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.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, seeking recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b), for damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the Coast Guard in the operation of a lighthouse light. They alleged that on October 1, 1951, the tug Navajo, owned by petitioner Indian Towing Company, was towing Barge AS-16, chartered by petitioner Upper Mississippi Towing Corporation; that the barge was loaded with a cargo of triple super phosphate, consigned to petitioner Minnesota Farm Bureau Service Company and insured by petitioner United Firemen’s Insurance Company; that the tug Navajo went aground on Chandeleur Island and as a result thereof sea water wetted and damaged the cargo to the extent of $62,659.70; that the consignee refused to accept the cargo; that petitioners Indian Towing Company and Upper Mississippi Towing Corporation therefore became responsible for the loss of the cargo; and that the loss was paid by petitioner United Firemen’s Insurance Company under loan receipts. The complaint further stated that the grounding of the Navajo was due solely to the failure of the light on Chandeleur Island which in turn was caused by the negligence of the Coast Guard. The specific acts of negligence relied on were the failure of the responsible Coast Guard personnel to check the battery and sun relay system which operated the light; the failure of the Chief Petty Officer who checked the lighthouse on September 7,1951, to make a proper examination of the connections which were “out in the weather”; the failure to check the light between September 7 and October 1,1951; and the failure to repair the light or give warning that the light was not operating. Petitioners also alleged that there was a loose connection which could have been discovered upon proper inspection.
On motion of the respondent the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division. Respondent then moved to dismiss on the ground that it had not consented to be sued “in the manner in which this suit is brought” in that petitioners’ only relief was under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 41 Stat. 525, or the Public Vessels Act, 43 Stat. 1112. This motion was granted and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed per curiam. 211 F. 2d 886. Because the case presented an important aspect of the still undetermined extent of the Government’s liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act, we granted certiorari, 348 U. S. 810. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed by an equally divided Court, 349 U. S. 902, but a petition for rehearing was granted, the earlier judgment in this Court vacated, and the case restored to the docket for reargument before the full Bench. 349 U. S. 926.
The relevant provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act are 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346 (b), 2674, and 2680 (a):
§ 1346 (b). “. . . the district courts . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
§ 2674. “The United States shall be liable . . . in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.”
§ 2680. “The provisions of this chapter and section 1346 (b) of this title shall not apply to—
“(a) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”
The question is one of liability for negligence at what this Court has characterized the “operational level” of governmental activity. Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 42. The Government concedes that the exception of § 2680 relieving from liability for negligent “exercise of judgment” (which is the way the Government paraphrases a “discretionary function” in §2680 (a)) is not involved here, and it does not deny that the Federal Tort Claims Act does provide for liability in some situations on the “operational level” of its activity. But the Government contends that the language of § 2674 (and the implications of § 2680) imposing liability “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances . . .” must be read as excluding liability in the performance of activities which private persons do not perform. Thus, there would be no liability for negligent performance of “uniquely governmental functions.” The Government reads the statute as if it imposed liability to the same extent as would be imposed on a private individual “under the same circumstances.” But the statutory language is “under like circumstances,” and it is hornbook tort law that one who undertakes to warn the public of danger and thereby induces reliance must perform his “good Samaritan” task in a careful manner.
Furthermore, the Government in effect reads the statute as imposing liability in the same manner as if it were a municipal corporation and not as if it were a private person, and it would thus push the courts into the “non-governmentar,-“governmental” quagmire that has long plagued the law of municipal corporations. A comparative study of the cases in the forty-eight States will disclose an irreconcilable conflict. More than that, the decisions in each of the States are disharmonious and disclose the inevitable chaos when courts try to apply a rule of law that is inherently unsound. The fact of the matter is that the theory whereby municipalities are made amenable to liability is an endeavor, however awkward and contradictory, to escape from the basic historical doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Federal Tort Claims Act cuts the ground from under that doctrine; it is not self-defeating by covertly embedding the casuis-tries of municipal liability for torts.
While the Government disavows a blanket exemption from liability for all official conduct furthering the “uniquely governmental” activity in any way, it does claim that there can be no recovery based on the negligent performance of the activity itself, the so-called “end-objective” of the particular governmental activity. Let us suppose that the Chief Petty Officer going in a Coast Guard car to inspect the light on Chandeleur Island first negligently ran over a pedestrian; later, while he was inspecting the light, he negligently tripped over a wire and injured someone else; he then forgot to inspect an outside connection and that night the patently defective connection broke and the light failed, causing a ship to go aground and its cargo of triple super phosphate to get wet; finally the Chief Petty Officer on his way out of the lighthouse touched a key to an uninsulated wire to see that it was carrying current, and the spark he produced caused a fire which sank a nearby barge carrying triple super phosphate. Under the Government’s theory, some of these acts of negligence would be actionable, and some would not. But is there a rational ground, one that would carry conviction to minds not in the grip of technical obscurities, why there should be any difference in result? The acts were different in time and place but all were done in furtherance of the officer’s task of inspecting the lighthouse and in furtherance of the Coast Guard’s task in operating a light on Chandeleur Island. Moreover, if the United States were to permit the operation of private lighthouses — not at all inconceivable — the Government’s basis of differentiation would be gone and the negligence charged in this case would be actionable. Yet there would be no change in the character of the Government’s activity in the places where it operated a lighthouse, and we would be attributing bizarre motives to Congress were we to hold that it was predicating liability on such a completely fortuitous circumstance — the presence or absence of identical private activity.
