rule to be applied inflexibly without regard to the circumstances of each case. Speech is not an absolute, above and beyond control by the legislature when its judgment, subject to review here, is that certain kinds of speech are so undesirable as to warrant criminal sanction. Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes, that a name, a phrase, a standard has meaning only when associated with the considerations which gave birth to the nomenclature. See American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. at 397. To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic straitjacket we must reply that all concepts are relative.
In this case we are squarely presented with the application of the “clear and present danger” test, and must decide what that phrase imports. We first note that many of the cases in which this Court has reversed convictions by use of this or similar tests have been based on the fact that the interest which the State was attempting to protect was itself too insubstantial to warrant restriction of speech. In this category we may put such cases as Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940); Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943); West Virginia Board of Educa tion v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516 (1945); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501 (1946); but cf. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941). Overthrow of the Government by force and violence is certainly a substantial enough interest for the Government to limit speech. Indeed, this is the ultimate value of any society, for if a society cannot protect its very structure from armed internal attack, it must follow that no subordinate value can be protected. If, then, this interest may be protected, the literal problem which is presented is what has been meant by the use of the phrase “clear and present danger” of the utterances bringing about the evil within the power of Congress to punish.
Obviously, the words.cannot mean that before the Government may act, ii5 must wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited. If Government is aware that a group aiming at its overthrow is attempting to indoctrinate its members and to commit them to a course whereby they will strike when the leaders feel the circumstances permit, action by the Government is required.. The argument that there is no need for Government to concern itself, for Government is strong, it possesses ample powers to put down a rebellion, it may defeat the revolution with ease needs no answer. For that is not the question. Certainly an attempt to overthrow the Government by force, even though doomed from the outset because of inadequate numbers or power of the revolutionists, is a sufficient evil for Congress to prevent. The damage which such attempts create both physically and politically to a nation makes it impossible to measure the validity in terms of the probability of success, or the immediacy of a successful attempt. In the instant case the trial judge charged the jury that they could not convict unless they found that petitioners intended to overthrow the Government “as speedily as circumstances would permit.” This does not mean, and could not properly mean, that they would not strike until there was certainty of success. What was meant was that the revolutionists would strike when they thought the time was ripe. We must therefore reject the contention that success or probability of success is the criterion.
The situation with which Justices Holmes and Brandéis were concerned in Gitlow was a comparatively isolated event, bearing little relation in their minds to any substantial threat to the safety of the community. Such also is true of cases like Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380 (1927), and De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353 (1937); but cf. Lazar v. Pennsylvania, 286 U. S. 532 (1932).( They. were not confronted with any situation comparable to the instant one — the development of an apparatus designed and dedicated to the overthrow of the Government, in the context of world crisis after crisis.
Chief Judge Learned Hand, writing for the majority below, interpreted the phrase as follows: “In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the ‘evil,’ discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.” 183 F. 2d at 212. We adopt this statement of the rule. As articulated by Chief Judge Hand, it is as succinct and inclusive as any other we might devise at this time. It takes into consideration those factors which we deem relevant, and relates their significances. More we cannot expect from words.
Likewise, we are in accord with the court below, which affirmed the trial court’s finding that the requisite danger existed. The mere fact that from the period 1945 to 1948 petitioners’ activities did not result in an attempt to overthrow the Government by force and violence is of course no answer to the fact that there was a group that was ready to make the attempt. The formation by petitioners of such a highly organized conspiracy, with rigidly disciplined members subject to call when the leaders, these petitioners, felt that the time had come for action, coupled with the inflammable nature of world conditions, similar uprisings in other countries, and the touch-and-go nature of our relations with countries with whom petitioners were in the very least ideologically attuned, convince us that their convictions were justified on this score. And this analysis disposes of the contention that a conspiracy to advocate, as distinguished from the advocacy itself, cannot be constitutionally restrained, because it comprises only the preparation. It is the existence of the conspiracy which creates the danger. Cf. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U. S. 640 (1946); Goldman v. United States, 245 U. S. 474 (1918); United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78 (1915). If the ingredients of the reaction are present, we cannot bind the Government to wait until the catalyst is added.
IV.
Although we have concluded that the finding that there was a sufficient danger to warrant the application of the statute was justified on the merits, there remains the problem of whether the trial judge’s treatment of the issue was correct. He charged the jury, in relevant part, as follows:
“In further construction and interpretation of the statute I charge you that it is not the abstract doctrine of overthrowing or destroying organized government by unlawful means which is denounced by this law, but the teaching and advocacy of action for the accomplishment of that purpose, by language reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite persons to such action. Accordingly, you cannot find the defendants or any of them guilty of the crime charged unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that they conspired to organize a society, group and assembly of persons who teach and advocate the overthrow or destruction of the Government of the United States by force and violence and to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing or destroying the Government of the United States by force and violence, with the intent that such teaching and advocacy be of a rule or principle of action and by language reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite persons to such action, all with the intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of the Government of the United States by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit.
“If you are satisfied that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants, or any of them, are guilty of a violation of the statute, as I have interpreted it to you, I find as matter of law that there is sufficient danger of a substantive evil that the Congress has a right to prevent to justify the application of the statute under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
“This is matter of law about which you have no concern. It is a finding on a matter of law which I deem essential to support my ruling that the case should be submitted to you to pass upon the guilt or innocence of the defendants...
It is thus clear that he reserved the question of the existence of the danger for his own determination, and the question becomes whether the issue is of such a nature that it should have been submitted to the jury.
The first paragraph of the quoted instructions calls for the jury to find the facts essential to establish the substantive crime, violation of §§ 2 (a) (1) and 2 (a) (3) of the Smith Act, involved in the conspiracy charge. There can be no doubt that if the jury found those facts against the petitioners violation of the Act would be established. The argument that the action of the trial court is erroneous, in declaring as a matter of law that such violation shows sufficient danger to justify the punishment despite the First Amendment, rests on the theory that a jury must decide a question of the application of the First Amendment. We do not agree.
When facts are found that establish the violation of a statute, the protection against conviction afforded by the First Amendment is a matter of law. The doctrine that there must be a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent is a judicial rule to be applied as a matter of law by the courts. The guilt is established by proof of facts. Whether the First Amendment protects the activity which constitutes the violation of the statute must depend upon a judicial determination of the scope of the First Amendment applied to the circumstances of the case.
Petitioners’ reliance upon Justice Brandéis’ language in his concurrence in Whitney, supra, is misplaced. In that case Justice Brandéis pointed out that the defendant could have made the existence of the requisite danger the important issue at her trial, but that she had not done so. In discussing this failure, he stated that the defendant could have had the issue determined by the court or the jury. No realistic construction of this disjunctive language could arrive at the conclusion that he intended to state that the question was only determinable by a jury. Nor is the incidental statement of the majority in Pierce, supra, of any more persuasive effect. There the issue of the probable effect of the publication had been submitted to the jury, and the majority was apparently addressing its remarks to the contention of the dissenters that the jury could not reasonably have returned a verdict of guilty on the evidence. Indeed, in the very case in which the phrase was born, Schenck, this Court itself examined the record to find whether the requisite danger appeared, and the issue was not submitted to a jury. And in every later case in which the Court has measured the validity of a statute by the “clear and present danger” test, that determination has been by the court, the question of the danger not being submitted to the jury.
The question in this case is whether the statute which the legislature has enacted may be constitutionally applied. In other words, the Court must examine judicially the application of the statute to the particular situation, to ascertain if the Constitution prohibits the conviction. We hold that the statute may be applied where there is a “clear and present danger” of the substantive evil which the legislature had the right to prevent. Bearing, as it does, the marks of a “question of law,” the issue is properly one for the judge to decide.
V.
There remains to be discussed the question of vagueness — whether the statute as we have interpreted it is too vague, not sufficiently advising those who would speak of the limitations upon their activity. It is urged that such vagueness contravenes the First and Fifth Amendments. This argument is particularly nonpersuasive when presented by petitioners, who, the jury found, intended to overthrow the Government as speedily as circumstances would permit. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 627-629 (1919) (dissenting opinion); Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion); Taylor v. Mississippi, 319 U. S. 583, 589 (1943). A claim of guilelessness ill becomes those with evil intent. Williams v. United States, 341 U. S. 97, 101-102 (1951); Jordan v. De George, 341 U. S. 223, 230-232 (1951); American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. at 413; Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 101 (1945).
We agree that the standard as defined is not a neat, mathematical formulary. Like all verbalizations it is subject to criticism on the score of indefiniteness. But petitioners themselves contend that the verbalization “clear and present danger” is the proper standard. We see no difference, from the standpoint of vagueness, whether the standard of “clear and present danger” is one contained in haec verba within the statute, or whether it is the judicial measure of constitutional applicability. We have shown the indeterminate standard the phrase necessarily connotes. We do not think we have rendered that standard any more indefinite by our attempt to sum up the factors which are included within its scope. We think it well serves to indicate to those who would advocate constitutionally prohibited conduct that there is a line beyond which they may not go — a line which they, in full knowledge of what they intend and the circumstances in which their activity takes place, will well appreciate and understand. Williams, supra, at
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The statutes at issue in this case make it a crime to “conspir[e]” to “possess with intent to . . . distribute ... a controlled substance.” 21 U. S. C. §§ 841 and 846. The Government charged petitioners with violating these statutes by conspiring “to possess with intent to distribute ,.. mixtures containing” two controlled substances, namely, “cocaine ... and cocaine base” (i. e., “crack”). App. 6. The District Judge instructed the jury that “the government must prove that the conspiracy . . . involved measurable amounts of cocaine or cocaine base.” App. 16 (emphasis added). The jury returned a general verdict of guilty. And the judge imposed sentences based on his finding that each petitioner’s illegal conduct had involved both cocaine and crack.
Petitioners argued (for the first time) in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the judge’s sentences were unlawful insofar as they were based upon crack. They said that the word “or” in the judge’s instruction (permitting a guilty verdict if the conspiracy involved either cocaine or crack) meant that the judge must assume that the conspiracy involved only cocaine, which drug, they added, the Sentencing Guidelines treat more leniently than crack. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §2Dl.l(c) (Nov. 1994) (drug table) (USSG). The Court of Appeals, however, held that the judge need not assume that only cocaine was involved. 105 P. 3d 1179 (1997). It pointed out that the Sentencing Guidelines require the sentencing judge, not the jury, to determine both the kind and the amount of the drugs at issue in a drug conspiracy. Id., at 1180. And it reasoned that the jury’s belief about which drugs were involved — cocaine, crack, or both — was therefore beside the point. Id., at 1181. In light of a potential conflict among the Circuits on this question, see, e. g., United States v. Bounds, 985 P. 2d 188, 194-195 (CA5 1993); United States v. Pace, 981 P. 2d 1123 (CA10 1992); United States v. Owens, 904 P. 2d 411 (CA8 1990), we granted certiorari.
"We agree that in the circumstances of this case the judge was authorized to determine for sentencing purposes whether crack, as well as cocaine, was involved in the offense-related activities. The Sentencing Guidelines instruct the judge in a case like this one to determine both the amount and the kind of “controlled substances” for which a defendant should be held accountable — and then to impose a sentence that varies depending upon amount and kind. See United States v. Watts, 519 U. S. 148 (1997) (per curiam) (judge may consider drug charge of which offender has been acquitted by jury in determining Guidelines sentence); Witte v. United States, 515 U. S. 389 (1995) (judge may impose higher Guidelines sentence on offender convicted of possessing marijuana based on judge’s finding that offender also engaged in uncharged cocaine conspiracy). Consequently, regardless of the jury’s actual, or assumed, beliefs about the conspiracy, the Guidelines nonetheless require the judge to determine whether the “controlled substances” at issue — and how much of those substances — consisted of cocaine, crack, or both. And that is what the judge did in this case.
Virtually conceding this Guidelines-related point, petitioners argue that the drug statutes, as well as the Constitution, required the judge to assume that the jury convicted them of a conspiracy involving only cocaine. Petitioners misapprehend the significance of this contention, however, for even if they are correct, it would make no difference to their case. That is because the Guidelines instruct a sentencing judge to base a drug-conspiracy offender’s sentence on the offender’s “relevant conduct.” USSG § IB 1.3. And “relevant conduct,” in a case like this, includes both conduct that constitutes the “offense of conviction,” id., § 1B1.3(a)(1), and conduct that is “part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction,” id., § 1B1.3(a)(2). Thus, the sentencing judge here would have had to determine the total amount of drugs, determine whether the drugs consisted of cocaine, crack, or both, and determine the total amount of each — regardless of whether the judge believed that petitioners’ crack-related conduct was part of the “offense of conviction,” or the judge believed that it was “part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan.” The Guidelines sentencing range — on either belief — is identical.
Of course, petitioners’ statutory and constitutional claims would make a difference if it were possible to argue, say, that the sentences imposed exceeded the maximum that the statutes permit for a cocaine-only conspiracy. That is because a maximum sentence set by statute trumps a higher sentence set forth in the Guidelines. USSG § 5G1.1. But, as the Government points out, the sentences imposed here were within the statutory limits applicable to a cocaine-only conspiracy, given the quantities of that drug attributed to each petitioner. Brief for United States 15-16, and nn. 6-7; see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)-(3); App. 42-47, 72-82, 107-112, 136-141, 163-169 (cocaine attributed to each petitioner). Cf. United States v. Orozca-Prada, 732 F. 2d 1076, 1083-1084 (GA2 1984) (court may not sentence defendant under statutory penalties for cocaine conspiracy when jury may have found only marijuana conspiracy). Petitioners’ statutory and constitutional claims also could have made a difference had it been possible to argue that their crack-related activities did not constitute part of the “same course of conduct or common scheme or plan.” Then, of course, the crack (had it not been part of the “offense of conviction”) would not have been part of the sentence-related “relevant conduct” at all. But petitioners have not made this argument, and, after reviewing the record (which shows a series of interrelated drug transactions involving both cocaine and crack), we do not see how any such claim could succeed.
Instead, petitioners argue that the judge might have made different factual findings if only the judge had known that the law required him to assume the jury had found a cocaine-only, not a coeaine-and-crack, conspiracy. It is sufficient for present purposes, however, to point out that petitioners did not make this particular argument in the District Court. Indeed, they seem to have raised their entire argument for the first time in the Court of Appeals. Thus, petitioners did not explain to the sentencing judge how their “jury-found-only-coeaine” assumption could have made a difference to the judge’s own findings, nor did they explain how this assumption (given the judge’s findings) should lead to greater leniency. Moreover, our own review of the record indicates that the judge’s Guidelines-based factfinding, while resting upon the evidence before the jury, did not depend on any particular assumption about the type of conspiracy the jury found. Nor is there any indication that the assumption petitioners urge (a cocaine-only conspiracy) would likely have made a difference in respect to discretionary leniency.
For these reasons, we need not, and we do not, consider the merits of petitioners’ statutory and constitutional claims.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Twentieth Century Airlines, Inc., was issued a letter of registration as a large irregular air carrier by the Civil Aeronautics Board in 1947. For some reason, beginning in 1951 it conducted its business under the name of North American Airlines. On March 3, 1952, it amended its articles of incorporation so as legally to change its name to North American Airlines, Inc. By letter dated March 11, 1952, it requested the C. A. B. to reissue its letter of registration in the new corporate name. The Board took no action on that request, but rather, in August 1952, adopted an Economic Regulation requiring every irregular carrier after November 15, 1952, to do business in the name in which its letter of registration was issued. 14 CFR § 291.28. The Board explained that under the Regulation it would allow continued use of a different name to which good will had become attached, except where use of such name constitutes a violation of § 411 of the Civil Aeronautics Act, 52 Stat. 1003, as amended, 66 Stat. 628, 49 U. S. C. § 491, which prohibits unfair or deceptive commercial practices and unfair methods of competition. 17 Fed. Reg. 7809.
On October 6, 1952, respondent applied for permission to continue use of its name, “North American Airlines.” Petitioner, American Airlines, on October 17, 1952, filed a memorandum with the Board requesting denial of North American’s application for the reasons, among others, that use of the name “North American” infringed upon its long-established trade name, “American,” and constituted an unfair method of competition in violation of § 411 of the Act. The Board, as authorized by § 411, on its own motion instituted an investigation and hearing into whether there was a violation of § 411 by North American. It consolidated with that proceeding an investigation and hearing into the matter of North American’s application for change of name in its letter of registration. American was granted leave to intervene in the consolidated proceeding.
After extensive hearings, the Board found that respondent’s use of the name “North American” in the air transportation industry, in which it competed with American, had caused “substantial public confusion,” which was “likely to continue” and which constituted “an unfair or deceptive practice and an unfair method of competition within the meaning of Section 411.” Docket Nos. 5774 and 5928 (Nov. 4, 1953), 14-15 (mimeo). It found that the public interest required elimination of the use of the name, and accordingly it denied the application of North American and ordered it to “cease and desist from engaging in air transportation under the name ‘North American Airlines, Inc.,’ ‘North American Airlines,’ ‘North American,’ or any combination of the word ‘American.’ ” Id., at 15-16. On petition for review by North American, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set aside the Board’s order. 97 U. S. App. D. C. 85, 228 F. 2d 432. American, having been admitted as a party below by intervention, sought, and we granted, certiorari. 350 U. S. 894.
As we understand its opinion, the Court of Appeals set aside the order because the public interest in this proceeding was inadequate to justify exercise of the Board’s jurisdiction under § 411. Although the court was critical of the finding of “substantial public confusion,” it did not, on its disposition of the. case, expressly disturb that or any other of the Board’s findings. For the purposes of review here, we will accept the findings, and there is no cause for this Court to review the evidence. Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474, has no application in the present posture of the case before us. The questions then presented are whether confusion between the parties’ trade names justified a proceeding by the Board to protect the public and whether the kind of confusion found by the Board could support a conclusion of a violation of the statute by respondent.
This is a case of first impression under § 411. That section provides that
“The Board may, upon its own initiative or upon complaint ... if it considers that such action by it would be in the interest of the public, investigate and determine whether any air carrier . . . has been or is engaged in unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in air transportation or the sale thereof.”
If the Board finds that the carrier is so engaged, “it shall order such air carrier ... to cease and desist from such practices or methods of competition.” Section 411 was modeled closely after § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which similarly prohibits “unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices” and provides for issuance of a complaint “if it shall appear to the Commission that a proceeding by it . . . would be to the interest of the public.” 38 Stat. 719, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 45. We may profitably look to judicial interpretation of § 5 as an aid in the resolution of the questions raised here under § 411.
It should be noted at the outset that a finding as to the “interest of the public” under both § 411 and § 5 is not a prerequisite to the issuance of a cease and desist order as such. Rather, consideration of the public interest is made a condition upon the assumption of jurisdiction by the agency to investigate trade practices and methods of competition and determine whether or not they are unfair. Thus, this Court has held that, under § 5, the Federal Trade Commission may not employ its powers to vindicate private rights and that whether or not the facts, on complaint or as developed, show the public interest to be sufficiently “specific and substantial” to authorize a proceeding by the Commission is a question subject to judicial review. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Klesner, 280 U. S. 19. See also Federal Trade Comm’n v. Keppel & Bro., Inc., 291 U. S. 304; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Royal Milling Co., 288 U. S. 212.