While the area of liability is circumscribed by certain provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, see 28 U. S. C. § 2680, all Government activity is inescapably “uniquely governmental” in that it is performed by the Government. In a case in which the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, a wholly Government-owned enterprise, was sought to be held liable on a crop-insurance policy on the theory that a private insurance company would be liable in the same situation, this Court stated: “Government is not partly public or partly private, depending upon the governmental pedigree of the type of a particular activity or the manner in which the Government conducts it.” Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U. S. 380, 383-384. On the other hand, it is hard to think of any governmental activity on the “operational level,” our present concern, which is “uniquely governmental,” in the sense that its kind has not at one time or another been, or could not conceivably be, privately performed.
There is nothing in the Tort Claims Act which shows that Congress intended to draw distinctions so finespun and capricious as to be almost incapable of being held in the mind for adequate formulation. The statute was the product of nearly thirty years of congressional consideration and was drawn with numerous substantive limitations and administrative safeguards. (For substantive limitations, see § 2680 (a)-(m). For administrative safeguards, see § 2401 (b) (statute of limitations); § 2402 (denial of trial by jury); § 2672 (administrative adjustment of claims of $1,000 or less); § 2673 (reports to Congress); § 2674 (no liability for punitive damages or for interest prior to judgment); § 2675 (disposition by federal agency as prerequisite to suit when claim is filed); § 2677 (compromise); § 2679 (exclusiveness of remedy).) The language of the statute does not support the Government’s argument. Loose general statements in the legislative history to which the Government points seem directed mainly toward the “discretionary function” exemption of § 2680 and are not persuasive. The broad and just purpose which the statute was designed to effect was to compensate the victims of negligence in the conduct of governmental activities in circumstances like unto those in which a private person would be liable and not to leave just treatment to the caprice and legislative burden of individual private laws. Of course, when dealing with a statute subjecting the Government to liability for potentially great sums of money, this Court must not promote profligacy by careless construction. Neither should it as a self-constituted guardian of the Treasury import immunity back into a statute designed to limit it.
The Coast Guard need not undertake the lighthouse service. But once it exercised its discretion to operate a light on Chandeleur Island and engendered reliance on the guidance afforded by the light, it was obligated to use due care to make certain that the light was kept in good working order; and, if the light did become extinguished, then the Coast Guard was further obligated to use due care to discover this fact and to repair the light or give warning that it was not functioning. If the Coast Guard failed in its duty and damage was thereby caused to petitioners, the United States is liable under the Tort Claims Act.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, and Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, controlling. Neither case is applicable. Feres held only that “the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service. Without exception, the relationship of military personnel to the Government has been governed exclusively by federal law.” 340 U. S., at 146. And see Brooks v. United States, 337 U. S. 49. The differences between this case and Dalehite need not be labored. The governing factors in Dalehite sufficiently emerge from the opinion in that case.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
A good illustration of the effort of a conscientious court to reconcile the irreconcilable is Haley v. City of Boston, 191 Mass. 291, 77 N. E. 888. For an example of the confusion prevailing in one jurisdiction, compare District of Columbia v. Woodbury, 136 U. S. 450 (municipal corporation liable for injuries caused by negligent failure to keep sidewalk in repair) with Harris v. District of Columbia, 256 U. S. 650 (municipal corporation not liable for injuries caused by negligent sprinkling of streets). But even in the law of municipal corporation and state liability, one State at least has sought to emerge from the quagmire. See the more recent New York cases: Foley v. State of New York, 294 N. Y. 275, 62 N. E. 2d 69 (State liable when negligent failure to replaced burned-out bulb in traffic light caused accident); Bernardine v. City of New York, 294 N. Y. 361, 62 N. E. 2d 604 (city liable in negligence action for damages caused by runaway police horse). When the confused law of municipal corporations is applied to the Tort Claims Act, the same unsatisfactory results occur. Compare the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the instant case, 211 F. 2d 886, with its holding in United States v. Lawter, 219 F. 2d 559 (United States liable under Tort Claims Act for negligence of Coast Guard during helicopter rescue operation).
Although the argument is more elaborately presented here, this is not the first statute which the Government has attempted to construe in this manner. The Suits in Admiralty Act, 41 Stat. 525, provided that a libel in personam could be brought against the United States for damage caused by a Government-owned merchant vessel or tug in cases “where if such vessel were privately owned or operated . . . a proceeding in admiralty could be maintained . . and stated that “such suits shall proceed and shall be heard and determined according to the principles of law and to the rules of practice obtaining in like cases between private parties.” In Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 675, an action was brought under the Act to recover damages for the loss of a ship and cargo by collision with an unmarked wreck of a sunken Government-owned merchant vessel. The Government moved to dismiss the action on the ground, inter alia, that “The said alleged cause of action set out in the said libel relates to an alleged failure on the part of the officers and/or agents of the United States to perform a purely governmental function or to alleged negligence of such officers and/or agents in the performance of a purely governmental function; and gives rise to no liability on the part of the United States of America for which they are suable in the United States Court or elsewhere.” The motion to dismiss was granted on another ground but on appeal the Supreme Court rejected all arguments that the district court lacked jurisdiction and reversed the judgment of the district court.
Congress significantly withheld liability for claims relating, inter alia, to the postal service, tax collection, quarantine establishment, fiscal operations, combatant activities of the Coast Guard during time of war, and the activities of the TVA.
The Court in Dalehite disposed of a claim of liability for negligence in connection with fire fighting by finding that “there is no analogous liability . . in the law of torts. 346 U. S., at 44. But see Workman v. New York City, 179 U. S. 552.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Incident to the authorization of a massive flood control project for the Mississippi River in 1928, Congress enacted an immunity provision which stated that “[n]o liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place.” 45 Stat. 535, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 702c. At issue in this case is the meaning of the words “floods or flood waters.” The narrow question presented is whether those words encompass all the water that flows through a federal facility that was designed and is operated, at least in part, for flood control purposes. The Ninth Circuit, relying upon a broader construction of §702e than some other federal courts have adopted, concluded that they do. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 529 U. S. 1017 (2000), and now reverse.
r — I
Petitioner owns 1,000 acres of pistachio orchards in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The Madera Canal, a federal facility that has been leased to the Madera Irrigation District (MID), flows through petitioner’s property. In 1996, petitioner brought this action against respondent United States and the MID alleging that their negligence in the design, construction, and maintenance of the canal had caused subsurface flooding resulting in damage to the orchards and increased operating costs for petitioner. Petitioner did not allege that any physical failure of the dam caused the damage to its property. The complaint sought damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §2671 et seq., as well as injunctive relief. Relying on the immunity granted by the Flood Control Act of 1928, 33 U.S.C. §702c, the United States moved for judgment on the pleadings.
Accepting petitioner’s submission that the Madera Canal was used for irrigation purposes, the District Court nevertheless dismissed the complaint because the parties agreed that the canal was a part of the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project, and that flood control was one of the purposes of that project. The District Court’s decision was dictated by an earlier Ninth Circuit case, which held that if a ‘“project has flood control as one of its purposes, and the events giving rise to the action were not wholly unrelated to the project,’ ” immunity necessarily attached.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. It agreed with petitioner that the Madera Canal “serves no flood control purpose,” but nevertheless held that immunity attached “solely because it is a branch of the Central Valley Project.” 177 F. 3d 834, 839 (1999). As the Ninth Circuit put it, “[although the water in the Madera Canal was not held for the purpose of flood control, because it was part of the Central Valley Project, it was ‘not wholly unrelated,’ to flood control.” Ibid, (emphasis added). In so holding, however, the court recognized that the Government would probably not have enjoyed immunity in at least three other Circuits where the courts require a nexus between flood control activities and the harm done to the plaintiff. Noting the “harsh result of [the] decision,” the Ninth Circuit frankly acknowledged that “[t]he ‘not wholly unrelated’ test applied by this and other circuits reads broadly an already broadly written grant of immunity.” Ibid. As the Ninth Circuit recognized, under such a test, there would seem to be no “set of facts where the government is not immune from damage arising from water that at one time passed through part of the Central Valley or other flood control project.” Ibid.
HH H — I
Not until more than a half century after its enactment did this Court have occasion to interpret §702c. In a consolidated case arising out of two separate accidents, we held that the section “bars recovery where the Federal Government would otherwise be liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2671 et seq., for personal injury caused by the Federal Government’s negligent failure to warn of the dangers from the release of floodwaters from federal flood control projects.” United States v. James, 478 U. S. 597, 599 (1986).
The principal issue in the James case was whether the statutory word “damage” encompassed not just property damage, but also personal injuries and death. In light of the legislative history, which it reviewed at some length, id., at 606-609,610-612, the Court concluded that the best reading of the statutory text was one which was both broader and less literal, and which encompassed the claims at issue in the two cases before the Court.
In both instances, the injuries were caused by the turbulent current generated by unwarned releases of waters from a reservoir after the Army Corps of Engineers had determined that the waters were at “flood stage.” The fact that the injuries were caused by “flood waters” was undisputed. In its opinion, the Court held that the language of the statute covered the two accidents because the “injuries occurred as a result of the release of waters from reservoirs that had reached flood stage.” Id., at 604.