In the Klesner case, two District of Columbia retailers, with a long history of acrimonious personal and business relations, were both operating stores called the “Shade Shop.” This Court held that the public interest merely in resolving their private unfair competition dispute would not justify the Commission in issuing a complaint. The courts of law are open to competitors for the settlement of their private legal rights, one against the other. The Board, under a mandate from Congress, is charged with the protection of the public interest as affected by practices of carriers in the field of air transportation. In exercising our function of review of the Board’s jurisdiction to protect the public interest by a proceeding which may be generated from facts also giving rise to a private dispute, we must take account of the significant differences between § 5 and § 411. Section 5 is concerned with purely private business enterprises which cover the full spectrum of economic activity. On the other hand, the air carriers here conduct their business under a regulated system of limited competition. The business so conducted is of especial and essential concern to the public, as is true of all common carriers and public utilities. Finally, Congress has committed the regulation of this industry to an administrative agency of special competence that deals only with the problems of the industry.
The practices of the competitors here clashed in a field where Congress was specifically concerned to protect the public interest. Demonstrated confusion of the public as to the origin of major air transportation services may be of obvious national public concern. The criteria which the Board employed to determine whether the confusion here created a problem of concern to the public are contained in the following quotation from its report:
“. . . the record is convincing that the public interest requires this action in order to prevent further public confusion between respondent and intervenor due to similarity of names. The maintenance of high standards in dealing with the public is expected of common carriers, and the public has a right to be free of the inconveniences which flow from confusion between carriers engaging in the transportation of persons by air. The speed of air travel may well be diminished when passengers check in for flights with the wrong carrier, or attempt to retrieve baggage from the wrong carrier, or attempt to purchase transportation from the wrong carrier, or direct their inquiries to the wrong carrier. Friends, relatives or business associates planning to meet passengers or seeking information on delayed arrivals are subject to annoyance or worse when confused as to the carrier involved. The proper handling of complaints from members of the public is impeded by confusion as to the carrier to whom the complaint should be presented. The transportation itself may differ from what the confused purchaser had anticipated (e. g., in terms of equipment), even though the time and place of arrival may be about the same. It is obvious that public confusion between air carriers operating between the same cities is adverse to the public interest . . . Docket Nos. 5774 and 5928 (Nov. 4, 1953), 12-13 (mimeo).
Under § 411 it is the Board that speaks in the public interest. We do not sit to determine independently what is the public interest in matters of this kind, committed as they are to the judgment of the Board. We decide only whether, in determining what is the public interest, the Board has stayed within its jurisdiction and applied criteria appropriate to that determination. The Board has done that in the instant case. Considerations of the high standards required of common carriers in dealing with the public, convenience of the traveling public, speed and efficiency in air transport, and protection of reliance on a carrier’s equipment are all criteria which the Board in its judgment may properly employ to determine whether the public interest justifies use of its powers under § 411.
It is argued that respondent’s use of the name “North American” cannot amount to an unfair or deceptive practice or an unfair method of competition authorizing the Board’s order within § 411. “Unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition,” as used in § 411, are broader concepts than the common-law idea of unfair competition. See Federal Trade Comm’n v. Keppel & Bro., Inc., supra; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Raladam Co., 283 U. S. 643, 648. The section is concerned not with punishment of wrongdoing or protection of injured competitors, but rather with protection of the public interest. See Federal Trade Comm’n v. Klesner, supra, at 27-28. The courts have held, in construing § 5 of the Trade Commission Act, that the use of a trade name that is similar to that of a competitor, which has the capacity to confuse or deceive the public, may be prohibited by the Commission. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U. S. 67; Juvenile Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 289 F. 57. And see Pep Boys — Manny, Moe & Jack, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 122 F. 2d 158, where the confusing name was not that of any competitor. The Board found that respondent knowingly adopted a trade name that might well cause confusion. But it made no findings that the use of the name was intentionally deceptive or fraudulent or that the competitor, American Airlines, was injured thereby. Such findings are not required of the Trade Commission under § 5, and there is no reason to require them of the Civil Aeronautics Board under § 411. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Algoma Lumber Co., supra, at 81; Eugene Dietzgen Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 142 F. 2d 321, 327; D. D. D. Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 125 F. 2d 679, 682; Gimbel Bros., Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 116 F. 2d 578, 579; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Balme, 23 F. 2d 615, 621. See also S. Rep. No. 221, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. 2.
The Board had jurisdiction to inquire into the methods of competition presented here, and its evidentiary findings concerned confusion of the type which can support a finding of violation of § 411. The judgment of the Court of Appeals must therefore be reversed. However, since we do not understand the court to have decided whether the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in the light of this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
See Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 3659, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. 5; 83 Cong. Rec. 6726; Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 2 and S. 1760, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., Pt. 1, 74.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether a state appellate court violates either the Due Process or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when it dismisses an appeal from a money judgment as a reasonable measure for safeguarding the collectibility of that judgment. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it does not and that the dismissal of the appeal in the instant case was such a reasonable measure.
This litigation resulted from a “blacklisting” letter written by Harris as an agent of petitioner, National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, in 1949, to persons able to affect the employment of the 95 respondents whose occupation was that of stewards in the Alaska trade.
It took the following course:
1949 — In the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, respondents’ libel action against petitioner and Harris, seeking $20,000 damages for each respondent, was dismissed on demurrer.
June 9, 1950 — On appeal to the Supreme Court of Washington, the letter was held libelous per se, the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for trial. 36 Wash. 2d 557, 219 P. 2d 121.
September 4, 1951 — In the Superior Court, a total judgment of $475,000 was rendered against petitioner and Harris, awarding $5,000 to each respondent.
September 5, 1951 — In the Superior Court, petitioner and Harris filed notices of appeal to the Supreme Court but offered no supersedeas bond and obtained no stay of proceedings.
October 19, 1951 — In the Superior Court, in the same case, respondents began a supplemental proceeding to discover petitioner’s available assets.
February 15, 1952 — In the Superior Court supplemental proceeding, the evidence disclosed no substantial assets of petitioner in Washington but showed $298,000 of United States bonds to be in its possession in California. The court ordered petitioner to deliver these bonds to the court’s receiver, for safekeeping, pending disposition of petitioner’s appeal.
April 4, 1952 — In the Superior Court supplemental proceeding, upon petitioner’s failure to deliver the bonds, the court adjudged it in contempt, stating “that said contemptuous conduct .... frustrates the enforcement of the judgment herein . . . and frustrates the receivership created herein by order of this Court . . . .” 41 Wash. 2d 22, 24, 246 P. 2d 1107, 1108.
May 17, 1952 — The Supreme Court struck from its calendar petitioner’s appeal on the merits, pending its review of the adjudication of contempt “unless the said appellant Union sooner purges itself of the contempt . . . .”
May 26,1953 — The Supreme Court held that the “adjudication of contempt is affirmed, and the appeal presently pending in the main action shall be dismissed unless, within fifteen days from the date of the remit-titur herein, the appellant union purges itself of the order of contempt, by complying with the trial court’s order requiring delivery of the bonds to the receiver.” 42 Wash. 2d 648, 654, 257 P. 2d 629, 633.
May 27, 1953 — In the Supreme Court, respondents filed an affidavit showing that petitioner’s disbursements, in 1952, had been $633,391.10, as opposed to its receipts of $413,280.90, and that its total cash assets, at the end of that year, had shrunk to $90,389.84.
June 12, 1953 — In the Supreme Court, respondents renewed their motion to dismiss petitioner’s appeal in the main action. They filed a supporting affidavit stating that “All of . . . [petitioner’s] assets of substantial value are in California and two California courts have refused to entertain suit on the Washington judgment while this appeal is pending.”
July 3, 1953 — The Supreme Court ordered dismissal of petitioner’s appeal unless petitioner purged itself of contempt.
August 19, 1953 — The Supreme Court denied petitioner a rehearing and entered judgment dismissing its appeal in the main action.
March 8, 1954 — This Court granted certiorari because of the significant relation of the constitutional issue to the enforcement of state judgments. 347 U. S. 916.
There is no question before us as to the power of the state courts of Washington, under its laws, (1) to order petitioner to deliver the specified bonds to the receiver, (2) to adjudicate petitioner in contempt for failure to do so, or (3) to dismiss petitioner’s appeal upon failure to purge itself of contempt by delivery of the bonds. Those questions have been settled by the Supreme Court of Washington. The question before us is whether the procedure which has culminated in the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal violates either the Due Process or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We have no difficulty with the Equal Protection Clause because no showing has been made that anyone comparably situated has been treated differently from petitioner. The significant issue is whether the action of the State violates due process of law. To decide this, we consider first whether, generally, the dismissal of an appeal from a money judgment amounts to due process of law where it constitutes a reasonable means of safeguarding the collectibility of that judgment. If so, we may then consider whether the dismissal in the instant case constituted such a means.
The constitutional objection raised by petitioner was long ago considered in Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409. In that case, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia went further and attempted to deprive a defendant of his right to answer the suit brought against him. Having stricken defendant’s answer, the court entered judgment against him as a punishment for his refusal to deliver to a court-appointed receiver certain funds which were the subject matter of the litigation. When the State of New York later refused to honor that judgment, this Court, in affirming the action of the Court of Appeals of New York, held that the District of Columbia had deprived defendant of his property without due process of law by denying him his constitutional right to a day in court.
The instant case does not go so far. Here the petitioner has had its day in court. The dismissal has cut off only a statutory right of review after a full trial by judge and jury. In Hovey v. Elliott, supra, this distinction was anticipated and room was left open for a later consideration of cases like the one before us.
While a statutory review is important and must be exercised without discrimination, such a review is not a requirement of due process. District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617, 627; Ohio v. Akron Park District, 281 U. S. 74, 80; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, 508; McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S. 684, 687-688.
While this Court has not, until now, passed upon the constitutionality of a state court’s dismissal of an appeal in a case like the present, it has decided somewhat comparable issues. Where the subject matter of litigation has been removed or has removed itself from the jurisdiction of a state court in violation of that court’s orders, this Court has upheld a dismissal of the offending litigant’s appeal. ' For example, where a prisoner has escaped from custody while his appeal is pending, this Court has upheld a dismissal of his appeal. Cf. Eisler v. United States, 338 U. S. 189, and 883. Similarly, after a state prisoner’s recapture, this Court has sustained a state court’s refusal to revive his appeal. Allen v. Georgia, 166 U. S. 138. See also, Smith v. United States, 94 U. S. 97; Washington v. Handy, 27 Wash. 469, 67 P. 1094; People v. Genet, 59 N. Y. 80; Massachusetts v. Andrews, 97 Mass. 543.
The circumstances before us are, in some degree, comparable. The order here violated was issued in a supplemental proceeding to discover and safeguard property of petitioner, without which the judgment would have little or no value. Petitioner’s failure to deliver the specified out-of-state property to the court’s receiver frustrated the state court much as the escape of a prisoner would frustrate it in attempting to review his conviction. Where the effectiveness of a money judgment is jeopardized by the judgment debtor, he has no constitutional right to an appeal extending that frustration.
The dismissal here is not regarded by us as a penalty imposed as a punishment for criminal contempt. It is an exercise of a state court’s inherent power to use its processes to induce compliance with a supplemental order reasonably issued in aid of execution. Furthermore, the appeal was not summarily dismissed. Petitioner was allowed 15 days, after being adjudged in contempt, within which to purge itself. The propriety of the dismissal and its remedial nature are demonstrated by the situation in California. Two proceedings brought there by respondents to reach petitioner’s assets in California evidently were frustrated by the insistence of the California courts that they would not entertain any suit on the Washington judgment while an appeal from that judgment was pending in Washington.
The supplemental proceeding indicated that the $298,000 in bonds, to which the court directed its order, constituted the only substantial asset from which payment of respondents’ judgment might be realized and that this asset might be dissipated unless placed in protective custody.
In appraising the reasonableness of the State’s order, it is noteworthy that the court did not seek to apply the bonds to the satisfaction of respondents’ judgment. It merely directed petitioner to deliver them to the court’s receiver for safekeeping. Petitioner’s appeal was not dismissed because of petitioner’s failure to satisfy a judgment pending an appeal from it. It was dismissed because of petitioner’s failure to comply with the court’s order to safeguard petitioner’s assets from dissipation pending such appeal.
Viewing the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal in the light of its reasonableness in sustaining the effectiveness of a state’s judicial process, as against the rights of a judgment debtor, without filing a supersedeas bond, to refuse to comply with orders safeguarding the value of that judgment, we find nothing that violates due process of law.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, accordingly, is
Affirmed.
It stated:
“Enclosed is a list of former members of the National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, who deserted this union during the 1948 maritime strike and attempted to organize a dual organization under the leadership of the Sailors Union of the Pacific for the purpose of breaking our strike and destroying our union.
“While these renegades have been completely discredited and defeated, they may attempt to obtain employment in other sections of the industry, particularly when the fishing season opens.
“This information is only for your guidance and formulation to your membership as to the constructive ways and means of carrying on a progressive labor organization.” Arnold v. National Union, 36 Wash. 2d 557, 559, 219 P. 2d 121, 122.
To stay proceedings on appeal, a supersedeas bond for double the amount of the damages and costs would have been required. Wash. Rev. Code, 1951, § 4.88.060.
Two confirmatory rulings had intervened:
November 16, 1953 — In this Court, petitioner’s appeal from the adjudication of contempt in the supplemental proceeding was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. 346 U. S. 881.
February 2, 1954 — In the Supreme Court, Harris’ separate appeal, raising largely the same issues on the merits as petitioner’s appeal, was heard and the judgment against him affirmed. 44 Wash. 2d 183, 265 P. 2d 1051.
“. . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U. S. Const., Amend. XIV, § 1.
The deprivation of a litigant’s right to present a defense has been upheld, not as a punishment for contempt as prohibited in Hovey v. Elliott, supra, but rather as a result of the litigant’s failure to produce evidence, his violation of a rule of procedure, or other action justifying a judgment of default against him. Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 322, 349-354; Peitzman v. Illmo, 141 F. 2d 956, 960-961. See also, Bennett v. Bennett, 208 U. S. 505, 514; Young & Holland Co. v. Brande Bros., 162 F. 663; Lawson v. Black Diamond Coal Mining Co., 44 Wash. 26, 86 P. 1120.
“. . . The difference between the want of power, on the one hand, to refuse to one in contempt the right to defend in the principal case on the merits, and the existence of the authority, on the other, to refuse to accord a favor to one in contempt, is clearly illustrated by the whole line of adjudicated cases.
“. . .In affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia [Allen v. Georgia, 166 U. S. 138, 140], the court called attention to the distinction between the inherent right of defence secured by the due process of law clause of the Constitution and the mere grace or favor giving authority to review a judgment by way of error or appeal.
“Whether in the exercise of its power to punish for a contempt a court would be justified in refusing to permit one in contempt from availing himself of a right granted by statute, where the refusal did not involve the fundamental right of one summoned in a cause to be heard in his defence, and where the one in contempt was an actor invoking the right allowed by statute, is a question not involved in this suit.” 167 U. S., at 423-424, 443, 444.
For a similar rule in custody cases, see Casebolt v. Butler, 175 Ky. 381, 194 S. W. 305; Lindsay v. Lindsay, 255 Ill. 442, 99 N. E. 608; Henderson v. Henderson, 329 Mass. 257, 107 N. E. 2d 773. In civil actions, where the presence of a defendant within the jurisdiction of a court is essential to enforcement of its decree and he absents himself from that jurisdiction, dismissal of his appeal has been upheld. Bronk v. Bronk, 46 Fla. 474, 35 So. 870.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the petitioners’ participation in the events leading up to and following the murder of four members of a family makes the sentences of death imposed by the Arizona courts constitutionally permissible although neither petitioner specifically intended to kill the victims and neither inflicted the fatal gunshot wounds. We hold that the Arizona Supreme Court applied an erroneous standard in making the findings required by Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982), and, therefore, vacate the judgments below and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
W
Gary Tison was sentenced to life imprisonment as the result of a prison escape during the course of which he had killed a guard. After he had been in prison a number of years, Gary Tison’s wife, their three sons Donald, Ricky, and Raymond, Gary’s brother Joseph, and other relatives made plans to help Gary Tison escape again. See State v. Dorothy Tison, Cr. No. 108352 (Super. Ct. Maricopa County 1981). The Tison family assembled a large arsenal of weapons for this purpose. Plans for escape were discussed with Gary Tison, who insisted that his cellmate, Randy Greenawalt, also a convicted murderer, be included in the prison break. The following facts are largely evidenced by petitioners’ detailed confessions given as part of a plea bargain according to the terms of which the State agreed not to seek the death sentence. The Arizona courts interpreted the plea agreement to require that petitioners testify to the planning stages of the breakout. When they refused to do so, the bargain was rescinded and they were tried, convicted, and sentenced to death.
On July 30, 1978, the three Tison brothers entered the Arizona State Prison at Florence carrying a large ice chest filled ■with guns. The Tisons armed Greenawalt and their father, and the group, brandishing their weapons, locked the prison guards and visitors present in a storage closet. The five men fled the prison grounds in the Tisons’ Ford Galaxy automobile. No shots were fired at the prison.
After leaving the prison, the men abandoned the Ford automobile and proceeded on to an isolated house in a white Lincoln automobile that the brothers had parked at a hospital near the prison. At the house, the Lincoln automobile had a flat tire; the only spare tire was pressed into service. After two nights at the house, the group drove toward Flagstaff. As the group traveled on back roads and secondary highways through the desert, another tire blew out. The group decided to flag down a passing motorist and steal a car. Raymond stood out in front of the Lincoln; the other four armed themselves and lay in wait by the side of the road. One car passed by without stopping, but a second car, a Mazda occupied by John Lyons, his wife Donnelda, his 2-year-old son Christopher, and his 15-year-old niece, Theresa Tyson, pulled over to render aid.
As Raymond showed John Lyons the flat tire on the Lincoln, the other Tisons and Greenawalt emerged. The Lyons family was forced into the backseat of the Lincoln. Raymond and Donald drove the Lincoln down a dirt road off the highway and then down a gas line service road farther into the desert; Gary Tison, Ricky Tison, and Randy Greenawalt followed in the Lyons’ Mazda. The two cars were parked trunk to trunk and the Lyons family was ordered to stand in front of the Lincoln’s headlights. The Tisons transferred their belongings from the Lincoln into the Mazda. They discovered guns and money in the Mazda which they kept, and they put the rest of the Lyons’ possessions in the Lincoln.