Nevertheless, the Court’s opinion in James included a passage that lends support to the Ninth Circuit’s holding in this case. In that passage, the Court wrote:
“Nor do the terms 'flood’ and 'flood waters’ create any uncertainty in the context of accidents such as the ones at issue in these cases. The Act concerns flood control projects designed to carry floodwaters. It is thus clear from § 702c’s plain language that the terms ‘flood’ and ‘flood waters’ apply to all waters contained in or carried through a federal flood control project for purposes of or related to flood control, as well as to waters that such projects cannot control.” Id., at 605 (emphasis added).
The sentence that we have italicized and, in particular, the phrase “related to flood control” have generated conflicting opinions among the Courts of Appeals. In an attempt to make sense of what is admittedly confusing dicta, some courts have focused on whether the damage relates in some, often tenuous, way to a flood control project, rather than whether it relates to “floods or flood waters.” However, more than one court has pointed out that, if read literally, the sentence sweeps so broadly as to make little sense. Moreover, the sentence was unquestionably dictum because it was not essential to our disposition of any of the issues contested in James. It is therefore appropriate to resort to the text of the statute, as illuminated by our holding in James, rather than to that isolated comment, to determine whether the water flowing through the Madera Canal that allegedly caused the damage to petitioner’s pistachio orchards is covered by § 702c. See Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 627 (1935) (dicta “may be followed if sufficiently persuasive” but are not binding). See also U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U. S. 18, 24 (1994).
In James, we held that the phrase “floods or flood waters” is not narrowly confined to those waters that a federal project is unable to control, and that it encompasses waters that are released for flood control purposes when reservoired waters are at flood stage. That holding, however, is vastly different from the Ninth Circuit’s reading of § 702c, under which immunity attaches simply because the Madera Canal is part of the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project, and flood control is one of the purposes served by that project. The holding in James also differs from the less attenuated and more fact-specific position advanced by the Government, which would require us to take judicial notice of evidence that the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project and, indeed, the Madera Canal itself can and do serve flood control purposes. We ultimately conclude that the judgment cannot be upheld under either rationale, but begin with a description of the Central Valley Project and an explanation of the factual basis for the Government’s submission.
III
We begin by observing that water can be either a liability or an asset. The Mississippi River flood of 1927 was unquestionably an example of the former. That flood in turn led to the enactment of the 1928 Flood Control Act. Similar, though less extreme, floods of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in California provided an important motivation for the authorization of the Central Valley Project. Although that project has not completely eliminated flooding on either river, it has succeeded in converting a huge liability into an immensely valuable asset. Justice Jackson described the magnitude of that transformation in his opinion for the Court in United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 389 U. S. 725 (1950):
“This is a gigantic undertaking to redistribute the principal fresh-water resources of California. Central Valley is a vast basin, stretching over 400 miles on its polar axis and a hundred in width, in the heart of California. Bounded by the Sierra Nevada on the east and by coastal ranges on the west, it consists actually of two separate river valleys which merge in a single pass to the sea at the Golden Gate. Its rich acres, counted in the millions, are deficient in rainfall and must remain generally arid and unfruitful unless artificially watered.
“To . . . make water available where it would be of greatest service, the State of California proposed to re-engineer its natural water distribution. This project was taken over by the United States in 1935 and has since been a federal enterprise. The plan, in broad outline, is to capture and store waters of both rivers and many of their tributaries in their highland basins, in some cases taking advantage of the resulting head for generation of electric energy. . . . [T]he waters of the San Joaquin will be arrested at Friant, where they would take leave of the mountains, and will be diverted north and south through a system of canals and sold to irrigate more than a million acres of land, some as far as 160 miles away. A cost of refreshing this great expanse of semiarid land is that, except for occasional spills, only a dry river bed will cross the plain below the dam. Here, however, surplus waters from the north are utilized, for through a 150-mile canal Sacramento water is to be pumped to the cultivated lands formerly dependent on the San Joaquin.” Id., at 728-729.
“The Central Valley basin development envisions, in one sense, an integrated undertaking, but also an aggregate of many subsidiary projects, each of which is of first magnitude. It consists of thirty-eight major dams and reservoirs bordering the valley floor and scores of smaller ones in headwaters. It contemplates twenty-eight hydropower generating stations. It includes hundreds of miles of main canals, thousands of miles of laterals and drains, electric transmission and feeder lines and substations, and a vast network of structures for the control and use of water on two million acres of land already irrigated, three million acres of land to be newly irrigated, 360,000 acres in the delta needing protection from intrusions of salt water, and for municipal and miscellaneous purposes including cities, towns, duck clubs and game refuges. These projects are not only widely separated geographically, many of them physically independent in operation, but they are authorized in separate acts from year to year and are to be constructed at different times over a considerable span of years.” Id., at 733.