Gary Tison then told Raymond to drive the Lincoln still farther into the desert. Raymond did so, and, while the others guarded the Lyons and Theresa Tyson, Gary fired his shotgun into the radiator, presumably to completely disable the vehicle. The Lyons and Theresa Tyson were then escorted to the Lincoln and again ordered to stand in its headlights. Ricky Tison reported that John Lyons begged, in comments “more or less directed at everybody,” “Jesus, don’t kill me.” Gary Tison said he was “thinking about it.” App. 39, 108. John Lyons asked the Tisons and Greenawalt to “[g]ive us some water... just leave us out here, and you all go home.” Gary Tison then told his sons to go back to the Mazda and get some water. Raymond later explained that his father “was like in conflict with himself.... What it was, I think it was the baby being there and all this, and he wasn’t sure about what to do.” Id., at 20-21, 74.
The petitioners’ statements diverge to some extent, but it appears that both of them went back towards the Mazda, along with Donald, while Randy Greenawalt and Gary Tison stayed at the Lincoln guarding the victims. Raymond recalled being at the Mazda filling the water jug “when we started hearing the shots.” Id., at 21. Ricky said that the brothers gave the water jug to Gary Tison who then, with Randy Greenawalt went behind the Lincoln, where they spoke briefly, then raised the shotguns, and started firing. Id., at 41, 111. In any event, petitioners agree they saw Greenawalt and their father brutally murder their four captives with repeated blasts from their shotguns. Neither made an effort to help the victims, though both later stated they were surprised by the shooting. The Tisons got into the Mazda and drove away, continuing their flight. Physical evidence suggested that Theresa Tyson managed to crawl away from the bloodbath, severely injured. She died in the desert after the Tisons left.
Several days later the Tisons and Greenawalt were apprehended after a shootout at a police roadblock. Donald Tison was killed. Gary Tison escaped into the desert where he subsequently died of exposure. Raymond and Ricky Tison and Randy Greenawalt were captured and tried jointly for the crimes associated with the prison break itself and the shootout at the roadblock; each was convicted and sentenced.
The State then individually tried each of the petitioners for capital murder of the four victims as well as for the associated crimes of armed robbery, kidnaping, and car theft. The capital murder charges were based on Arizona felony-murder law providing that a killing occurring during the perpetration of robbery or kidnaping is capital murder, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-452 (1956) (repealed 1978), and that each participant in the kidnaping or robbery is legally responsible for the acts of his accomplices. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-139 (1956) (repealed 1978). Each of the petitioners was convicted of the four murders under these accomplice liability and felony-murder statutes.
Arizona law also provided for a capital sentencing proceeding, to be conducted without a jury, to determine whether the crime was sufficiently aggravated to warrant the death sentence. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-454(A) (Supp. 1973) (repealed 1978). The statute set out six aggravating and four mitigating factors. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-454(E), (F) (Supp. 1973) (repealed 1978). The judge found three statutory aggravating factors:
(1) the Tisons had created a grave risk of death to others (not the victims);
(2) the murders had been committed for pecuniary gain;
(3) the murders were especially heinous.
The judge found no statutory mitigating factor. Importantly, the judge specifically found that the crime was not mitigated by the fact that each of the petitioners’ “participation was relatively minor.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-454(F)(3) (Supp. 1973) (repealed 1978). Rather, he found that the “participation of each [petitioner] in the crimes giving rise to the application of the felony murder rule in this case was very substantial.” App. 284-285. The trial judge also specifically found, id., at 285, that each “could reasonably have foreseen that his conduct... would cause or create a grave risk of... death.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-454(F)(4) (Supp. 1973) (repealed 1978). He did find, however, three nonstatutory mitigating factors:
(1) the petitioners’ youth — Ricky was 20 and Raymond was 19;
(2) neither had prior felony records;
(3) each had been convicted of the murders under the felony-murder rule.
Nevertheless, the judge sentenced both petitioners to death.
On direct appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. The Court found:
“The record establishes that both Ricky and Raymond Tison were present when the homicides took place and that they occurred as part of and in the course of the escape and continuous attempt to prevent recapture. The deaths would not have occurred but for their assistance. That they did not specifically intend that the Lyonses and Theresa Tyson die, that they did not plot in advance that these homicides would take place, or that they did not actually pull the triggers on the guns which inflicted the fatal wounds is of little significance. ” State v. (Ricky Wayne) Tison, 129 Ariz. 526, 545, 633 P. 2d 335, 354 (1981).
In evaluating the trial court’s findings of aggravating and mitigating factors, the Arizona Supreme Court found the first aggravating factor — creation of grave risk to others — not supported by the evidence. All those killed were intended victims, and no one else was endangered. The Arizona Supreme Court, however, upheld the “pecuniary gain” and “heinousness” aggravating circumstances and the death sentences. This Court denied the Tisons’ petition for certio-rari. 459 U. S. 882 (1982).
Petitioners then collaterally attacked their death sentences in state postconviction proceedings alleging that Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982), which had been decided in the interim, required reversal. A divided Arizona Supreme Court, interpreting Enmund to require a finding of “intent to kill,” declared in Raymond Tison’s case “the dictate oí Enmund is satisfied,” writing:
“Intend [sic] to kill includes the situation in which the defendant intended, contemplated, or anticipated that lethal force would or might be used or that life would or might be taken in accomplishing the underlying felony. Enmund, supra; State v. Emery, [141 Ariz. 549, 554, 688 P. 2d 175, 180 (1984)] filed June 6, 1984.
“In the present case the evidence does not show that petitioner killed or attempted to kill. The evidence does demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that petitioner intended to kill. Petitioner played an active part in preparing the breakout, including obtaining a getaway car and various weapons. At the breakout scene itself, petitioner played a crucial role by, among other things, holding a gun on prison guards. Petitioner knew that Gary Tison’s murder conviction arose out of the killing of a guard during an earlier prison escape attempt. Thus petitioner could anticipate the use of lethal force during this attempt to flee confinement; in fact, he later said that during the escape he would have been willing personally to kill in a ‘very close life or death situation,’ and that he recognized that after the escape there was a possibility of killings.
“The use of lethal force that petitioner contemplated indeed occurred when the gang abducted the people who stopped on the highway to render aid. Petitioner played an active part in the events that led to the murders. He assisted in the abduction by flagging down the victims as they drove by, while the other members of the gang remained hidden and armed. He assisted in escorting the victims to the murder site. At the site, petitioner, Ricky Tison and Greenawalt placed the gang’s possessions in the victims’ Mazda and the victims’ possessions in the gang’s disabled Lincoln Continental. After Gary Tison rendered the Lincoln inoperable by firing into its engine compartment, petitioner assisted in escorting the victims to the Lincoln. Petitioner then watched Gary Tison and Greenawalt fire in the direction of the victims. Petitioner did nothing to interfere. After the killings, petitioner did nothing to disassociate himself from Gary Tison and Greenawalt, but instead used the victims’ car to continue on the joint venture, a venture that lasted several more days.
“From these facts we conclude that petitioner intended to kill. Petitioner’s participation up to the moment of the firing of the fatal shots was substantially the same as that of Gary Tison and Greenawalt.... Petitioner, actively participated in the events leading to death by, inter alia, providing the murder weapons and helping abduct the victims. Also petitioner was present at the murder site, did nothing to interfere with the murders, and after the murders even continued on the joint venture.
“... In Enmund, unlike in the present case, the defendant did not actively participate in the events leading to death (by, for example, as in the present case, helping abduct the victims) and was not present at the murder site.” 142 Ariz. 454, 456-457, 690 P. 2d 755, 757-758 (1984).
In Ricky Tison’s case the Arizona Supreme Court relied on a similar recitation of facts to find intent. It found that though Ricky Tison had not said that he would have been willing to kill, he “could anticipate the use of lethal force during this attempt to flee confinement.” 142 Ariz. 446, 448, 690 P. 2d 747, 749 (1984). The court noted that Ricky Tison armed himself and hid on the side of the road with the others while Raymond flagged down the Lyons family. Ricky claimed to have a somewhat better view than Raymond did of the actual killing. Otherwise, the court noted, Ricky Tison’s participation was substantially the same as Raymond’s. Id., at 447-448, 690 P. 2d, at 748-749. We granted certiorari in order to consider the Arizona Supreme Court’s application of Enmund. 475 U. S. 1010 (1986).
HH H-l
In Enmund v. Florida, this Court reversed the death sentence of a defendant convicted under Florida’s felony-murder rule. Enmund was the driver of the “getaway” car in an armed robbery of a dwelling. The occupants of the house, an elderly couple, resisted and Enmund’s accomplices killed them. The Florida Supreme Court found the inference that Enmund was the person in the car by the side of the road waiting to help his accomplices escape sufficient to support his sentence of death:
“‘[T]he only evidence of the degree of [Enmund’s] participation is the jury’s likely inference that he was the person in the car by the side of the road near the scene of the crimes. The jury could have concluded that he was there, a few hundred feet away, waiting to help the robbers escape with the Kerseys’ money. The evidence, therefore, was sufficient to find that the appellant was a principal of the second degree, constructively present aiding and abetting the commission of the crime of robbery. This conclusion supports the verdicts of murder in the first degree on the basis of the felony murder portion of section 782.04(1)(a).’ 399 So. 2d, at 1370.” Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S., at 786.
This Court, citing the weight of legislative and community opinion, found a broad societal consensus, with which it agreed, that the death penalty was disproportional to the crime of robbery-felony murder “in these circumstances.” Id., at 788. The Court noted that although 32 American jurisdictions permitted the imposition of the death penalty for felony murders under a variety of circumstances, Florida was 1 of only 8 jurisdictions that authorized the death penalty “solely for participation in a robbery in which another robber takes life.” Id., at 789. Enmund was, therefore, sentenced under a distinct minority regime, a regime that permitted the imposition of the death penalty for felony murder simpliciter. At the other end of the spectrum, eight States required a finding of intent to kill before death could be imposed in a felony-murder case and one State required actual participation in the killing. The remaining States authorizing capital punishment for felony murders fell into two somewhat overlapping middle categories: three authorized the death penalty when the defendant acted with recklessness or extreme indifference to human life, and nine others, including Arizona, required a finding of some aggravating factor beyond the fact that the killing had occurred during the course of a felony before a capital sentence might be imposed. Arizona fell into a subcategory of six States which made “minimal participation in a capital felony committed by another person a [statutory] mitigating circumstance.” Id., at 792. Two more jurisdictions required a finding that the defendant’s participation in the felony was not “relatively minor” before authorizing a capital sentence. Id., at 791.
After surveying the States’ felony-murder statutes, the Enmund Court next examined the behavior of juries in cases like Enmund’s in its attempt to assess American attitudes toward capital punishment in felony-murder cases. Of 739 death row inmates, only 41 did not participate in the fatal assault. All but 16 of these were physically present at the scene of the murder and of these only 3, including Enmund, were sentenced to death in the absence of a finding that they had collaborated in a scheme designed to kill. The Court found the fact that only 3 of 739 death row inmates had been sentenced to death absent an intent to kill, physical presence, or direct participation in the fatal assault persuasive evidence that American juries considered the death sentence disproportional to felony murder simpliciter.
Against this background, the Court undertook its own proportionality analysis. Armed robbery is a serious offense, but one for which the penalty of death is plainly excessive; the imposition of the death penalty for robbery, therefore, violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’ proscription “‘against all punishments which by their excessive length or severity are greatly disproportioned to the offenses charged.’ ” Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 371 (1910) (quoting O’Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323, 339-340 (1892)); cf. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584 (1977) (holding the death penalty disproportional to the crime of rape). Furthermore, the Court found that Enmund’s degree of participation in the murders was so tangential that it could not be said to justify a sentence of death. It found that neither the deterrent nor the retributive purposes of the death penalty were advanced by imposing the death penalty upon Enmund. The Enmund Court was unconvinced “that the threat that the death penalty will be imposed for murder will measurably deter one who does not kill and has no intention or purpose that life will be taken.” 458 U. S., at 798-799. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied upon the fact that killing only rarely occurred during the course of robberies, and such killing as did occur even more rarely resulted in death sentences if the evidence did not support an inference that the defendant intended to kill. The Court acknowledged, however, that “[i]t would be very different if the likelihood of a killing in the course of a robbery were so substantial that one should share the blame for the killing if he somehow participated in the felony.” Id., at 799.
That difference was also related to the second purpose of capital punishment, retribution. The heart of the retribution rationale is that a criminal sentence must be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal offender. While the States generally have wide discretion in deciding how much retribution to exact in a given case, the death penalty, “unique in its severity and irrevocability,” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 187 (1976), requires the State to inquire into the relevant facets of “the character and record of the individual offender.” Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 304 (1976). Thus, in Enmund’s case, “the focus [had to] be on his culpability, not on that of those who committed the robbery and shot the victims, for we insist on ‘individualized consideration as a constitutional requirement in imposing the death sentence.’” Enmund v. Florida, supra, at 798 (quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 605 (1978)) (emphasis in original). Since Enmund’s own participation in the felony murder was so attenuated and since there was no proof that Enmund had any culpable mental state, Enmund v. Florida, supra, at 790-791, the death penalty was excessive retribution for his crimes.
Enmund explicitly dealt with two distinct subsets of all felony murders in assessing whether Enmund’s sentence was disproportional under the Eighth Amendment. At one pole was Enmund himself: the minor actor in an armed robbery, not on the scene, who neither intended to kill nor was found to have had any culpable mental state. Only a small minority of States even authorized the death penalty in such circumstances and even within those jurisdictions the death penalty was almost never exacted for such a crime. The Court held that capital punishment was disproportional in these cases. Enmund also clearly dealt with the other polar case: the felony murderer who actually killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. The Court clearly held that the equally small minority of jurisdictions that limited the death penalty to these circumstances could continue to exact it in accordance with local law when the circumstances warranted. The Tison brothers’ cases fall into neither of these neat categories.
Petitioners argue strenuously that they did not “intend to kill” as that concept has been generally understood in the common law. We accept this as true. Traditionally, “one intends certain consequences when he desires that his acts cause those consequences or knows that those consequences are substantially certain to result from his acts.” W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law § 28, p. 196 (1972); see Lockett v. Ohio, supra, at 625-626 (1978) (opinion of White, J.) (equating intent with purposeful conduct); see also Perkins, A Rationale of Mens Rea, 52 Harv. L. Rev. 905, 911 (1939). As petitioners point out, there is no evidence that either Ricky or Raymond Tison took any act which he desired to, or was substantially certain would, cause death.
The Arizona Supreme Court did not attempt to argue that the facts of this case supported an inference of “intent” in the traditional sense. Instead, the Arizona Supreme Court attempted to reformulate “intent to kill” as a species of foreseeability. The Arizona Supreme Court wrote:
“Intend [sic] to kill includes the situation in which the defendant intended, contemplated, or anticipated that lethal force would or might be used or that life would or might be taken in accomplishing the underlying felony.” 142 Ariz., at 456, 690 P. 2d, at 757.
This definition of intent is broader than that described by the Enmund Court. Participants in violent felonies like armed robberies can frequently “anticipate] that lethal force... might be used... in accomplishing the underlying felony.” Enmund himself may well have so anticipated. Indeed, the possibility of bloodshed is inherent in the commission of any violent felony and this possibility is generally foreseeable and foreseen; it is one principal reason that felons arm themselves. The Arizona Supreme Court’s attempted reformulation of intent to kill amounts to little more than a restatement of the felony-murder rule itself. Petitioners do not fall within the “intent to kill” category of felony murderers for which Enmund explicitly finds the death penalty permissible under the Eighth Amendment.
On the other hand, it is equally clear that petitioners also fall outside the category of felony murderers for whom Enmund explicitly held the death penalty disproportional: their degree of participation in the crimes was major rather than minor, and the record would support a finding of the culpable mental state of reckless indifference to human life. We take the facts as the Arizona Supreme Court has given them to us. Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U. S. 376 (1986).
Raymond Tison brought an arsenal of lethal weapons into the Arizona State Prison which he then handed over to two convicted murderers, one of whom he knew had killed a prison guard in the course of a previous escape attempt. By his own admission he was prepared to kill in furtherance of the prison break. He performed the crucial role of flagging down a passing car occupied by an innocent family whose fate was then entrusted to the known killers he had previously armed. He robbed these people at their direction and then guarded the victims at gunpoint while they considered what next to do. He stood by and watched the killing, making no effort to assist the victims before, during, or after the shooting. Instead, he chose to assist the killers in their continuing criminal endeavors, ending in a gun battle with the police in the final showdown.
Ricky Tison’s behavior differs in slight details only. Like Raymond, he intentionally brought the guns into the prison to arm the murderers. He could have foreseen that lethal force might be used, particularly since he knew that his father’s previous escape attempt had resulted in murder. He, too, participated fully in the kidnaping and robbery and watched the killing after which he chose to aid those whom he had placed in the position to kill rather than their victims.
These facts not only indicate that the Tison brothers’ participation in the crime was anything but minor; they also would clearly support a finding that they both subjectively appreciated that their acts were likely to result in the taking of innocent life. The issue raised by this case is whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty in the intermediate case of the defendant whose participation is major and whose mental state is one of reckless indifference to the value of human life. Enmund does not specifically address this point. We now take up the task of determining whether the Eighth Amendment proportionality requirement bars the death penalty under these circumstances.
Like the Enmund Court, we find the state legislatures’ judgment as to proportionality in these circumstances relevant to this constitutional inquiry. The largest number of States still fall into the two intermediate categories discussed in Enmund. Four States authorize the death penalty in felony-murder cases upon a showing of culpable mental state such as recklessness or extreme indifference to human life. Two jurisdictions require that the defendant’s participation be substantial and the statutes of at least six more, including Arizona, take minor participation in the felony expressly into account in mitigation of the murder. These requirements significantly overlap both in this case and in general, for the greater the defendant’s participation in the felony murder, the more likely that he acted with reckless indifference to human life. At a minimum, however, it can be said that all these jurisdictions, as well as six States which Enmund classified along with Florida as permitting capital punishment for felony murder simpliciter, and the three States which simply require some additional aggravation before imposing the death penalty upon a felony murderer, specifically authorize the death penalty in a felony-murder case where, though the defendant’s mental state fell short of intent to kill, the defendant was a major actor in a felony in which he knew death was highly likely to occur. On the other hand, even after Enmund, only 11 States authorizing capital punishment forbid imposition of the death penalty even though the defendant’s participation in the felony murder is major and the likelihood of killing is so substantial as to raise an inference of extreme recklessness. This substantial and recent legislative authorization of the death penalty for the crime of felony murder regardless of the absence of a finding of an intent to kill powerfully suggests that our society does not reject the death penalty as grossly excessive under these circumstances, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 179-181 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); see also Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S., at 594.
Moreover, a number of state courts have interpreted Enmund to permit the imposition of the death penalty in such aggravated felony murders. We do not approve or disapprove the judgments as to proportionality reached on the particular facts of these cases, but we note the apparent consensus that substantial participation in a violent felony under circumstances likely to result in the loss of innocent human life may justify the death penalty even absent an “intent to kill.” See, e. g., Clines v. State, 280 Ark. 77, 84, 656 S. W. 2d 684, 687 (1983) (armed, forced entry, nighttime robbery of private dwelling known to be occupied plus evidence that killing contemplated), cert. denied, 465 U. S. 1051 (1984); Deputy v. State, 500 A. 2d 581, 599-600 (Del. 1985) (defendant present at scene; robbed victims; conflicting evidence as to participation in killing), cert. pending, No. 85-6272; Ruffin v. State, 420 So. 2d 591, 594 (Fla. 1982) (defendant present, assisted codefendant in kidnaping, raped victim, made no effort to interfere with codefendant’s killing victim and continued on the joint venture); People v. Davis, 95 Ill. 2d 1, 52, 447 N. E. 2d 353, 378 (defendant present at the scene and had participated in other crimes with Holman, the trigger-man, during which Holman had killed under similar circumstances), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 1001 (1983); Selvage v. State, 680 S. W. 2d 17, 22 (Tex. Cr. App. 1984) (participant in jewelry store robbery during the course of which a security guard was killed; no evidence that defendant himself shot the guard but he did fire a weapon at those who gave chase); see also Allen v. State, 253 Ga. 390, 395, n. 3, 321 S. E. 2d 710, 715, n. 3 (1984) (“The result in [Enmund v. Florida] does not turn on the mere fact that Enmund was convicted of felony murder. It is important to note how attenuated was Enmund’s responsibility for the deaths of the victims in that case”), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1059 (1985).
Against this backdrop, we now consider the proportionality of the death penalty in these midrange felony-murder cases for which the majority of American jurisdictions clearly authorize capital punishment and for which American courts have not been nearly so reluctant to impose death as they are in the case of felony murder simpliciter.
A critical facet of the individualized determination of culpability required in capital cases is the mental state with which the defendant commits the crime. Deeply ingrained in our legal tradition is the idea that the more purposeful is the criminal conduct, the more serious is the offense, and, therefore, the more severely it ought to be punished. The ancient concept of malice aforethought was an early attempt to focus on mental state in order to distinguish those who deserved death from those who through “Benefit of... Clergy” would be spared. 23 Hen. 8, ch. 1, §§3, 4 (1531); 1 Edw. 6, ch. 12, § 10 (1547). Over time, malice aforethought came to be inferred from the mere act of killing in a variety of circumstances; in reaction, Pennsylvania became the first American jurisdiction to distinguish between degrees of murder, reserving capital punishment to “wilful, deliberate and premeditated” killings and felony murders. 3 Pa. Laws 1794, ch. 1766, pp. 186-187 (1810). More recently, in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978), the plurality opinion made clear that, the defendant’s mental state was critical to weighing a defendant’s culpability under a system of guided discretion, vacating a death sentence imposed under an Ohio statute that did not permit the sentencing authority to take into account “[t]he absence of direct proof that the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim.” Id., at 608 (opinion of Burger, C. J.); see also Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982) (adopting position of Lockett plurality). In Enmund v. Florida, the Court recognized again the importance of mental state, explicitly permitting the death penalty in at least those cases where the felony murderer intended to kill and forbidding it in the case of a minor actor not shown to have had any culpable mental state.
A narrow focus on the question of whether or not a given defendant “intended to kill,” however, is a highly unsatisfactory means of definitively distinguishing the most culpable and dangerous of murderers. Many who intend to, and do, kill are not criminally hable at all — those who act in self-defense or with other justification or excuse. Other intentional homicides, though criminal, are often felt undeserving of the death penalty — those that are the result of provocation. On the other hand, some noninteritional murderers may be among the most dangerous and inhumane of all — the person who tortures another not caring whether the victim fives or dies, or the robber who shoots someone in the course of the robbery, utterly indifferent to the fact that the desire to rob may have the unintended consequence of killing the victim as well as taking the victim’s property. This reckless indifference to the value of human fife may be every bit as shocking to the moral sense as an “intent to kill.” Indeed it is for this very reason that the common law and modem criminal codes alike have classified behavior such as occurred in this case along with intentional murders. See, e.g., G. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law §6.5, pp. 447-448 (1978) (“[I]n the common law, intentional killing is not the only basis for establishing the most egregious form of criminal homicide.... For example, the Model Penal Code treats reckless killing, ‘manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life,’ as equivalent to purposeful and knowing killing”). Enmund held that when “intent to kill” results in its logical though not inevitable consequence — the taking of human fife — the Eighth Amendment permits the State to exact the death penalty after a careful weighing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Similarly, we hold that the reckless disregard for human fife implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death represents a highly culpable mental state, a mental state that may be taken into account in making a capital sentencing judgment when that conduct causes its natural, though also not inevitable, lethal result.
The petitioners’ own personal involvement in the crimes was not minor, but rather, as specifically found by the trial court, “substantial.” Far from merely sitting in a car away from the actual scene of the murders acting as the getaway driver to a robbery, each petitioner was actively involved in every element of the kidnaping-robbery and was physically present during the entire sequence of criminal activity culminating in the murder of the Lyons family and the subsequent flight. The Tisons’ high level of participation in these crimes further implicates them in the resulting deaths
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
I
Petitioner Allen Ryan Alleyne and an accomplice devised a plan to rob a store manager as he drove the store's daily deposits to a local bank. By feigning car trouble, they tricked the manager to stop. Alleyne's accomplice approached the manager with a gun and demanded the store's deposits, which the manager surrendered. Alleyne was later charged with multiple federal offenses, including robbery affecting interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, § 924(c)(1)(A). Section 924(c)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part, that anyone who "uses or carries a firearm" in relation to a "crime of violence" shall:
"(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
"(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and "(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years."
The jury convicted Alleyne. The jury indicated on the verdict form that Alleyne had "[u]sed or carried a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence," but did not indicate a finding that the firearm was "[b]randished." App. 40.
The presentence report recommended a 7-year sentence on the § 924(c) count, which reflected the mandatory minimum sentence for cases in which a firearm has been "brandished," § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Alleyne objected to this recommendation. He argued that it was clear from the verdict form that the jury did not find brandishing beyond a reasonable doubt and that he was subject only to the 5-year minimum for "us[ing] or carr[ying] a firearm." Alleyne contended that raising his mandatory minimum sentence based on a sentencing judge's finding that he brandished a firearm would violate his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
The District Court overruled Alleyne's objection. It explained that, under Harris, brandishing was a sentencing factor that the court could find by a preponderance of evidence without running afoul of the Constitution. It found that the evidence supported a finding of brandishing, and sentenced Alleyne to seven years' imprisonment on the § 924(c) count. The Court of Appeals affirmed, likewise noting that Alleyne's objection was foreclosed by Harris. 457 Fed.Appx. 348 (C.A.4 2011) (per curiam ).
II
The Sixth Amendment provides that those "accused" of a "crime" have the right to a trial "by an impartial jury." This right, in conjunction with the Due Process Clause, requires that each element of a crime be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995) ; In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). The substance and scope of this right depend upon the proper designation of the facts that are elements of the crime.
A
The question of how to define a "crime"-and, thus, how to determine what facts must be submitted to the jury-has generated a number of divided opinions from this Court. The principal source of disagreement is the constitutional status of a special sort of fact known as a "sentencing factor." This term was first used in McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 86, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986), to refer to facts that are not found by a jury but that can still increase the defendant's punishment. Following McMillan's introduction of this term, this Court has made a number of efforts to delimit its boundaries.
McMillan initially invoked the distinction between "elements" and "sentencing factors" to reject a constitutional challenge to Pennsylvania's Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act, 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9712 (1982). That law provided that anyone convicted of certain felonies would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence if the judge found, by a preponderance of evidence, that the person " 'visibly possessed a firearm' " in the course of committing specified crimes. 477 U.S., at 81, n. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2411. While the Court acknowledged that there were constitutional limits to the State's ability to "defin[e] crimes and prescrib[e] penalties," it found that the Commonwealth had permissibly defined visible possession as a sentencing factor, rather than an element. Id., at 86, 106 S.Ct. 2411. In the Court's view, this allowed the judge, rather than the jury, to find this fact by a preponderance of evidence without violating the Constitution.
McMillan did not address whether legislatures' freedom to define facts as sentencing factors extended to findings that increased the maximum term of imprisonment for an offense. We foreshadowed an answer to this question in Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 243, n. 6, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999), but did not resolve the issue until Apprendi. There, we identified a concrete limit on the types of facts that legislatures may designate as sentencing factors.
In Apprendi, the defendant was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment under a New Jersey statute that increased the maximum term of imprisonment from 10 years to 20 years if the trial judge found that the defendant committed his crime with racial bias. 530 U.S., at 470, 120 S.Ct. 2348. In defending its sentencing scheme, the State of New Jersey argued that, under McMillan, the legislature could define racial bias as a sentencing factor to be found by the judge. We declined to extend McMillan that far. We explained that there was no "principled basis for treating" a fact increasing the maximum term of imprisonment differently than the facts constituting the base offense. 530 U.S., at 476, 120 S.Ct. 2348. The historic link between crime and punishment, instead, led us to conclude that any fact that increased the prescribed statutory maximum sentence must be an " element" of the offense to be found by the jury. Id., at 483, n. 10, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. We, thus, found that Apprendi's sentence had been unconstitutionally enhanced by the judge's finding of racial bias by a preponderance of evidence. Id., at 491-492, 120 S.Ct. 2348.
B
While Apprendi only concerned a judicial finding that increased the statutory maximum, the logic of Apprendi prompted questions about the continuing vitality, if not validity, of McMillan's holding that facts found to increase the mandatory minimum sentence are sentencing factors and not elements of the crime. We responded two years later in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524, where we considered the same statutory provision and the same question before us today.
In Harris, the defendant was charged, under § 924(c)(1)(A), with carrying a firearm in the course of committing a drug trafficking crime. The mandatory minimum sentence based on the jury's verdict alone was five years, but the District Court imposed a 7-year mandatory minimum sentence based on its finding, by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant also brandished the firearm. As in this case, Harris challenged his sentence on the ground that the 7-year mandatory minimum sentence was unconstitutional under Apprendi, even though the judge's finding did not alter the maximum sentence to which he was exposed. Harris, supra, at 551, 122 S.Ct. 2406
The Court declined to apply Apprendi to facts that increased the mandatory minimum sentence but not the maximum sentence. 536 U.S., at 557, 122 S.Ct. 2406. In the Court's view, judicial factfinding that increased the mandatory minimum did not implicate the Sixth Amendment. Because the jury's verdict "authorized the judge to impose the minimum with or without the finding," ibid., the Court was of the view that the factual basis for increasing the minimum sentence was not " 'essential' " to the defendant's punishment. Id., at 560-561, 122 S.Ct. 2406 (plurality opinion). Instead, it merely limited the judge's "choices within the authorized range." Id., at 567, 122 S.Ct. 2406. From this, the Court drew a distinction between "facts increasing the defendant's minimum sentence and facts extending the sentence beyond the statutory maximum," id., at 566, 122 S.Ct. 2406. The Court limited Apprendi's holding to instances where the factual finding increases the statutory maximum sentence.
III
Alleyne contends that Harris was wrongly decided and that it cannot be reconciled with our reasoning in Apprendi. We agree.
A
The touchstone for determining whether a fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is whether the fact constitutes an "element" or "ingredient" of the charged offense. United States v. O'Brien, 560 U.S. 218, ----, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 176 L.Ed.2d 979 (2010); Apprendi,supra, at 483, n. 10, 120 S.Ct. 2348; J. Archbold, Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases 52 (5th Am. ed. 1846) (hereinafter Archbold). In Apprendi, we held that a fact is by definition an element of the offense and must be submitted to the jury if it increases the punishment above what is otherwise legally prescribed. 530 U.S., at 483, n. 10, 120 S.Ct. 2348. While Harris declined to extend this principle to facts increasing mandatory minimum sentences, Apprendi's definition of "elements" necessarily includes not only facts that increase the ceiling, but also those that increase the floor. Both kinds of facts alter the prescribed range of sentences to which a defendant is exposed and do so in a manner that aggravates the punishment. 530 U.S., at 483, n. 10, 120 S.Ct. 2348; Harris, supra, at 579, 122 S.Ct. 2406 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Facts that increase the mandatory minimum sentence are therefore elements and must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
1
At common law, the relationship between crime and punishment was clear. As discussed in Apprendi, "[t]he substantive criminal law tended to be sanction-specific," meaning "it prescribed a particular sentence for each offense." Langbein, The English Criminal Trial Jury on the Eve of the French Revolution, in The Trial Jury in England, France, Germany 1700-1900, p. 36 (A. Schioppa ed. 1987) (quoted in Apprendi, supra, at 479, 120 S.Ct. 2348). The system left judges with little sentencing discretion: once the facts of the offense were determined by the jury, the "judge was meant simply to impose [the prescribed] sentence." Langbein, supra, at 36-37; see also 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 396 (1768) (" THE judgment, though pronounced or awarded by the judges, is not their determination or sentence, but the determination and sentence of the law" (emphasis deleted)). This Court has recognized that the same was true, in many instances, early on in this country. United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 45, 98 S.Ct. 2610, 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978) ; see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Smith, 1 Mass. 245 (1804) (describing state law that specified a punishment for larceny of damages three times the value of the stolen goods). While some early American statutes provided ranges of permissible sentences, K. Stith & J. Cabranes, Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts 9 (1998), the ranges themselves were linked to particular facts constituting the elements of the crime. E.g., Lacy v. State, 15 Wis. 13 (1862) (discussing arson statute that provided for a sentence of 7 to 14 years where the house was occupied at the time of the offense, but a sentence of 3 to 10 if it was not); Ga. Penal Code §§ 4324-4325 (1867) (robbery "by open force or violence" was punishable by 4 to 20 years' imprisonment, while " [r]obbery by intimidation, or without using force and violence," was punishable by 2 to 5 years' imprisonment). This linkage of facts with particular sentence ranges (defined by both the minimum and the maximum) reflects the intimate connection between crime and punishment.
Consistent with this connection between crime and punishment, various treatises defined "crime" as consisting of every fact which "is in law essential to the punishment sought to be inflicted," 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure 50 (2d ed. 1872) (hereinafter Bishop), or the whole of the wrong "to which the law affixes... punishment," id., § 80, at 51. See also 1 J. Bishop, New Criminal Procedure § 84, p. 49 (4th ed. 1895) (defining crime as "that wrongful aggregation [of elements] out of which the punishment proceeds"); Archbold 128 (defining crime to include any fact that "annexes a higher degree of punishment"). Numerous high courts agreed that this formulation "accurately captured the common-law understanding of what facts are elements of a crime." Apprendi, 530 U.S., at 511-512, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (collecting cases). If a fact was by law essential to the penalty, it was an element of the offense.
2
From these widely recognized principles followed a well-established practice of including in the indictment, and submitting to the jury, every fact that was a basis for imposing or increasing punishment. While an exhaustive history need not be recounted here, see id., at 501-509, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (detailing practices of American courts from the 1840's onward), a few particularly salient examples illustrate the point. In Hope v. Commonwealth, 50 Mass. 134 (1845), the defendant was indicted for (and convicted of) larceny. The larceny statute established two levels of sentencing based on whether the value of the stolen property exceeded $100. Because punishment varied with value, the state high court found that value was an element of the offense:
"Our statutes, it will be remembered, prescribe the punishment for larceny, with reference to the value of the property stolen; and for this reason, as well as because it is in conformity with long established practice, the court are of [the] opinion that the value of the property alleged to be stolen must be set forth in the indictment." Id., at 137.
Numerous other contemporaneous court decisions reflect this same understanding. See, e.g., Ritchey v. State, 7 Blackf. 168, 169 (Ind.1844) (holding that indictment for arson must allege value of property destroyed, because statute set punishment based on value); United States v. Fisher, 25 F.Cas. 1086 (No. 15,102) (C.C.Ohio 1849) (McLean, J.) ("A carrier of the mail is subject to a higher penalty where he steals a letter out of the mail, which contains an article of value. And when this offense is committed, the indictment must allege the letter contained an article of value, which aggravates the offense and incurs a higher penalty").
A number of contemporaneous treatises similarly took the view that a fact that increased punishment must be charged in the indictment. As one 19th-century commentator explained:
"Where a statute annexes a higher degree of punishment to a common-law felony, if committed under particular circumstances, an indictment for the offence, in order to bring the defendant within that higher degree of punishment, must expressly charge it to have been committed under those circumstances, and must state the circumstances with certainty and precision. [2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown *170]." Archbold 51 (15th ed. 1862).
Another explained that "the indictment must contain an allegation of every fact which is legally essential to the punishment to be inflicted." Bishop § 81, at 51. This rule "enabled [the defendant] to determine the species of offence" with which he was charged "in order that he may prepare his defence accordingly... and that there may be no doubt as to the judgment which should be given, if the defendant be convicted." Archbold 44 (emphasis added). As the Court noted in Apprendi, "[t]he defendant's ability to predict with certainty the judgment from the face of the felony indictment flowed from the invariable linkage of punishment with crime." 530 U.S., at 478, 120 S.Ct. 2348.
B
Consistent with common-law and early American practice, Apprendi concluded that any "facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed" are elements of the crime. Id., at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (internal quotation marks omitted); id., at 483, n. 10, 120 S.Ct. 2348 ("[F]acts that expose a defendant to a punishment greater than that otherwise legally prescribed were by definition 'elements' of a separate legal offense"). We held that the Sixth Amendment provides defendants with the right to have a jury find those facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 484, 120 S.Ct. 2348. While Harris limited Apprendi to facts increasing the statutory maximum, the principle applied in Apprendi applies with equal force to facts increasing the mandatory minimum.
It is indisputable that a fact triggering a mandatory minimum alters the prescribed range of sentences to which a criminal defendant is exposed. Apprendi, supra, at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348; Harris, 536 U.S., at 575, 582, 122 S.Ct. 2406 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). But for a finding of brandishing, the penalty is five years to life in prison; with a finding of brandishing, the penalty becomes seven years to life. Just as the maximum of life marks the outer boundary of the range, so seven years marks its floor. And because the legally prescribed range is the penalty affixed to the crime, infra, this page, it follows that a fact increasing either end of the range produces a new penalty and constitutes an ingredient of the offense. Apprendi, supra, at 501, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Bishop § 598, at 360-361 (if "a statute prescribes a particular punishment to be inflicted on those who commit it under special circumstances which it mentions, or with particular aggravations," then those special circumstances must be specified in the indictment (emphasis added)); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Law § 371, p. 291 (rev. 7th ed. 1874) (similar).