Justice Jackson’s description of the magnitude of the Central Valley Project makes one proposition perfectly clear: to characterize every drop of water that flows through that immense project as “flood water” simply because flood control is among the purposes served by the project unnecessarily dilutes the language of the statute. The text of the statute does not include the words “flood control project.” Rather, it states that immunity attaches to “any damage from or by floods or flood waters . . . .” Accordingly, the text of the statute directs us to determine the scope of the immunity conferred, not by the character of the federal project or the purposes it serves, but by the character of the waters that cause the relevant damage and the purposes behind their release.
IV
The Government has asked us to take judicial notice of certain basic facts about the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project and about the waters flowing through that division and, more particularly, through the Madera Canal. Although petitioner will have an opportunity to challenge those details on remand, we accept them for purposes of this opinion.
The two major rivers supplying water to the Central Valley Project are the Sacramento in the north, and the San Joaquin in the south. From its headwaters in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the San Joaquin flows in a southwesterly direction into a reservoir, known as Millerton Lake, just above the Friant Dam. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 520,500 acre-feet of water. In dry years, the total flow in the river does not produce that amount, but on average, the annual flow apparently approximates Wz times the reservoir’s capacity. Water is released through outlets in the dam that send it down the San Joaquin River, and also through outlets that direct it into either the Madera Canal to the northwest, or the Friant-Kern Canal to the southeast. When the water level exceeds 678 feet, it flows over the dam’s spillway into the San Joaquin. At that point, the river can accommodate a flow of 8,000 cubic feet per second without flooding. The Madera Canal can accommodate 1,200 cubic feet per second, and the Friant-Kern another 4,500 cubic feet per second. Thus, a total release of 13,700 cubic feet per second in three directions would not appear to include any “flood water.”
The Madera Canal, which is about 40 miles in length, is used primarily for irrigation purposes. Water that enters the canal at the Friant Dam is purchased by farmers who either use it immediately or store it for future use. As a result, the amount of water that enters the canal is larger than the quantity that may flow into the Chowchilla River at its terminus. Except in years of extreme drought, the Madera Irrigation District provides contracting farmers with “a dependable water supply” of approximately 138,000 acre-feet of “Class 1 water.” In addition, “if, as, and when it can be made available,” the District sells “Class 2 water” to the farmers at a price that is lower than the Class 1 price because of the “uncertainty as to availability and time of occurrence.” Thus, again in a literal sénse, it seems clear that none of the Class 1 or Class 2 water sold by the District and purchased by the farmers to store or irrigate their lands includes any “flood water.”
Water that is not purchased under either class simply flows through the canal into the Chowchilla River. As the Government points out, that excess may include flood water. However, given the fact that the canal can accommodate a flow of 1,200 cubic feet per second, which amounts to about 2,380 acre-feet per day, it is entirely possible that over the span of a year, several times the amount of Class 1 and Class 2 waters described in the papers submitted by the Government could flow through the canal without causing anything approaching a flood. Nevertheless, according to the Government, because the Madera Canal is available to divert water that might otherwise produce a flood on the San Joaquin and flood control is among the purposes served by the canal, § 702c immunity must attach to all the water that flows through the canal. Under the Government’s approach, this would be true even if the water never approached flood stage and the terminus of the canal was parched at the end of the summer. Admittedly, it is possible to read the “related to” portion of the dictum from James to support that result, but neither the language of the statute itself, nor the holding in James, even arguably supports such a strange conclusion. Accordingly, we disavow that portion of James' dicta.
Y
This case does raise a difficult issue because the property damage at issue was allegedly caused by continuous or repeated flows occurring over a period of years, rather than by a single, discrete incident. It is relatively easy to determine that a particular release of water that has reached flood stage is “flood water,” as in James, or that a release directed by a power company for the commercial purpose of generating electricity is not, as in Henderson v. United States, 965 F. 2d 1488 (CA8 1992). It is, however, not such a simple matter when damage may have been caused over a period of time in part by flood waters and in part by the routine use of the canal when it contained little more than a trickle. The fact that a serious flood did occur in the San Joaquin in 1997 creates the distinct possibility that flood waters may have surged down the Madera Canal and harmed petitioner’s property.
For present purposes, we merely hold that it was error to grant the Government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and that it is the text of § 702c, as informed by our holding in James, rather than the broad dictum in that opinion, that governs the scope of the United States’ immunity from liability for damage caused “by floods or flood waters.” Accordingly, in determining whether § 702c immunity attaches, courts should consider the character of the waters that cause the relevant damage rather than the relation between that damage and a flood control project.
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.
App. to Pet. for Cert. 15 (quoting Washington v. East Columbia Basin Irrigation Dist., 105 F. 3d 517, 520 (1997)v.
Citing Fryman v. United States, 901 F. 2d 79 (CA7 1990); Boyd v. United States, 881 F. 2d 895 (CA10 1989); and Hayes v. United States, 585 F. 2d 701 (CA4 1978), the Ninth Circuit specifically identified the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits as ones which likely would have reached a different result.