It is impossible to dissociate the floor of a sentencing range from the penalty affixed to the crime. See Harris, supra, at 569, 122 S.Ct. 2406 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (facts increasing the minimum and facts increasing the maximum cannot be distinguished "in terms of logic"). Indeed, criminal statutes have long specified both the floor and ceiling of sentence ranges, which is evidence that both define the legally prescribed penalty. See, e.g., supra, at 2158 - 2159; N.Y. Penal Code §§ 231-232, p. 70 (1882) (punishment for first-degree robbery was 10 to 20 years' imprisonment; second-degree robbery was 5 to 15 years); Va.Code ch. 192, §§ 1-2, p. 787 (2d ed. 1860) (arson committed at night was punishable by 5 to 10 years; arson committed during the day was 3 to 10 years). This historical practice allowed those who violated the law to know, ex ante, the contours of the penalty that the legislature affixed to the crime-and comports with the obvious truth that the floor of a mandatory range is as relevant to wrongdoers as the ceiling. A fact that increases a sentencing floor, thus, forms an essential ingredient of the offense.
Moreover, it is impossible to dispute that facts increasing the legally prescribed floor aggravate the punishment. Harris, supra, at 579, 122 S.Ct. 2406 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); O'Brien, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct. 2169 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Elevating the low-end of a sentencing range heightens the loss of liberty associated with the crime: the defendant's "expected punishment has increased as a result of the narrowed range" and "the prosecution is empowered, by invoking the mandatory minimum, to require the judge to impose a higher punishment than he might wish." Apprendi, supra, at 522, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (THOMAS, J., concurring). Why else would Congress link an increased mandatory minimum to a particular aggravating fact other than to heighten the consequences for that behavior? See McMillan, 477 U.S., at 88, 89, 106 S.Ct. 2411 (twice noting that a mandatory minimum " 'ups the ante' " for a criminal defendant); Harris, supra, at 580, 122 S.Ct. 2406 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). This reality demonstrates that the core crime and the fact triggering the mandatory minimum sentence together constitute a new, aggravated crime, each element of which must be submitted to the jury.
Defining facts that increase a mandatory statutory minimum to be part of the substantive offense enables the defendant to predict the legally applicable penalty from the face of the indictment. See Apprendi, 530 U.S., at 478-479, 120 S.Ct. 2348. It also preserves the historic role of the jury as an intermediary between the State and criminal defendants. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S., at 510-511, 115 S.Ct. 2310 ("This right was designed 'to guard against a spirit of oppression and tyranny on the part of rulers,' and 'was from very early times insisted on by our ancestors in the parent country, as the great bulwark of their civil and political liberties' " (quoting 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §§ 1779, 1780, pp. 540-541 (4th ed. 1873))); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 100, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) ("[T]he essential feature of a jury obviously lies in [its] interposition between the accused and his accuser"); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968) ("A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government").
In adopting a contrary conclusion, Harris relied on the fact that the 7-year minimum sentence could have been imposed with or without a judicial finding of brandishing, because the jury's finding already authorized a sentence of five years to life. 536 U.S., at 561, 122 S.Ct. 2406. The dissent repeats this argument today. See post, at 2166 (opinion of ROBERTS, C.J.) ("The jury's verdict authorized the judge to impose the precise sentence he imposed for the precise factual reason he imposed it"). While undoubtedly true, this fact is beside the point.
As noted, the essential Sixth Amendment inquiry is whether a fact is an element of the crime. When a finding of fact alters the legally prescribed punishment so as to aggravate it, the fact necessarily forms a constituent part of a new offense and must be submitted to the jury. It is no answer to say that the defendant could have received the same sentence with or without that fact. It is obvious, for example, that a defendant could not be convicted and sentenced for assault, if the jury only finds the facts for larceny, even if the punishments prescribed for each crime are identical. One reason is that each crime has different elements and a defendant can be convicted only if the jury has found each element of the crime of conviction.
Similarly, because the fact of brandishing aggravates the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences, it constitutes an element of a separate, aggravated offense that must be found by the jury, regardless of what sentence the defendant might have received if a different range had been applicable. Indeed, if a judge were to find a fact that increased the statutory maximum sentence, such a finding would violate the Sixth Amendment, even if the defendant ultimately received a sentence falling within the original sentencing range (i.e., the range applicable without that aggravating fact). Cf. Hobbs v. State, 44 Tex. 353 (1875) (reversing conviction where the defendant was indicted for a crime punishable by 2 to 5 years and sentenced to 3 years because the trial court improperly instructed the jury to sentence the defendant between 2 to 10 years if it found a particular aggravating fact); State v. Callahan, 109 La. 946, 33 So. 931 (1903) (finding ex post facto violation where a newly enacted law increased the range of punishment, even though defendant was sentenced within the range established by the prior law). The essential point is that the aggravating fact produced a higher range, which, in turn, conclusively indicates that the fact is an element of a distinct and aggravated crime. It must, therefore, be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because there is no basis in principle or logic to distinguish facts that raise the maximum from those that increase the minimum, Harris was inconsistent with Apprendi. It is, accordingly, overruled.
C
In holding that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury, we take care to note what our holding does not entail. Our ruling today does not mean that any fact that influences judicial discretion must be found by a jury. We have long recognized that broad sentencing discretion, informed by judicial factfinding, does not violate the Sixth Amendment. See, e.g., Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. ----, ----, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) ("[W]ithin established limits[,]... the exercise of [sentencing] discretion does not contravene the Sixth Amendment even if it is informed by judge-found facts" (emphasis deleted and internal quotation marks omitted)); Apprendi, 530 U.S., at 481, 120 S.Ct. 2348 ("[N]othing in this history suggests that it is impermissible for judges to exercise discretion-taking into consideration various factors relating both to offense and offender-in imposing a judgment within the range prescribed by statute"). This position has firm historical roots as well. As Bishop explained:
"[W]ithin the limits of any discretion as to the punishment which the law may have allowed, the judge, when he pronounces sentence, may suffer his discretion to be influenced by matter shown in aggravation or mitigation, not covered by the allegations of the indictment." Bishop § 85, at 54.
"[E]stablishing what punishment is available by law and setting a specific punishment within the bounds that the law has prescribed are two different things." Apprendi, supra, at 519, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (THOMAS, J., concurring). Our decision today is wholly consistent with the broad discretion of judges to select a sentence within the range authorized by law.
IV
Here, the sentencing range supported by the jury's verdict was five years' imprisonment to life. The District Court imposed the 7-year mandatory minimum sentence based on its finding by a preponderance of evidence that the firearm was "brandished." Because the finding of brandishing increased the penalty to which the defendant was subjected, it was an element, which had to be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge, rather than the jury, found brandishing, thus violating petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights.
Accordingly, we vacate the Fourth Circuit's judgment with respect to Alleyne's sentence on the § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction and remand the case for resentencing consistent with the jury's verdict.
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG and Justice KAGAN join, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court, which persuasively explains why Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), and McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986), were wrongly decided. Under the reasoning of our decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment, facts that increase the statutory minimum sentence (no less than facts that increase the statutory maximum sentence) are elements of the offense that must be found by a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Ante, at 2156.
Of course, under our doctrine of stare decisis, establishing that a decision was wrong does not, without more, justify overruling it. While stare decisis is not an "inexorable command," Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 251, 118 S.Ct. 1969, 141 L.Ed.2d 242 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted), it is "a basic self-governing principle within the Judicial Branch, which is entrusted with the sensitive and difficult task of fashioning and preserving a jurisprudential system that is not based upon 'an arbitrary discretion,' " Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 172, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989) (quoting The Federalist, No. 78, p. 490 (H. Lodge ed. 1888) (A. Hamilton)). We generally adhere to our prior decisions, even if we question their soundness, because doing so "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process." Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). To protect these important values, we require a "'"special justification"'" when departing from precedent. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 443, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000).
A special justification is present here. As an initial matter, when procedural rules are at issue that do not govern primary conduct and do not implicate the reliance interests of private parties, the force of stare decisis is reduced. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 521, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995) ; Payne, 501 U.S., at 828, 111 S.Ct. 2597. And any reliance interest that the Federal Government and state governments might have is particularly minimal here because prosecutors are perfectly able to "charge facts upon which a mandatory minimum sentence is based in the indictment and prove them to a jury." Harris, 536 U.S., at 581, 122 S.Ct. 2406 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Indeed, even with Harris in place, prosecutors already sometimes charge such facts and seek to prove them to a jury. See Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as Amici Curiae 26. That is precisely what happened here, where the verdict form allowed the jury to find whether petitioner had brandished a firearm yet the jury declined to make such a finding. Ante, at 2155 - 2156.
In this context, stare decisis does not compel adherence to a decision whose "underpinnings" have been "eroded" by subsequent developments of constitutional law. Gaudin, 515 U.S., at 521, 115 S.Ct. 2310. In rejecting a constitutional challenge to a state statute that increased a defendant's minimum sentence based on judicial factfinding, McMillan relied on a distinction between "elements" and "sentencing factors." 477 U.S., at 86, 106 S.Ct. 2411. That distinction was undermined by Apprendi, where we held that a legislature may not "remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed." 530 U.S., at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Harris, we squarely confronted the question whether "McMillan stands after Apprendi." 536 U.S., at 550, 122 S.Ct. 2406. Five Members of the Court recognized that the cases were in fact incompatible. See id., at 569, 122 S.Ct. 2406 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 572, 583, 122 S.Ct. 2406 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) ("[O]nly a minority of the Court embrac[es]
the distinction between McMillan and Apprendi that forms the basis of today's holding"). In the controlling opinion, Justice BREYER nevertheless declined to apply Apprendi to mandatory minimums because, though he found no way to distinguish sentencing floors from sentencing ceilings, he could not "yet accept" Apprendi itself. 536 U.S., at 569, 122 S.Ct. 2406; see also post, at 2166 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
We have said that a decision may be "of questionable precedential value" when "a majority of the Court expressly disagreed with the rationale of [a] plurality." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 66, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). And
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Medicare Act, Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 79 Stat. 290, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. II), the Secretary of Health and Human Services reimburses the providers of covered health services to Medicare beneficiaries, see §§ 1395f(b)(l), 1395h, 1395x(v)(l)(A). A provider seeking such reimbursement submits a yearly cost report to a fiscal intermediary (generally a private insurance company) that acts as the Secretary’s agent. See 42 CFR § 405.1801(b) (1997). The intermediary analyzes the cost report and issues a Notice of Program Reimbursement (NPR) determining the amount of reimbursement to which the provider is entitled for the year. See §405.1803.
As is relevant here, a dissatisfied provider has two ways to get this determination revised. First, a provision of the Medicare Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1395oo, allows a provider to appeal, within 180 days, to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (Board) — an administrative review panel that has the power to conduct an evidentiary hearing and affirm, modify, or reverse the intermediary’s NPR determination. The Board’s decision is subject to judicial review in federal district court. § 1395oo(f). Second, one of the Secretary’s regulations, 42 CFR §405.1885 (1997), permits a provider to request the intermediary, within three years, to reopen the reimbursement determination.
Petitioner Your Home Visiting Nurse Services, Inc., owns and operates several entities that provide home health care services to Medicare beneficiaries. Petitioner submitted cost reports for the year 1989 to its fiscal intermediary, and did not seek administrative review of the resulting NPRs within 180 days. Within three years, however, it did ask the intermediary to reopen its 1989 reimbursement determination on the ground that “new and material” evidence demonstrated entitlement to additional compensation. The intermediary denied the request. Petitioner sought to appeal that denial to the Board, but the Board dismissed the appeal on the ground that §405.1885 divested it of jurisdiction to review an intermediary’s refusal to reopen a reimbursement determination.
Petitioner then brought the instant action in Federal District Court, seeking review of the Board’s dismissal and of the intermediary’s refusal to reopen. In an unpublished opinion, the District Court agreed that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the refusal to reopen, and rejected petitioner’s alternative contention that the federal-question statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1381, or the mandamus statute, § 1361, gave the District Court jurisdiction to review the intermediary’s refusal directly. It accordingly dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 182 F. 3d 1135 (CA6 1997). We granted certiorari. 524 U. S. 925 (1998).
I
The primary issue in this case is whether the Board has jurisdiction to review a fiscal intermediary’s refusal to reopen a reimbursement determination. The regulation that authorizes reopening provides that “[j]urisdietion for reopening a determination . . . rests exclusively with that administrative body that rendered the last determination or decision.” 42 CFR § 405.1885(c) (1997). In this litigation, the Secretary defends the position set forth in the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual §2926, App. A, ¶ B.4 (Sept. 1993): “A refosal by the intermediary to grant a reopening requested by the provider is not appealable to the Board, pursuant to 42 CFR § 405.1885(c)_” The Secretary construes the' regulation to mean that where, as here, the intermediary is the body that rendered the last determination with respect to the cost reports at issue, review by the Board of the intermediary’s refusal to reopen would divest the intermediary of its “exclusiv[e]” “[jjurisdiction for reopening a determination.” Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that “jurisdiction” in § 405.1885(c) refers only to original jurisdiction over the reopening question, and not to appellate jurisdiction to review the intermediary’s refusal. Even if it should win on this point, however, petitioner would only establish that the Board’s otherwise extant appellate jurisdiction has not been excluded; it would still have to establish that the Board’s appellate jurisdiction is somewhere conferred. Another regulation, §405.1889, says that an intermediary’s affirmative decision to reopen and revise a reimbursement determination “shall be considered a separate and distinct determination” to which the regulations authorizing appeal to the Board are applicable; but it says nothing about appeal of a refusal to reopen. Petitioner must thus establish the Board’s appellate jurisdiction on the basis of the unelabo-rated text of the Medicare Act itself.
Petitioner relies upon 42 U. S. C. § 1395oo(a)(l)(A)(i), which says that a provider may obtain a hearing before the Board with respect to a cost report if the provider “is dissatisfied with a final determination of. .. its fiscal intermediary .. . as to the amount of total program reimbursement due the provider ... for the period covered by such report. . . .” Petitioner maintains that the refusal to reopen a reimbursement determination constitutes a separate “final determination ... as to the amount of total program reimbursement due the provider.” The Secretary, on the other hand, maintains that this phrase does not include a refusal to reopen, which is not a “final determination ... as to the amount,” but rather the refusal to make a new determination. The Secretary’s reading of § 1395oo(a)(l)(A)(i) frankly seems to us the more natural — but it is in any event well within the bounds of reasonable interpretation, and hence entitled to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842 (1984).
The reasonableness of the Secretary’s construction of the statute is farther confirmed by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U. S. 99 (1977), in which we held that § 205(g) of the Social Security Act does not authorize judicial review of the Secretary’s decision not to reopen a previously adjudicated claim for benefits. In reaching this conclusion we relied, in part, upon two considerations: that the opportunity to reopen a benefit adjudication was afforded only by regulation and not by the Social Security Act itself; and that judicial -review of a reopening denial would frustrate the statutory purpose of imposing a 60-day limit on judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision on an initial claim for benefits. Id., at 108. Similar considerations apply here. The right of a provider to seek reopening exists only by grace of the Secretary, and the statutory purpose of imposing a 180-day limit on the right to seek Board review of NPRs, see 42 U. S. C. § 1395oo(a)(3), would be frustrated by permitting requests to reopen to be reviewed indefinitely.
Finally, we do not think that the Secretary’s position is inconsistent with 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(l)(A)(ii), which provides that the Secretary’s cost-reimbursement regulations shall “provide for the making of suitable retroactive corrective adjustments where, for a provider of services for any fiscal period, the aggregate reimbursement produced by the methods of determining costs proves to be either inadequate or excessive.” Petitioner asserts that the reopening regulations, as construed by the Secretary, do not create a “suitable” procedure for making “retroactive corrective adjustments” because an intermediary’s refusal to reopen a determination is not subject to administrative review. In support of this assertion, petitioner decries the “double standard” inherent in a procedure that allows the intermediary to reopen (during the 8-year period) for the purpose of recouping overpayments, but to deny reopening when alleged underpayments are at issue.
This argument fails for two reasons. First, and most importantly, petitioner’s construction of § lS95x(v)(l)(A)(ii) is inconsistent with our decision in Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 508 U. S. 402 (1993), in which we held that the Secretary reasonably construed clause (ii) to refer to the year-end reconciliation of monthly payments to providers, see 42 U. S. C. § 1395g, with the total amount of program reimbursement determined by the intermediary. Although we did not specifically consider the procedure for reopening determinations after the year’s books are closed, we think our conclusion there — that clause (ii) refers to the year-end book balancing — forecloses petitioner’s contention that clause (ii) requires any particular procedure for reopening reimbursement determinations. And second, the procedures for obtaining reimbursement would not be “unsuitable” simply because an intermediary’s refusal to reopen is not administratively reviewable. Medicare providers already have the right under § 1395oo(a)(3) to appeal an intermediary’s reimbursement determination to the Board. Title 42 CFR §405.1885 (1997) generously gives them a second chance to get the decision changed — this time at the hands of the intermediary itself, but without the benefit of administrative review. That is a “suitable” procedure, especially in light of the traditional rule of administrative law that an agency’s refusal to reopen a closed case is generally “ ‘committed to agency discretion by law”’ and therefore exempt from judicial review. See ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270, 282 (1987). As for the alleged “double standard,” given the administrative realities we would not be shocked by a system in which underpayments could never 'be the basis for reopening. The few dozen fiscal intermediaries often need three years within which to discover overpay-ments in the tens of thousands of NPRs that they issue, while each of the tens of thousands of sophisticated Medicare-provider recipients of these NPRs is generally capable of identifying an underpayment in its own NPR within the 180-day time period specified in 42 U. S. C. § 1895oo(a)(3). Petitioner’s invocation of gross unfairness is also refuted by the Secretary’s representation that fiscal intermediaries grant between 30 and 40 percent of providers’ requests to reopen reimbursement determinations. Brief for Respondent 27, n. 11.
II
We also reject petitioner’s fallback argument that it is entitled to judicial review of the intermediary’s refusal to reopen. First, judicial review under the federal-question statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1331, is precluded by 42 U. S. C. § 405(h), applicable to the Medicare Act by operation of § 1S95Ü, which provides that “[n]o action against... the [Secretary] or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331... of title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subehapter.” Petitioner’s claim “arises under” the Medicare Act within the meaning of this provision because “'both the standing and the substantive basis for the presentation’ ” of the claim are the Medicare Act. Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S. 602, 615 (1984).
Second, the lower courts properly declined to issue mandamus to order petitioner’s fiscal intermediary to reopen its 1989 reimbursement determination. Even if mandamus were available for claims arising under the Social Security and Medicare Acts, petitioner would still not be entitled to mandamus relief because it has not shown the existence of a “clear nondiscretionary duty,” id., at 616, to reopen the reimbursement determination at issue. The reopening regulations do not require reopening, but merely permit it: “A determination of an intermediary ... may be reopened .. . by such intermediary ... on the motion of the provider affected by such determination,” 42 CFR § 405.1885(a) (1997) (emphasis added). To be sure, the Secretary’s Medicare Reimbursement Provider Manual §2931.2 (Feb. 1985) does provide that “[wjhether or not the intermediary will reopen a determination, otherwise final, will depend upon whether (1) new and material evidence has been submitted, or (2) a clear and obvious error was made, or (3) the determination is found to be inconsistent with the law, regulations and rulings, or general instructions.” But we hardly think that this disjunctive listing of factors was meant to convert a discretionary function into a mandatory one. As to factor (1), for example, it seems to us inconceivable that the existence of new and material evidence would alone require reopening, no matter how unpersuasive that evidence might be. The present case, we might note, involves evidence that was already before the intermediary at the time of its decision. The holding of ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, supra, that the decision whether to reopen, at least where no new evidence is at issue, is “‘committed to agency discretion by law5” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, and hence unreviewable, see id., at 282, is squarely applicable.
The last point alone would suffice to defeat petitioner’s suggestion that we grant it the relief it requests under the judicial-review provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706. In addition, however, we have long held that this provision is not an independent grant of subject-matter jurisdiction. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U. S. 99 (1977).
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The clause immediately following the quoted portion of the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual reads “except for providers which are located within the jurisdiction of the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where such a refusal to reopen is appealable.” §2926, App. A, ÍB.4. This exception obviously reflects, not an inconsistency in the Secretary’s position, but an acknowledgment of the Ninth Circuit's rejection of that position. See Oregon v. Bowen, 854 F. 2d 346 (1988).
The relevant portion of § 205(g), as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) (1970 ed.), provided that “[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days ...See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U. S., at 108.
The Secretary urges us to hold that mandamus is altogether unavailable to review claims arising under the Medicare Act, in light of the second sentence of 42 U. S. C. § 405(h), which provides that "[n]o findings of fact or decision of the [Secretary] shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as” provided in the Medicare Act itself. We have avoided deciding this issue in the past, see, e. g., Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S. 602, 616-617 (1984), and we again find it unnecessary to reach it today.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to use the record in No. 49, October Term, 1958, is granted. The petition for certiorari is also granted. After our remand to the Court of Appeals of the State of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District, for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court, 358 U. S. 283, the Court of Appeals set aside its previous order “as it concerns and applies to Revel Oliver, appellee, as a lessor-driver” but continued the order in full force and effect “as it concerns and applies to Revel Oliver, appellee, as a lessor-owner and employer of drivers of his equipment.” We read the judgment of the Court of Appeals as enjoining petitioners and respondents A. C. E. Transportation Co. and Interstate Truck Service, Inc., from enforcing against respondent Oliver those parts of Article 32 which provide that hired or leased equipment, if not owner-driven, shall be operated only by employees of the certificated or permitted carriers and require those carriers to use their own available equipment before hiring any extra equipment. Art. XXXII, §§ 4 and 5, 358 U. S., at 298-299. While we do not think the issue was tendered to us when the case was last here, we are of opinion that these provisions are at least as intimately bound up with the subject of wages as the minimum rental provisions we passed on then. Accordingly, as in the previous case, we hold that Ohio’s antitrust law here may not “be applied to prevent the contracting parties from carrying out their agreement upon a subject matter as to which federal law directs them to bargain.” 358 U. S., at 295.
The judgment accordingly is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Whittaker dissents.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 5 (a) (6) of the Federal Trade Commission Act empowers and directs the Commission “to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations . . . from using unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.” Proceeding under the authority of § 5, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against the Brown Shoe Co., Inc., one of the world’s largest manufacturers of shoes with total sales of $236,946,078 for the year ending October 31, 1957. The unfair practices charged against Brown revolve around the “Brown Franchise Stores’ Program” through which Brown sells its shoes to some 650 retail stores. The complaint alleged that under this plan Brown, a corporation engaged in interstate commerce, had “entered into contracts or franchises with a substantial number of its independent retail shoe store operator customers which require said customers to restrict their purchases of shoes for resale to the Brown lines and which prohibit them from purchasing, stocking or reselling shoes manufactured by competitors of Brown.” Brown’s customers who entered into these restrictive franchise agreements, so the complaint charged, were given in return special treatment and valuable benefits which were not granted to Brown’s customers who did not enter into the agreements. In its answer to the Commission’s complaint Brown admitted that approximately 259 of its retail customers had executed written franchise agreements and that over 400 others had entered into its franchise program without execution of the franchise agreement. Also in its answer Brown attached as an exhibit an unexecuted copy of the “Franchise Agreement” which, when exec.uted by Brown’s representative and a retail shoe dealer, obligates Brown to give to the dealer but not to other customers certain valuable services, including among others architectural plans, costly merchandising records, services of a Brown field representative, and a right to participate in group insurance at lower rates than the dealer could obtain individually. In return, according to the franchise agreement set out in Brown’s answer, the retailer must make this promise:
“In return I will:
“1. Concentrate my business within the grades and price lines of shoes representing Brown Shoe Company Franchises of the Brown Division and will have no lines conflicting with Brown Division Brands of the Brown Shoe Company.”
Brown’s answer further admitted that the operators of “such Brown Franchise Stores in individually varying degrees accept the benefits and perform the obligations contained in such franchise agreements or implicit in such Program,” and that Brown refuses to grant these benefits “to dealers who are dropped or voluntarily withdraw from the Brown Franchise Program The foregoing admissions of Brown as to the existence and operation of the franchise program were buttressed by many separate detailed fact findings of a trial examiner, one of which findings was that the franchise program effectively foreclosed Brown’s competitors from selling to a substantial number of retail shoe dealers. Based on these findings and on Brown’s admissions the Commission concluded that the restrictive contract program was an unfair method of competition within the meaning of § 5 and ordered Brown to cease and desist from its use.
On review the Court of Appeals set aside the Commission’s order. In doing so the court said:
“By passage of the Federal Trade Commission Act, particularly § 5 thereof, we do not believe that Congress meant to prohibit or limit sales programs such as Brown Shoe engaged in in this case. . . . The custom of giving free service to those who will buy their shoes is widespread, and we cannot agree with the Commission that it is an unfair method of competition in commerce.” 339 F. 2d 45, 56.
In addition the Court of Appeals held that there was a “complete failure to prove an exclusive dealing agreement which might be held violative of § 5 of the Act.” We are asked to treat this general conclusion as though the court intended it to be a rejection of the Commission’s findings of fact. We cannot do this. Neither this statement of the court nor any other statement in the opinion indicates a purpose to hold that the evidence failed to show an agreement between Brown and more than 650 franchised dealers which restrained the dealers from buying competing lines of shoes from Brown’s competitors. Indeed, in view of the crucial admissions in Brown’s formal answer to the complaint we cannot attribute to the Court of Appeals a purpose to set aside the Commission’s findings that these restrictive agreements existed and that Brown and most of the franchised dealers in varying degrees lived up to their obligations. Thus the question we have for decision is whether the Federal Trade Commission can declare it to be an unfair practice for Brown, the second largest manufacturer of shoes in the Nation, to pay a valuable consideration to hundreds of retail shoe purchasers in order to secure a contractual promise from them that they will deal primarily with Brown and will not purchase conflicting lines of shoes from Brown’s competitors. We hold that the Commission has power to find, on the record here, such an anticompetitive practice unfair, subject of course to judicial review. See Atlantic Rfg. Co. v. FTC, 381 U. S. 357, 367.
In holding that the Federal Trade Commission lacked the power to declare Brown’s program to be unfair the Court of Appeals was much influenced by and quoted at length from this Court’s opinion in Federal Trade Comm’n v. Gratz, 253 U. S. 421. That case, decided shortly after the Federal Trade Commission Act was passed, construed the Act over a strong dissent by Mr. Justice Brandéis as giving the Commission very little power to declare any trade practice unfair. Later cases of this Court, however, have rejected the Gratz view and it is now recognized in line with the dissent of Mr. Justice Brandéis in Gratz that the Commission has broad powers to declare trade practices unfair. This broad power of the Commission is particularly well established with regard to trade practices which conflict with the basic policies of the Sherman and Clayton Acts even though such practices may not actually violate these laws. The record in this case shows beyond doubt that Brown, the country’s second largest manufacturer of shoes, has a program, which requires shoe retailers, unless faithless to their contractual obligations with Brown, substantially to limit their trade with Brown’s competitors. This program obviously conflicts with the central policy of both § 1 of the Sherman Act and § 3 of the Clayton Act against contracts which take away freedom of purchasers to buy in an open market. Brown nevertheless contends that the Commission had no power to declare the franchise program unfair without proof that its effect “may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly” which of course would have, to be proved if the Government were proceeding against Brown under § 3 of the Clayton Act rather than § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. We reject the argument that proof of this § 3 element must be made for as we pointed out above our cases hold that the Commission has power under § 5 to arrest trade restraints in their incipiency without proof that they amqunt to an outright violation of § 3 of the Clayton Act or other provisions of the antitrust laws. This power of the Commission was emphatically stated in F. T. C. v. Motion Picture Adv. Co., 344 U. S. 392, at pp. 394-395:
“It is . . . clear that the Federal Trade Commission Act was designed to supplement and bolster the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act ... to stop in their incipiency acts and practices which, when full blown, would violate those Acts ... as well as to condemn as ‘unfair methods of competition’ existing violations of them.”
We hold that the Commission acted well within its authority in declaring the Brown franchise program unfair whether it was completely full blown or not.
Reversed.
38 Stat. 719, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §45 (a)(6) (1964 ed.).
Section 5 (a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act provides that “Unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, are declared unlawful.”
In its opinion the Commission found that the services provided by Brown in its franchise program were the “prime motivation” for dealers to join and remain in the program; that the program resulted in franchised stores purchasing 75% of their total shoe requirements from Brown — the remainder being for the most part shoes which were not “conflicting” lines, as provided by the agreement; that the effect of the plan was to foreclose retail outlets to Brown’s competitors, particularly small manufacturers; and that enforcement of the plan was effected by teams of field men who called upon the shoe stores, urged the elimination of other manufacturers’ conflicting lines and reported deviations to Brown who then cancelled under a provision of the agreement. Compare Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294.
See, e. g., Federal Trade Comm’n v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc., 291 U. S. 304, 310; Trade Comm’n, v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 693; Atlantic Rfg. Co. v. FTC, 381 U. S. 357, 367.
See, e. g., Fashion Guild v. Trade Comm’n, 312 U. S. 457, 463; Atlantic Rfg. Co. v. FTC, 381 U. S. 357, 369.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. § 1 (1964 ed.), declares illegal “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 . . . .”
Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 14 (1964 ed.), provides in relevant part:
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce . . . to . . . make a . . . contract for sale of goods . . . for . . . resale within the United States ... on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the . . . purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods ... of a competitor or competitors of the . . . seller, where the effect of such . . . condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tepd to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.”
See cases cited in note 4, 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: | 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.
The Bankruptcy Act and one of this Court’s complementary Orders in Bankruptcy impose fees and make the payment of those fees a condition to a discharge in voluntary bankruptcy.
Appellee Kras, an indigent petitioner in bankruptcy, challenged the fees on Fifth Amendment grounds. Upon receiving notice of the constitutional issue in the District Court, the Government moved to intervene as of right under 28 U. S. C. § 2403 and Rule 24 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Leave to intervene was granted. The District Court held the fee provisions to be unconstitutional as applied to Kras. 331 F. Supp. 1207 (EDNY 1971). It reached this conclusion in the face of an earlier contrary holding by a unanimous First Circuit. In re Garland, 428 F. 2d 1185 (1970), cert. denied, 402 U. S. 966 (1971). Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1252, the Government appealed. We noted probable jurisdiction. 405 U. S. 915 (1972).
I
Section 14 (b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. §32 (b)(2), provides that, upon the expiration of the time fixed by the court for filing of objections, “the court shall discharge the bankrupt if no objection has been filed and if the filing fees required to be paid by this title have been paid in full.” Section 14 (c), 11 U. S. C. § 32 (c), similarly provides that the court “shall grant the discharge unless satisfied that the bankrupt . . . (8) has failed to pay the filing fees required to be paid by this title in full.” Section 59 (g), 11 U. S. C. § 95 (g), relates to the dismissal of a petition in bankruptcy and states that “in the case of a dismissal for failure to pay the costs,” notice to creditors shall not be required. Three separate sections of the Act thus contemplate the imposition of fees and condition a discharge upon payment of those fees.
Three charges are imposed: $37 for the referee's salary and expense fund, $10 for compensation of the trustee, and $3 for the clerk’s services. §§40 (c)(1), 48(c), and 52(a), 11 U. S. C. §§68 (c)(1), 76(c), and 80 (a). These total $50. The fees are payable upon the filing of the petition. Section 40 (c)(1), however, contains a proviso that in cases of voluntary bankruptcy, all the fees “may be paid in installments, if so authorized by General Order of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The Court’s General Order in Bankruptcy No. 35 (4), as amended June 23, 1947, 331 U. S. 873, 876-877, 11 U. S. C. App., p. 2210, complements §40 (c)(1) and provides that, upon a proper showing by the bankrupt, the fees may be paid in installments within a six-month period, which may be extended not to exceed three months.
II
Robert William Kras presented his voluntary petition in bankruptcy to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 28, 1971. The petition was accompanied by Kras’ motion for leave to file and proceed in bankruptcy without payment of any of the filing fees as a condition precedent to discharge. The motion was supported by Kras’ affidavit containing the following allegations that have not been controverted by the Government:
1. Kras resides in a 2%-room apartment with his wife, two children, ages 5 years and 8 months, his mother, and his mother’s 6-year-old daughter. His younger child suffers from cystic fibrosis and is undergoing treatment in a medical center.
2. Kras has been unemployed since May 1969 except for odd jobs producing about $300 in 1969 and a like amount in 1970. His last steady job was as an insurance agent with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. He was discharged by Metropolitan in 1969 when premiums he had collected were stolen from his home and he was unable to make up the amount to his employer. Metropolitan’s claim against him has increased to over $1,000 and is one of the debts listed in his bankruptcy petition. He has diligently sought steady employment in New York City, but, because of unfavorable references from Metropolitan, he has been unsuccessful. Mrs. Kras was employed until March 1970, when she was forced to stop because of pregnancy. All her attention now will be devoted to caring for the younger child who is coming out of the hospital soon.
3. The Kras household subsists entirely on $210 per month public assistance received for Kras’ own family and $156 per month public assistance received for his mother and her daughter. These benefits are all expended for rent and day-to-day necessities. The rent is $102 per month. Kras owns no automobile and no asset that is non-exempt under the bankruptcy law. He receives no unemployment or disability benefit. His sole assets are wearing apparel and $50 worth of essential household goods that are exempt under § 6 of the Act, 11 U. S. C. § 24, and under New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules § 5205 (1963). He has a couch of negligible value in storage on which a $6 payment is due monthly.
4. Because of his poverty, Kras is wholly unable to pay or promise to pay the bankruptcy fees, even in small installments. He has been unable to borrow money. The New York City Department of Social Services refuses to allot money for payment of the fees. He has no prospect of immediate employment.
5. Kras seeks a discharge in bankruptcy of $6,428.69 in total indebtedness in order to relieve himself and his family of the distress of financial insolvency and creditor harassment and in order to make á new start in life. It is especially important that he obtain a discharge of his debt to Metropolitan soon “because until that is cleared up Metropolitan will continue to falsely charge me with fraud and give me bad references which prevent my getting employment.”
The District Court’s opinion contains an order, 331 F. Supp., at 1215, granting Kras’ motion for leave to file his petition in bankruptcy without prepayment of fees. He was adjudged a bankrupt on September 13, 1971. Later, the referee, upon consent of the parties, entered an order allowing Kras to conduct all necessary proceedings in bankruptcy up to but not including discharge. The referee stayed the discharge pending disposition of this appeal.
HI
In the District Court Kras first presented a statutory argument — and, alternatively, one based in common law — that he was entitled to relief from payment of the bankruptcy charges because of the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 1915 (a). This is the in forma pauperis statute that has its origin in the Act of July 20, 1892, c. 209, 27 Stat. 252. See also 28 U. S. C. §§ 832-836 (1940 ed.).
The District Court rejected the argument despite the seeming facial application of § 1915 (a) to a bankruptcy proceeding as well as to any other. It reached this result by noting that § 51 (2) of the Bankruptcy Act, as originally adopted in 1898, 30 Stat. 558, had provided for a waiver of fees upon the filing of an affidavit of inability to pay; that by the passage of the Referees’ Salary Bill in 1946, 60 Stat. 326, bankruptcy petitions in forma pauperis were abolished, H. R. Rep. No. 1037, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1945); S. Rep. No. 959, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1946); and that the 1946 statute, being later and having a positive and specific provision for postponement of fees in cases of indigency, overrode the earlier general provisions of § 1915 (a). 331 F. Supp., at 1209-1210. To the same effect are In re Garland, 428 F. 2d, at 1186-1187, and In re Smith, 323 F. Supp. 1082, 1084-1085 (Colo. 1971), the reasoning of which the District Court adopted. So also is In re Smith, 341 F. Supp. 1297, 1298 (ND Ill. 1972).
The appellee may well have abandoned the argument on this appeal. Tr. of Oral Arg. 44 — 45. In any event, we agree, for the reasons stated by the District Court and by the courts in Garland and in the two Smith cases, supra, that § 1915 (a) is not now available in bankruptcy. See 2 W. Collier, Bankruptcy ¶[ 51.01, pp. 1873-1874 (14th ed. 1971). Neither do we perceive any common-law right to proceed without payment of fees. Congress, of course, sometime might conclude that § 1915 (a) should be made applicable to bankruptcy and legislate accordingly.
The District Court went on to hold, however, 331 F. Supp., at 1210-1215, that the prescribed fees, payment of which was required as a condition precedent to discharge, served to deny Kras “his Fifth Amendment right of due process, including equal protection.” Id., at 1212. It held that a discharge in bankruptcy was a “fundamental interest” that could be denied only when a “compelling government interest” was demonstrated. It noted, id., at 1213, that provision should be made by the referee for the survival, beyond bankruptcy, of the bankrupt’s obligation to pay the fees. The court rested its decision primarily upon Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371 (1971), which came down after the First Circuit’s decision in Garland, supra. A number of other district courts and bankruptcy referees have reached the same result.
Kras contends that his case falls squarely within Boddie. The Government, on the other hand, stresses the differences between divorce (with which Boddie was concerned) and bankruptcy, and claims that Boddie is not controlling and that the fee requirements constitute a reasonable exercise of Congress’ plenary power over bankruptcy.
IV
Boddie was a challenge by welfare recipients to certain Connecticut procedures, including the payment of court fees and costs, that allegedly restricted their access to the courts for divorce. The plaintiffs, simply by reason of their indigency, were unable to bring their actions. The Court reversed a district court judgment that a State could limit access to its courts by fees “which effectively bar persons on relief from commencing actions therein.” 286 F. Supp. 968, 972. Mr. Justice Harlan, writing for the Court, stressed state monopolization of the means for legally dissolving marriage and identified the would-be indigent divorce plaintiff with any other action’s impoverished defendant forced into court by the institution of a lawsuit against him. He declared that “a meaningful opportunity to be heard” was firmly imbedded in our due process jurisprudence, 401 U. S., at 377, and that this was to be protected against denial by laws that operate to jeopardize it for particular individuals, id., at 379-380. The Court then concluded that Connecticut’s refusal to admit these good-faith divorce plaintiffs to its courts equated with the denial of an opportunity to be heard and, in the absence of a sufficient countervailing justification for the State’s action, a denial of due process, id., at 380-381.