The first ease arose out of an incident at the Millwood Dam in Arkansas, when “the level of the Reservoir was such that the United States Corps of Engineers designated it at ‘flood stage.’ As part of the flood control function of the Millwood facility, the Corps of Engineers began to release water through the tainter gates. This release created a swift, strong current toward the underwater discharge.” 478 U. S., at 599. The second ease arose as a result of a decision by the Corps of Engineers to release waters in the reservoir of Bayou Courtableau Basin which “were at flood stage.” Id., at 601. The District Court found that §702c applied because the “ ‘gates were opened to prevent flooding and inundation landside of the drainage structure.’ ” Id., at 602 (emphasis added).
The Court appended a footnote pointing out that the District Court in each case had found that the waters at issue had been “released from federal flood control facilities to prevent flooding” and that the Court of Appeals had upheld those findings “and assumed that ‘the waters in this [consolidated] case were floodwaters.’ ” See id,., at 606, n. 7.
See, e.g., Washington v. East Columbia Basin Irrigation Dist., 105 F. 3d 517 (CA9 1997); Williams v. United States, 957 F. 2d 742 (CA10 1992); Dawson v. United States, 894 F. 2d 70 (CA3 1990); DeWitt Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 878 F 2d 246 (CA8 1989). This approach, however, can be overinclusive. As Judge Easterbrook has pointed out: “The ‘management of a flood control project’ includes building roads to reach the beaches and hiring staff to run the project. If the Corps of Engineers should allow a walrus-sized pothole to swallow tourists’ cars on the way to the beach, or if a tree-trimmer’s car should careen through some picnickers, these injuries would be ‘associated with’ flood control. They would occur within the boundaries of the project, and but for the effort to curtail flooding the injuries would not have happened. Yet they would have nothing to do with management of flood waters, and it is hard to conceive that they are ‘damage from or by floods or flood waters’ within the scope of § 702c.’ ” Fryman v. United States, 901 F. 2d, at 81. More to the point, such an approach is also inconsistent with the statutory language. See infra, at 434.
“Other circuits recognize that such a sweeping grant of immunity makes little sense in light of the text and purpose of the Act.” Cantrell v. United States Dept. of Army Corps of Engineers, 89 F. 3d 268, 271 (CA6 1996). See also Fryman, 901 F. 2d, at 81 (“James was so broadly written that it cannot be applied literally”).
In addition to concluding that the word “damage” includes personal injury and death, the Court also rejected the previously arguable propositions that the Federal Government’s subsequent waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act had impliedly repealed § 702c; and that the immunity applied only to the flood control on the Mississippi River authorized by the 1928 Act.
The Chowchilla flows in a westerly direction into the San Joaquin, which in turn flows in a northwesterly direction at that point. 9
In some exceptional circumstances, irrigation contractors may be obligated to buy Class 2 water at a particular time. However, contractors still pay for the water, regardless of the potential inconvenience with respect to the timing or date of delivery.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of of Court.
The question presented is whether petitioners, who are Comanche Indians, have standing to sue under an oil and gas lease approved by the Department of the Interior for use on land held by Indians under trust patents issued by the United States.
In 1947 the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs approved an oil and gas lease which petitioners had executed to respondent, Skelly Oil Company, on the form prescribed by the Department of the Interior. The first well was drilled in 1956, and seven producing wells were soon completed. In 1961 petitioners retained counsel with the approval of the Department of the Interior and brought this damage action against respondent in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, alleging that respondent had breached the express and implied covenants in the lease and had thereby impaired petitioners’ royalties. Respondent notified the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the litigation, but the Government made no attempt to intervene in the proceedings. The petition filed in the District Court asserted that respondent had permitted natural gas being produced from the wells to escape despite the fact that there was a pipeline less than a mile from the land. Petitioners claimed that respondent ignored their request that the gas be marketed and continued to allow the gas to be wasted in violation of the terms of the lease. The District Court sustained respondent’s demurrer and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed on the ground that petitioners were precluded from suing by the provisions of the lease and by the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior to control oil and gas leases on restricted Indian land. We granted certiorari, 389 U. S. 814 (1967), to determine whether the federal restrictions imposed on the Indians prevented them from vindicating their rights. In our view, the decision below unduly restricts the right of the Indians to seek judicial relief for a claimed injury to their interests under the oil and gas lease.