But the Court emphasized that “we go no further than necessary to dispose of the case before us.” Id., at 382.
“We do not decide that access for all individuals to the courts is a right that is, in all circumstances, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so that its exercise may not be placed beyond the reach of any individual, for, as we have already noted, in the case before us this right is the exclusive precondition to the adjustment of a fundamental human relationship. The requirement that these appellants resort to the judicial process is entirely a state-created matter. Thus we hold only that a State may not, consistent with the obligations imposed on it by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, pre-empt the right to dissolve this legal relationship without affording all citizens access to the means it has prescribed for doing so.” Id., at 382-383.
Mr. Justice Douglas, concurring in the result, rested his conclusion on equal protection rather than due process. “I do not see the length of the road we must follow if we accept my Brother Harlan’s invitation.” Id., at 383, 385. Mr. Justice Brennan concurred in part, for he discerned no distinction between divorce and “any other right arising under federal or state law” and he, also, found a denial of equal protection. Id., at 386, 387. Mr. Justice Black dissented, id., at 389, feeling that the Connecticut court costs were barred by neither the Due Process Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Just two months after Boddie was decided, the Court denied certiorari in Garland. 402 U. S. 966. Mr. Jus-tioe Brennan was of the opinion that certiorari should have been granted. Mr. Justice Blacky in an opinion applicable to Garland and to seven other then-pending cases, 402 U. S. 954, dissented and would have heard argument in all eight cases “or reverse them outright on the basis of the decision in Boddie.” Id., at 955. For him “the need ... to file for a discharge in bankruptcy seem[ed] . . . more 'fundamental’ than a person’s right to seek a divorce.” Id., at 958. And Mr. Justice Douglas similarly dissented from the denial of certiorari in Garland and in four other cases because “obtaining a fresh start in life through bankruptcy proceedings . . . seemingly come[s] within the Equal Protection Clause.” 402 U. S. 960, 961.
Thus, although a denial of certiorari normally carries no implication or inference, Chessman v. Teets, 354 U. S. 156, 164 n. 13 (1957); Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443 (1953), the pointed dissents of Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas to the denial in Garland so soon after Boddie, and Mr. Justice Harlan’s failure to join the dissenters, surely are not without some significance as to their and the Court’s attitude about the application of the Boddie principle to bankruptcy fees.
Y
We agree with the Government that our decision in Boddie does not control the disposition of this case and that the District Court’s reliance upon Boddie is misplaced.
A. Boddie was based on the notion that a State cannot deny access, simply because of one’s poverty, to a “judicial proceeding [that is] the only effective means of resolving the dispute at hand.” 401 U. S., at 376. Throughout the opinion there is constant and recurring reference to Connecticut’s exclusive control over the establishment, enforcement, and dissolution of the marital relationship. The Court emphasized that “marriage involves interests of basic importance in our society,” ibid., and spoke of “state monopolization of the means for legally dissolving this relationship,” id., at 374. “[R]esbrt to the state courts [was] the only avenue to dissolution of . . . marriages,” id., at 376, which was “not only the paramount dispute-settlement technique, but, in fact, the only available one,” id., at 377. The Court acknowledged that it knew “of no instance where two consenting adults may divorce and mutually liberate themselves from the constraints of legal obligations that go with marriage, and more fundamentally the prohibition against remarriage, without invoking the State's judicial machinery,” id., at 376. In the light of all this, we concluded that resort to the judicial process was “no more voluntary in a realistic sense than that of the defendant called upon to defend his interests in court” and we resolved the case “in light of the principles enunciated in our due process decisions that delimit rights of defendants compelled to litigate their differences in the judicial forum,” id., at 376-377.
B. The appellants in Boddie, on the one hand, and Robert Kras, on the other, stand in materially different postures. The denial of access to the judicial forum in Boddie touched directly, as has been noted, on the marital relationship and on the associational interests that surround the establishment and dissolution of that relationship. On many occasions we have recognized the fundamental importance of these interests under our Constitution. See, for example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923). The Boddie appellants’ inability to dissolve their marriages seriously impaired their freedom to pursue other protected associa-. tional activities. Kras’ alleged interest in the elimination of his debt burden, and in obtaining his desired new start in life, although important and so recognized by the enactment of the Bankruptcy Act, does not rise to the same constitutional level. See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970); Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78 (1971). If Kras is not discharged in bankruptcy, his position will not be materially altered in any constitutional sense. Gaining or not gaining a discharge will effect no change with respect to basic necessities. We see no fundamental interest that is gained or lost depending on the availability of a discharge in bankruptcy.
C. Nor is the Government’s control over the establishment, enforcement, or dissolution of debts nearly so exclusive as Connecticut’s control over the marriage relationship in Boddie. In contrast with divorce, bankruptcy is not the only method available to a debtor for the adjustment of his legal relationship with his creditors. The utter exclusiveness of court access and court remedy, as has been noted, was a potent factor in Boddie. But "[wjithout a prior judicial imprimatur, individuals may freely enter into and rescind commercial contracts . . . .” 401 U. S., at 376.
However unrealistic the remedy may be in a particular situation, a debtor, in theory, and often in actuality, may adjust his debts by negotiated agreement with his creditors. At times the happy passage of the applicable limitation period, or other acceptable creditor arrangement, will provide the answer. Government’s role with respect to the private commercial relationship is qualitatively and quantitatively different from its role in the establishment, enforcement, and dissolution of marriage.
Resort to the court, therefore, is not Kras’ sole path to relief. Boddie’s emphasis on exclusivity finds no counterpart in the bankrupt’s situation. See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 547-555 (1949).
D. We are also of the opinion that the filing fee requirement does not deny Kras the equal protection of the laws. Bankruptcy is hardly akin to free speech or marriage or to those, other rights, so many of which are imbedded in the First Amendment, that the Court has come to regard as fundamental and that demand the lofty requirement of a compelling governmental interest before they may be significantly regulated. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 638 (1969). Neither does it touch upon what have been said to be the suspect criteria of race, nationality, or alienage. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 375 (1971). Instead, bankruptcy legislation is in the area of economics and social welfare. See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 484-485; Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S., at 81; Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56, 74 (1972); Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 546 (1972). This being so, the applicable standard, in measuring the propriety of Congress’ classification, is that of rational justification. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 611-612 (1960); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 485-486; Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S., at 81.
E. There is no constitutional right to obtain a discharge of one’s debts in bankruptcy. The Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, merely authorizes the Congress to “establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” Although the first bankruptcy law in England was enacted in 1542, 34 & 35 Hen. 8, c. 4, and a discharge provision first appeared in 1705, 4 Anne, c. 17, primarily as a reward for cooperating debtors, J. MacLachlan, Bankruptcy 20-21 (1956), voluntary bankruptcy was not known in this country at the adoption of the Constitution. Indeed, for the entire period prior to the present Act of 1898, the Nation was without a federal bankruptcy law except for three short periods aggregating about 15% years. The first statute was the Act of April 4, 1800, c. 19, 2 Stat. 19, and it was repealed by the Act of December 19, 1803, c. 6, 2 Stat. 248. The second was the Act of August 19, 1841, c. 9, 5 Stat. 440, repealed less than two years later by the Act of March 3, 1843, c. 82, 5 Stat. 614. The third was the Act of March 2,1867, c. 176,14 Stat. 517; it was repealed by the Act of June 7, 1878, c. 160, 20 Stat. 99. Voluntary petitions were permitted under the 1841 and 1867 Acts. See 1 W. Collier, Bankruptcy ¶¶ 0.03-0.05, pp. 6-9 (14th ed. 1971). Professor MacLachlan has said that the development of the discharge “represents an independent . . . public policy in favor of extricating an insolvent debtor from what would otherwise be a financial impasse.” J. MacLachlan, Bankruptcy 88 (footnote omitted) . But this obviously is a legislatively created benefit, not a constitutional one, and, as noted, it was a benefit withheld, save for three short periods, during the first 110 years of the Nation’s life. The mere fact that Congress has delegated to the District Court supervision over the proceedings by which a petition for discharge is processed does not convert a statutory benefit into a constitutional right of access to a court. Then, too, Congress might have delegated the responsibility to an administrative agency.
F. The rational basis for the fee requirement is readily apparent. Congressional power over bankruptcy, of course, is plenary and exclusive. Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U. S. 433, 438-439 (1940). By the 1946 Amendment, 60 Stat. 326, Congress, as has been noted, abolished the theretofore existing practices of the pauper petition and of compensating the referee from the fees he collected. It replaced that system with one for salaried referees and for fixed fees for every petition filed and a specified percentage of distributable assets. It sought to make the system self-sustaining and paid for by those who use it rather than by tax revenues drawn from the public at large. H. R. Rep. No. 1037, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 4-6 (1945); S. Rep. No. 959, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 2, 5-6 (1946). The propriety of the requirement that the fees be paid ultimately has been recognized even by those district courts that have held the payment of the fee as a precondition to a discharge to be unconstitutional, for those courts would make the payments survive the bankruptcy as a continuing obligation of the bankrupt. In re Smith, 323 F. Supp., at 1093; In re Ottman, 336 F. Supp. 746, 748 (ED Wis. 1972). See O’Brien v. Trevethan, 336 F. Supp. 1029, 1034 (Conn. 1972).
Further, the reasonableness of the structure Congress produced, and congressional concern for the debtor, are apparent from the provisions permitting the debtor to file his petition without payment of any fee, with consequent freedom of subsequent earnings and of after-acquired assets (with the rare exception specified in § 70 (a) of the Act, 11 U. S. C. § 110 (a)) from the claims of then-existing obligations. These provisions, coupled with the bankrupt’s ability to obtain a stay of all debt enforcement actions pending at the filing of the petition or thereafter commenced, §§ 11 (a) and 2 (a) (15), 11 U. S. C. §§29 (a) and 11 (a) (15); 1A W. Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 11.03 (14th ed. 1972); 1 id., ¶ 2.62 [4] (14th ed. 1971), enable a bankrupt to terminate his harassment by creditors, to protect his future earnings and property, and to have his new start with a minimum of effort and financial obligation. They serve also, as an incidental effect, to promote and not to defeat the purpose of making the bankruptcy system financially self-sufficient. Cf. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S., at 74-79.
G. If the $50 filing fees are paid in installments over six months as General Order No. 35 (4) permits on a proper showing, the required average weekly payment is $1.92. If the payment period is extended for the additional three months as the Order permits, the average weekly payment is lowered to $1.28. This is a sum less than the payments Kras makes on his couch of negligible value in storage, and less than the price of a movie and little more than the cost of a pack or two of cigarettes. If, as Kras alleges in his affidavit, a discharge in bankruptcy will afford him that new start he so desires, and the Metropolitan then no longer will charge him with fraud and give him bad references, and if he really needs and desires that discharge, this much available revenue should be within his able-bodied reach when the adjudication in bankruptcy has stayed collection and has brought to a halt whatever harassment, if any, he may have sustained from creditors.
VI
Mr. Justice Harlan, in his opinion for the Court in Boddie, meticulously pointed out, as we have noted above, that the Court went “no further than necessary to dispose of the case before us” and did “not decide that access for all individuals to the courts is a right that is, in all circumstances, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so that its exercise may not be placed beyond the reach of any individual.” 401 U. S., at 382-383. The Court obviously stopped short of an unlimited rule that an indigent at all times and in all cases has the right to relief without the payment of fees.
We decline to extend the principle of Boddie to the no-asset bankruptcy proceeding. That relief, if it is to be forthcoming, should originate with Congress. See Shaef-fer, Proceedings in Bankruptcy In Forma Pauperis, 69 Col. L. Rev. 1203 (1969).
Reversed.
Additional compensation to the trustee in an appropriate case is allowable under §48 (c), 11 U. S. C. §76 (c), but these provisions have no application for a no-asset or fully exempt estate.
General Order in Bankruptcy No. 16, 305 U. S. 687 (1939), 11 U. S. C. App., p. 2203, provides that a trustee need not be appointed in a no-asset case. When a trustee is not appointed, the aggregate fees are $40.
“(4) The petition in a voluntary proceeding under Chapters I to VII ... of the Act may be accepted for filing by the clerk if accompanied by a verified petition of the bankrupt . . . stating that the petitioner is without and cannot obtain the money with which to pay the filing fees in full at the time of filing. Such petition shall state the facts showing the necessity for the payment of the filing fees in installments and shall set forth the terms upon which the petitioner proposes to pay the filing fees.
“a. At the first meeting of creditors or any adjournment thereof, the court . . . shall enter an order fixing the amount and date of payment of such installments. The final installment shall be payable not more than six months after the date of filing of the original petition; provided, however, that for cause shown the court may extend the time of payment of any installment for a period not to exceed three months.
“b. Upon the failure of a bankrupt ... to pay any installment as ordered, the court may dismiss the proceeding for failure to pay costs as provided in Section 59, sub. g. of the Act. . . .
“c. No proceedings upon the discharge of a bankrupt . . . shall be instituted until the filing fees are paid in full.”
“Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief that he is entitled to redress.”
In re Smith, 323 F. Supp. 1082 (Colo. 1971) (decided before Boddie); In re Naron, 334 F. Supp. 1150 (Ore. 1971); In re Ottman, 336 F. Supp. 746 (ED Wis. 1972); In re Smith, 341 F. Supp. 1297 (ND Ill. 1972); In re Haddock and Beeman, Nos. 14810 and 14811 (Conn. 1972); In re Passwater, Nos. IP70-B-3697 and IP70-B-3698 (SD Ind. 1971); In re Ripley, No. Bk 71-0-1003 (Neb. 1972); In re Read, No. Bk 71-826 (WDNY 1971). See O’Brien v. Trevethan, 336 F. Supp. 1029 (Conn. 1972). But see In re Partilla, No. 71-B-380 (SDNY 1971); In re Malevich, No. Bk 29-71 (NJ 1971).
See N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law § 5205 (1963); N. Y. Labor Law § 595 (1965); N. Y. Soc. Welfare Law § 137 (1966), and § 137-a (Supp. 1972-1973).
For the decade ended June 30, 1959, the Referee’s Salary and Expense Fund showed surpluses for the first five fiscal years and deficits for the last five. For fiscal 1969, 107,481 no-asset cases were terminated (as compared with 169,500 nonbusiness cases filed). Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Tables of Bankruptcy Statistics for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1969, pp. 5, 10 (1971). This means, of course, that the fees were paid in those terminated no-asset cases. Undue hardship and denial of access to the courts are not apparent from this record of achievement.
If the fees total $40, as they may under General Order No. 15, 305 U. S. 687 (1939), 11 U. S. C. App., p. 2203, these average weekly figures are reduced to $1.54 and $1.03 respectively.
We fail to see how a discharge in bankruptcy in itself will prevent the Metropolitan from issuing an unfavorable reference letter about Kras.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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, a national of the United States by birth, has been declared to have lost his American citizenship by operation of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, as amended by the Act of September 27, 1944, 58 Stat. 746. Section 401 of that Act provided that
“A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
“(e) Voting in a political election in a foreign state or participating in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; or
“(j) Departing from or remaining outside of the jurisdiction of the United States in time of war or during a period declared by the President to be a period of national emergency for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States.”
He seeks a reversal of the judgment against him on the ground that these provisions were beyond the power of Congress to enact.
Petitioner was born in Texas in 1909. He resided in the United States until 1919 or 1920, when he moved with his parents to Mexico, where he lived, apparently without interruption, until 1943. In 1928 he was informed that he had been born in Texas. At the outbreak of World War II, petitioner knew of the duty of male United States citizens to register for the draft, but he failed to do so. In 1943 he applied for admission to the United States as an alien railroad laborer, stating that he was a native-born citizen of Mexico, and was granted permission to enter on a temporary basis. He returned to Mexico in 1944 and shortly thereafter applied for and was granted permission, again as a native-born Mexican citizen, to enter the United States temporarily to continue his employment as a railroad laborer. Later in 1944 he returned to Mexico once more. In 1947 petitioner applied for admission to the United States at El Paso, Texas, as a citizen of the United States. At a Board of Special Inquiry hearing (and in his subsequent appeals to the Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Immigration Appeals), he admitted having remained outside of the United States to avoid military service and having voted in political elections in Mexico. He was ordered excluded on the ground that he had expatriated himself; this order was affirmed on appeal. In 1952 petitioner, claiming to be a native-born citizen of Mexico, was permitted to enter the United States as an alien agricultural laborer. He surrendered in 1953 to immigration authorities in San Francisco as an alien unlawfully in the United States but claimed the right to remain by virtue of his American citizenship. After a hearing before a Special Inquiry Officer, he was ordered deported as an alien not in possession of a valid immigration visa; this order was affirmed on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Petitioner brought suit in 1954 in a United States District Court for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States. The court, sitting without a jury, found (in addition to the undisputed facts set forth above) that petitioner had remained outside of the United States from November 1944 to July 1947 for the purpose of avoiding service in the armed forces of the United States and that he had voted in a “political election” in Mexico in 1946. The court, concluding that he had thereby expatriated himself, denied the relief sought by the petitioner. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 235 F. 2d 364. We granted certiorari because of the constitutional questions raised by the petitioner. 352 U. S. 908.
Statutory expatriation, as a response to problems of international relations, was first introduced just a half century ago. Long before that, however, serious friction between the United States and other nations had stirred consideration of modes of dealing with the difficulties that arose out of the conflicting claims to the allegiance of foreign-born persons naturalized in the United States, particularly when they returned to the country of their origin.
As a starting point for grappling with this tangle of problems, Congress in 1868 formally announced the traditional policy of this country that it is the “natural and inherent right of all people” to divest themselves of their allegiance to any state, 15 Stat. 223, R. S. § 1999. Although the impulse for this legislation had been the refusal by other nations, notably Great Britain, to recognize a right in naturalized Americans who had been their subjects to shed that former allegiance, the Act of 1868 was held by the Attorney General to apply to divestment by native-born and naturalized Americans of their United States citizenship. 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 295, 296. In addition, while the debate on the Act of 1868 was proceeding, negotiations were completed on the first of a series of treaties for the adjustment of some of the disagreements that were constantly arising between the United States and other nations concerning citizenship. These instruments typically provided that each of the signatory nations would regard as a citizen of the other such of its own citizens as became naturalized by the other. E. g., Treaty with the North German Confederation, Feb. 22, 1868, 2 Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, etc. (comp. Malloy, 1910), 1298. This series of treaties initiated this country's policy of automatic divestment of citizenship for specified conduct affecting our foreign relations.
On the basis, presumably, of the Act of 1868 and such treaties as were in force, it was the practice of the Department of State during the last third of the nineteenth century to make rulings as to forfeiture of United States citizenship by individuals who performed various acts abroad. See Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, §§ 319, 324. Naturalized citizens who returned to the country of their origin were held to have abandoned their citizenship by such actions as accepting public office there or assuming political duties. See Davis to Weile, Apr. 18, 1870, 3 Moore, Digest of International Law, 737; Davis to Taft, Jan. 18, 1883, 3 id., at 739. Native-born citizens of the United States (as well as naturalized citizens outside of the country of their origin) were generally deemed to have lost their American citizenship only if they acquired foreign citizenship. See Bayard to Suzzara-Verdi, Jan. 27, 1887, 3 id., at 714; see also Comitis v. Parkerson, 56 F. 556, 559.
No one seems to have questioned the necessity of having the State Department, in its conduct of the foreign relations of the Nation, pass on the validity of claims to American citizenship and to such of its incidents as the right to diplomatic protection. However, it was recognized in the Executive Branch that the Department had no specific legislative authority for nullifying citizenship, and several of the Presidents urged Congress to define the acts by which citizens should be held to have expatriated themselves. E. g., Message of President Grant to Congress, Dec. 7, 1874, 7 Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Richardson ed. 1899) 284, 291-292. Finally in 1906, during the consideration of the bill that became the Naturalization Act of 1906, a Senate resolution and a recommendation of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs called for an examination of the problems relating to American citizenship, expatriation and protection abroad. In response to these suggestions the Secretary of State appointed the Citizenship Board of 1906, composed of the Solicitor of the State Department, the Minister to the Netherlands and the Chief of the Passport Bureau. The board conducted a study and late in 1906 made an extensive report with recommendations for legislation.
Among the recommendations of the board were that expatriation of a citizen “be assumed” when, in time of peace, he became naturalized in a foreign state, engaged in the service of a foreign state where such service involved the taking of an oath of allegiance to that state, or domiciled in a foreign state for five years with no intention to return. Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad, H. R. Doc. No. 326, 59th Cong., 2d Sess. 23. It also recommended that an American woman who married a foreigner be regarded as losing her American citizenship during coverture. Id., at 29. As to the first two recommended acts of expatriation, the report stated that “no man should be permitted deliberately to place himself in a position where his services may be claimed by more than one government and his allegiance be due to more than one.” Id., at 23. As to the third, the board stated that more and more Americans were going abroad to live “and the question of their protection causes increasing embarrassment to this Government in its relations with foreign powers.” Id., at 25.
Within a month of the submission of this report a bill was introduced in the House by Representative Perkins of New York based on the board’s recommendations. Perkins’ bill provided that a citizen would be “deemed to have expatriated himself” when, in peacetime, he became naturalized in a foreign country or took an oath of allegiance to a'foreign state; it was presumed that a naturalized citizen who resided for five years in a foreign state had ceased to be an American citizen, and an American woman who married a foreigner would take the nationality of her husband. 41 Cong. Rec. 1463-1464. Perkins stated that the bill was designed to discourage people from evading responsibilities both to other countries and to the United States and “to save our Government [from] becoming-involved in any trouble or question with foreign countries where there is no just reason.” Id., at 1464. What little debate there was on the bill centered around the foreign domicile provision; no constitutional issue was canvassed. The bill passed the House, and, after substantially no debate and the adoption of a committee amendment adding a presumption of termination of citizenship for a naturalized citizen who resided for two years in the country of his origin, 41 Cong. Rec. 4116, the Senate passed it and it became the Expatriation Act of 1907. 34 Stat. 1228.
The question of the power of Congress to enact legislation depriving individuals of their American citizenship was first raised in the courts by Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U. S. 299. The plaintiff in that action, Mrs. Mackenzie, was a native-born citizen and resident of the United States. In 1909 she married a subject of Great Britain and continued to reside with him in the United States. When, in 1913, she applied to the defendants, members of a board of elections in California, to be registered as a voter, her application was refused on the ground that by reason of her marriage she had ceased to be a citizen of the United States. Her petition for a writ of mandamus was denied in the state courts of California, and she sued out a writ of error here, claiming that if the Act of 1907 was intended to apply to her it was beyond the power of Congress. The Court, through Mr. Justice McKenna, after finding that merging the identity of husband and wife, as Congress had done in this instance, had a “purpose and, it may be, necessity, in international policy,” continued:
“As a government, the United States is invested with all the attributes of sovereignty. As it has the character of nationality it has the powers of nationality, especially those which concern its relations and intercourse with other countries. We should hesitate long before limiting or embarrassing such powers. ... We concur with counsel that citizenship is of tangible worth, and we sympathize with plaintiff in her desire to retain it and in her earnest assertion of it. But there is involved more than personal considerations. As we have seen, the legislation was urged by conditions of national moment.... It is the conception of the legislation under review that such an act may bring the Government into embarrassments and, it may be, into controversies. . . .” 239 U. S., at 311-312.
The Court observed that voluntary marriage of an American woman with a foreigner may have the same consequences, and “involve national complications of like kind,” as voluntary expatriation in the traditional sense. It concluded: “This is no arbitrary exercise of government.” 239 U. S., at 312. See also Ex parte Griffin, 237 F. 445; Ex parte Ng Fung Sing, 6 F. 2d 670.
By the early 1930’s, the American law on nationality, including naturalization and denationalization, was expressed in a large number of provisions scattered throughout the statute books. Some of the specific laws enacted at different times seemed inconsistent with others, some problems of growing importance had emerged that Congress had left unheeded. At the request of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, see 86 Cong. Rec. 11943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a Committee composed of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor to review the nationality laws of the United States, to recommend revisions and to codify the nationality laws into one comprehensive statute for submission to Congress; he expressed particular concern about “existing discrimina-tions” in the law. Exec. Order No. 6115, Apr. 25, 1933. The necessary research for such a study was entrusted to specialists representing the three departments. Five years were spent by these officials in the study and formulation of a draft code. In their letter submitting the draft code to the President after it had been reviewed within the Executive Branch, the Cabinet Committee noted the special importance of the provisions concerning loss of nationality and asserted that none of these provisions was “designed to be punitive or to interfere with freedom of action”; they were intended to deprive of citizenship those persons who had shown that “their real attachment is to the foreign country and not to the United States.” Codification of the Nationality Laws of the United States, H. R. Comm. Print, Pt. 1, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. v-vn.
The draft code of the Executive Branch was an omnibus bill in five chapters. The chapter relating to “Loss of Nationality” provided that any citizen should “lose his nationality” by becoming naturalized in a foreign country; taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state; entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state; being employed by a foreign government in a post for which only nationals of that country are eligible; voting in a foreign political election or plebiscite; using a passport of a foreign state as a national thereof; formally renouncing American citizenship before a consular officer abroad; deserting the armed forces of the United States in wartime (upon conviction by court martial); if a naturalized citizen, residing in the state of his former nationality or birth for two years if he thereby acquires the nationality of that state; or, if a naturalized citizen, residing in the state of his former nationality or birth for three years. Id., at 66-76.
In support of the recommendation of voting in a foreign political election as an act of expatriation, the Committee reported:
“Taking an active part in the political affairs of a foreign state by voting in a political election therein is believed to involve a political attachment and practical allegiance thereto which is inconsistent with continued allegiance to the United States, whether or not the person in question has or acquires the nationality of the foreign state. In any event it is not believed that an American national should be permitted to participate in the political affairs of a foreign state and at the same time retain his American nationality. The two facts would seem to be inconsistent with each other.” Id., at 67.
As to the reference to plebiscites in the draft language, the report states: “If this provision had been in effect when the Saar Plebiscite was held, Americans voting in it would have been expatriated.” Ibid. It seems clear that the most immediate impulse for the entire voting provision was the participation by many naturalized Americans in the plebiscite to determine sovereignty over the Saar in January 1935. H. R. Rep. No. 216, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 1. Representative Dickstein of New York, Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, who had called the plebiscite an “international dispute” in which naturalized American citizens could not properly participate, N. Y. Times, Jan. 4, 1935, p. 12, col. 3, had introduced a bill in the House in 1935 similar in language to the voting provisions in the draft code, 79 Cong. Rec. 2050, but, although it was favorably reported, the House did not pass it.
In June 1938 the President submitted the Cabinet Committee’s draft code and the supporting report to Congress. In due course, Chairman Dickstein introduced the code as H. R. 6127, and it was referred to his committee. In early 1940 extensive hearings were held before both a subcommittee and the full committee at which the interested Executive Branch agencies and others testified. With respect to the voting provision, Chairman Dickstein spoke of the Americans who had voted in the Saar plebiscite and said, “If they are American citizens they had no right to vote, to interfere with foreign matters or political subdivision.” Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on H. R. 6127, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 287. Mr. Flournoy, Assistant Legal Adviser of the State Department, said that the provision would be “particularly applicable” to persons of dual nationality, id., at 132; however, a suggestion that the provision be made applicable only to dual nationals, id., at 398, was not adopted.
Upon the conclusion of the hearings in June 1940 a new bill was drawn up and introduced as H. R. 9980. The only changes from the Executive Branch draft with respect to the acts of expatriation were the deletion of using a foreign passport and the addition of residence by a naturalized citizen for five years in any foreign country as acts that would result in loss of nationality. 86 Cong. Rec. 11960-11961. The House debated the bill for a day in September 1940. In briefly summarizing the loss of nationality provisions of the bill, Chairman Dickstein said that “this bill would put an end to dual citizenship and relieve this country of the responsibility of those who reside in foreign lands and only claim citizenship when it serves their purpose.” Id., at 11944. Representative Rees of Kansas, who had served as chairman of the subcommittee that studied the draft code, said that clarifying legislation was needed, among other reasons, “because of the duty of the Government to protect citizens abroad.” Id., at 11947. The bill passed the House that same day. Id., at 11965.
In the Senate also, after a favorable report from the Committee on Immigration, the bill was debated very briefly. Committee amendments were adopted making the provision on foreign military service applicable only to dual nationals, making treason an act of expatriation and providing a procedure by which persons administratively declared to have expatriated themselves might obtain judicial determinations of citizenship. The bill as amended was passed. Id., at 12817-12818. The House agreed to these and all other amendments on which the Senate insisted, id., at 13250, and, on October 14, the Nationality Act of 1940 became law. 54 Stat. 1137.
The loss of nationality provisions of the Act constituted but a small portion of a long omnibus nationality statute. It is not surprising, then, that they received as little attention as they did in debate and hearings and that nothing specific was said about the constitutional basis for their enactment. The bill as a whole was regarded primarily as a codification — and only secondarily as a revision — of statutes that had been in force for many years, some of them, such as the naturalization provisions, having their beginnings in legislation 150 years old. It is clear that, as is so often the case in matters affecting the conduct of foreign relations, Congress was guided by and relied very heavily upon the advice of the Executive Branch, and particularly the State Department. See, e. g., 86 Cong. Rec. 11943-11944. In effect, Congress treated the Cabinet Committee as it normally does its own committees charged with studying a problem and formulating legislation. These considerations emphasize the importance, in the inquiry into congressional power in this field, of keeping in mind the historical background of the challenged legislation, for history will disclose the purpose fairly attributable to Congress in enacting the statute.
The first step in our inquiry must be to answer the question: what is the source of power on which Congress must be assumed to have drawn? Although there is in the Constitution no specific grant to Congress of power to enact legislation for the effective regulation of foreign affairs, there can be no doubt of the existence of this power in the law-making organ of the Nation. See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 318; Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U. S. 299, 311-312. The States that joined together to form a single Nation and to create, through the Constitution, a Federal Government to conduct the affairs of that Nation must be held to have granted that Government the powers indispensable to its functioning effectively in the company of sovereign nations. The Government must be able not only to deal affirmatively with foreign nations, as it does through the maintenance of diplomatic relations with them and the protection of American citizens sojourning within their territories. It must also be able to reduce to a minimum the frictions that are unavoidable in a world of sovereigns sensitive in matters touching their dignity and interests.
The inference is fairly to be drawn from the congressional history of the Nationality Apt of 1940, read in light of the historical background of expatriation in this country, that, in making voting in foreign elections (among other behavior) an act of expatriation, Congress was seeking to effectuate its power to regulate foreign affairs. The legislators, counseled by those on whom they rightly relied for advice, were concerned about actions by citizens in foreign countries that create problems of protection and are inconsistent with American allegiance. Moreover, we cannot ignore the fact that embarrassments in the conduct of foreign relations were of primary concern in the consideration of the Act of 1907, of which the loss of nationality provisions of the 1940 Act are a codification and expansion.
Broad as the power in the National Government to regulate foreign affairs must necessarily be, it is not without limitation. The restrictions confining Congress in the exercise of any of the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution apply with equal vigor when that body seeks to regulate our relations with other nations. Since Congress may not act arbitrarily, a rational nexus must exist between the content of a specific power in Congress and the action of Congress in carrying that power into execution. More simply stated, the means — in this case, withdrawal of citizenship — must be reasonably related to the end — here, regulation of foreign affairs. The inquiry — -and, in the case before us, the sole inquiry — into which this Court must enter is whether or not Congress may have concluded not unreasonably that there is a relevant connection between this fundamental source of power and the ultimate legislative action.
Our starting point is to ascertain whether the power of Congress to deal with foreign relations may reasonably be deemed to include a power to deal generally with the active participation, by way of voting, of American citizens in foreign political elections. Experience amply attests that, in this day of extensive international travel, rapid communication and widespread use of propaganda, the activities of the citizens of one nation when in another country can easily cause serious embarrassments to the government of their own country as well as to their fellow citizens. We cannot deny to Congress the reasonable belief that these difficulties might well become acute, to the point of jeopardizing the successful conduct of international relations, when a citizen of one country chooses to participate in the political or governmental affairs of another country. The citizen may by his action unwittingly promote or encourage a course of conduct contrary to the interests of his own government; moreover, the people or government of the foreign country may regard his action to be the action of his government, or at least as a reflection if not an expression of its policy. Cf. Preuss, International Responsibility for Hostile Propaganda Against Foreign States, 28 Am. J. Int’l L. 649, 650.
It follows that such activity is regulable by Congress under its power to deal with foreign affairs. And it must be regulable on more than an ad hoc basis. The subtle influences and repercussions with which the Government must deal make it reasonable for the generalized, although clearly limited, category of “political election” to be used in defining the area of regulation. That description carries with it the scope and meaning of its context and purpose; classes of elections — nonpolitical in the colloquial sense — as to which participation by Americans could not possibly have any effect on the relations of the United States with another country are excluded by any rational construction of the phrase. The classification that Congress has adopted cannot be said to be inappropriate to the difficulties to be dealt with. Specific applications are of course open to judicial challenge, as are other general categories in the law, by a “gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion.” Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 104.
The question must finally be faced whether, given the power to attach some sort of consequence to voting in a foreign political election, Congress, acting under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 18, could attach loss of nationality to it. Is the means, withdrawal of citizenship, reasonably calculated to effect the end that is within the power of Congress to achieve, the avoidance of embarrassment in the conduct of our foreign relations attributable to voting by American citizens in foreign political elections? The importance and extreme delicacy of the matters here sought to be regulated demand that Congress be permitted ample scope in selecting appropriate modes for accomplishing its purpose. The critical connection between this conduct and loss of citizenship is the fact that it is the possession of American citizenship by a person committing the act that makes the act potentially embarrassing to the American Government and pregnant with the possibility of embroiling this country in disputes with other nations. The termination of citizenship terminates the problem. Moreover, the fact is not without significance that Congress has interpreted this conduct, not irrationally, as importing not only something less than complete and unswerving allegiance to the United States but also elements of an allegiance to another country in some measure, at least, inconsistent with American citizenship.
Of course, Congress can attach loss of citizenship only as a consequence of conduct engaged in voluntarily. See Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U. S. 299, 311-312. But it would be a mockery of this Court’s decisions to suggest that a person, in order to lose his citizenship, must intend or desire to do so. The Court only a few years ago said of the person held to have lost her citizenship in Mackenzie v. Hare, supra: “The woman had not intended to give up her American citizenship.” Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U. S. 491, 501. And the latter case sustained the denationalization of Mrs. Savorgnan although it was not disputed that she “had no intention of endangering her American citizenship or of renouncing her allegiance to the United States.” 338 U. S., at 495. What both women did do voluntarily was to engage in conduct to which Acts of Congress attached the consequence of denationalization irrespective of — and, in those cases, absolutely contrary to — the intentions and desires of the individuals. Those two cases mean nothing — indeed, they are deceptive — if their essential significance is not rejection of the notion that the power of Congress to terminate citizenship depends upon the citizen’s assent. It is a distortion of those cases to explain them away on a theory that a citizen’s assent to denationalization may be inferred from his having engaged in conduct that amounts to an “abandonment of citizenship” or a “transfer of allegiance.” Certainly an Act of Congress cannot be invalidated by resting decisive precedents on a gross fiction — a fiction baseless in law and contradicted by the facts of the cases.
It cannot be said, then, that Congress acted without warrant when, pursuant to its power to regulate the relations of the United States with foreign countries, it provided that anyone who votes in a foreign election of significance politically in the life of another country shall lose his American citizenship. To deny the power of Congress to enact the legislation challenged here would be to disregard the constitutional allocation of governmental functions that it is this Court’s solemn duty to guard.
Because of our view concerning the power of Congress with respect to § 401 (e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, we find it unnecessary to consider — indeed, it would be improper for us to adjudicate — the constitutionality of § 401 (j), and we expressly decline to rule on that important question at this time.
Judgment affirmed.
Incorporated into § 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 267-268, 8 U. S. C. § 1481.
Petitioner proceeded under § 503 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, 1171, which authorizes an individual to bring suit for a declaration of nationality in a United States District Court against the head of any government agency that denies him a right or privilege of United States nationality on the ground that he is not a United States national. The judicial hearing in such an action is a trial de novo in which the individual need make only a prima jade case establishing his citizenship by birth or naturalization. See Pandolfo v. Acheson, 202 F. 2d 38, 40-41. The Government must prove the act of expatriation on which the denial was based by “ ‘clear, unequivocal, and convincing’ evidence which does not leave ‘the issue in doubt’.” Gonzales v. London, 350 U. S. 920; see Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 158.
The provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . .” sets forth the two principal modes (but by no means the only ones) for acquiring citizenship. Thus, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (Chief Justice Fuller and Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting), it was held that a person of Chinese parentage born in this country was among “all persons born ... in the United States” and therefore a citizen to whom the Chinese Exclusion Acts did not apply. But there is nothing in the terms, the context, the history or the manifest purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to warrant drawing from it a restriction upon the power otherwise possessed by Congress to withdraw citizenship. The limit of the operation of that provision was clearly enunciated in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325, 329: “As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.”
Petitioner in the case before us did not object to the characterization of the election in which he voted as a “political election.” It may be noted that, in oral argument, counsel for the petitioner expressed his understanding that the election involved was the election for Mexico’s president.
The District Court in Savorgnan stated: “I am satisfied from the proofs submitted that at the time plaintiff signed Exhibits 1 and 2 [application for Italian citizenship and oath of allegiance to Italian' Government] she had no present or fixed intention in her mind to expatriate herself.” 73 F. Supp. 109, 111.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.