The trust patents to the land in question were issued, to petitioners under the General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388, as amended, 25 U. S. C. §§ 331-358, which provided that individual Indians were to be allotted land on their reservations and that the United States was to hold the land “in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian” allottees for a 25-year period. 25 U. S. C. § 348. During the trust period, which has been repeatedly extended, restricted Indian land may be sold or leased only with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. In our view, these restrictions on the Indian’s control of his land are mere incidents of the promises made by the United States in various treaties to protect Indian land and have no effect on the Indian’s capacity to institute the court action necessary to protect his property. In order to fulfill these national promises to safeguard Indian land and at the same time “to prepare the Indians to take their place as independent, qualified members of the modern body politic,” Board of County Comm’rs v. Seber, 318 U. S. 705, 715 (1943), the allotment system was created with the Indians receiving ownership rights in the land while the United States retained the power to scrutinize the various transactions by which the Indian might be separated from that property. Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U. S. 1, 9 (1956). See, e. g., 18 Cong. Rec. 190-192 (1886). This dual purpose of the allotment system would be frustrated unless both the Indian and the United States were empowered to seek judicial relief to protect the allotment. The obligation and power of the United States to institute such litigation to aid the Indian in the protection of his rights in his allotment were recognized in United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432 (1903); Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413 (1912); and United States v. Candelaria, 271 U. S. 432 (1926). See generally Federal Indian Law 326-341 (Dept, of Interior, 1958). In Heckman, an action brought by the United States to set aside an improper conveyance of restricted land, this Court realized that the allotment system created interests in both the Indian and the United States. “A transfer of the allotments is not simply a violation of the proprietary rights of the Indian. It violates the governmental rights of the United States.” 224 U. S., at 438. In holding that the United States could sue to protect the allotment, the Court indicated that the Government could either bring the necessary suit itself or allow the litigation to be prosecuted by the Indian.
“In what cases the United States will undertake to represent Indian owners of restricted lands in suits of this sort is left under the acts of Congress to the discretion of the Executive Department. The allottee may be permitted to bring his own action, or if so brought the United States may aid him in its conduct .... And when the United States itself undertakes to represent the allottees of lands under restriction and brings suit to cancel prohibited transfers, such action necessarily precludes the prosecution by the allottees of any other suit for a similar purpose relating to the same property.” Id., at 446.
Later decisions followed the implications of Heckman and held that the right of the United States to institute a suit to protect the allotment did not diminish the Indian’s right to sue on his own behalf. In Creek Nation v. United States, 318 U. S. 629 (1943), this Court held that Indian tribes had the power to sue a railroad for the improper use of Indian land even though the tribes could not sue the United States for its failure to collect the sums allegedly due. The Court stated, “That the United States also had a right to sue did not necessarily preclude the tribes from bringing their own actions.” Id., at 640. Accord, Lane v. Pueblo of Santa Rosa, 249 U. S. 110 (1919); Skokomish Indian Tribe v. France, 269 F. 2d 555 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1969). Nor does the existence of the Government’s power to sue affect the rights of the individual Indian. “A restricted Indian is not without capacity to sue or to be sued with respect to his affairs, including his restricted property. . . . Both the Act of April 12, 1926 and the decision ... in Heck-man v. United States . . . recognize capacity in a restricted Indian to sue or defend actions in his own behalf subject only to the right of the Government to intervene.” Sadler v. Public Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 172 F. 2d 870, 874 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1949). And in Choctaw & Chickasaw Nations v. Seitz, 193 F. 2d 456, 459 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1951), the court stated that Heckmcm, supra, Lane, supra, and Candelaria, supra, “clearly recognized the rights of restricted Indians and Indian tribes or pueblos to maintain actions with respect to their lands, although the United States would not be bound by the judgment in such an action, to which it was not a party, brought by the restricted Indian or an Indian tribe or pueblo.” In Brown v. Anderson, 61 Okla. 136, 160 P. 724 (1916), the Oklahoma Supreme Court itself held that Heckman had “fully answered” the argument that only the United States as guardian of the Indian could bring a suit to cancel an improper conveyance of a restricted Indian allotment. The court held:
“Osborne Anderson, the defendant in error, although a full blood Indian, was a citizen of the United States and of the state of Oklahoma. No good reason appears why he should be denied the privilege of appealing to the courts of the state the same as any other citizen to enforce his rights to property, even though such property be land upon which restrictions against alienation have been imposed by an act of Congress.” 61 Okla., at 138-139, 160 R, at 726.
See Bell v. Fitzpatrick, 53 Okla. 574, 157 P. 334 (1916) ; L. Mills, Oklahoma Indian Land Laws §328 (1924). We agree that the federal restrictions preventing the Indian from selling or leasing his allotted land without the consent of a governmental official do not prevent the Indian landowner, like other property owners, from maintaining suits appropriate to the protection of his rights.
There remains the question whether the terms of the oil and gas lease or the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior to govern those leases prevent the Indians from seeking judicial relief for an alleged impairment of their interests under the lease. Respondent argues that the Secretary has such complete control over the lease that only he can institute the necessary court action.
The leasing of allotted land for mining purposes “by said allottee” is expressly authorized by 25 U. S. C. § 396. Although the approval of the Secretary is required, he is not the lessor and he cannot grant the lease on his own authority. The Secretary is authorized to promulgate regulations controlling the operation and development of the lease and to issue necessary written instructions to the lessee. Ibid. See generally 25 CFR §§ 172.1-172.33 (1967); 30 CFR §§ 221.1-221.67 (1967). The lessee is required to furnish a surety bond, in an amount satisfactory to the Secretary, guaranteeing compliance with the terms of the lease, which incorporate the regulations of the Secretary. 25 U. S. C. § 396c. The Secretary has the power to inspect the leased premises and the books and records of the lessee. 25 CFR § 172.25 (1967). The Secretary also has the power to impose such restrictions as to the time for the drilling of wells or the production from any well “as in his judgment may be necessary or proper for the protection of the natural resources of the leased land and in the interests of the Indian lessor.” 25 CFR § 172.24 (1967). The lessee must furnish the Secretary with a monthly report disclosing all operations conducted on the lease, 30 CFR §§ 221.60-221.65 (1967), and must pay the royalties to the Secretary who deposits them to the credit of the Indian lessor. 25 CFR §§ 172.14, 172.16 (1967). The lessee agrees to drill wells which the Secretary determines are necessary to protect the leased land from drainage by another well on adjoining property. 30 CFR § 221.21 (1967). Finally, the lessee is obligated to prevent the waste of oil and gas and agrees to pay the Indian lessor the full value of all gas wasted, unless the Secretary determines at the request of the lessee that the waste was sanctioned by state and federal law. 30 CFR §§ 221.18, 221.35 (1967).
While the United States has exercised its supervisory authority over oil and gas leases in considerable detail, we find nothing in this regulatory scheme which would preclude petitioners from seeking judicial relief for an alleged violation of the lease. If the Government does determine that there has been waste in violation of a lease, it will of course satisfy its trust obligations by filing the necessary court action. However, there is nothing in the lease or regulations requiring the Indians to seek administrative action- from the Government instead of instituting legal proceedings on their own. The existence of the power of the United States to sue upon a violation of the lease no more diminishes the right of the Indian to maintain an action to protect that lease than the general power of the United States to safeguard an allotment affected the capacity of the Indian to protect that allotment. Furthermore, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is the agency of the Department of the Interior charged with fulfilling the trust obligations of the United States, is faced “with an almost staggering problem in attempting to discharge its trust obligations with respect to thousands upon thousands of scattered Indian allotments. In some cases, the adequate fulfillment of trust responsibilities on these allotments would undoubtedly involve administrative costs running many times the income value of the property.” H. R. Rep. No. 2503, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 23 (1952). Recognizing these administrative burdens and realizing that the Indian’s right to sue should not depend on the good judgment or zeal of a. government attorney, the United States has indicated its support of petitioners’ position that Indians have a capacity to sue under the oil and gas lease.
The regulations do empower the Secretary to cancel a lease “for good cause upon application of the lessor or lessee, or if at any time the Secretary is satisfied that the provisions of the lease or of any regulations heretofore or hereafter prescribed have been violated.” 25 CFR § 172.23 (1967). However, there is no justification for concluding that the severe sanction of cancellation of the lease is the only relief for all breaches of the lease terms or for any failure to pay royalties. Both the lessor and the lessee may wish to resolve their disagreement by the payment of damages and not by the cancellation of a basically satisfactory lease.
Nor is the capacity of the Indian defeated by § 6 of the lease, which provides that the Secretary may cancel the lease “before restrictions are removed,” and concludes, “Provided, That after restrictions are removed the lessor shall have and be entitled to any available remedy in law or equity for breach of this contract by the lessee.” There is no warrant for implying by negative inference from this proviso a denial of all remedies otherwise available to the Indian prior to the removal of the federal restrictions on his power to alienate the land. Section 6 merely provides that when the federal restrictions on alienation are terminated, the federal supervision over the lease will likewise come to an end, without impairing the continuing rights of the Indian. Compare 25 CFR § 172.28 (1967).
Respondent's argument that the judgment in its favor should be sustained on available adequate state procedural grounds is untenable. Since the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision rested solely on federal grounds, that court must have either rejected or failed to reach the asserted state grounds. Furthermore, we intimate no view on the merits of the case. If the lessee has conformed to all of the requirements of the federal regulations and has not breached any of the terms of the lease, the suit may fail. We merely hold that the Indian lessors have the capacity to maintain an action seeking damages for the alleged breach of the oil and gas lease. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs approved a contract between petitioners and an attorney for legal services to be rendered in connection with this litigation. The Area Director has been delegated the authority to approve the employment of attorneys for individual Indians who may be compensated on a quantum meruit basis from restricted trust funds. Section 269 of Order 551 of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 16 Fed. Reg. 2939 (1951), as amended, 22 Fed. Reg. 6066 (1957).
The petition also alleged that the waste of natural gas violated § 86.3 of the Oklahoma Oil and Gas Conservation Act. Okla. Stat. Tit. 52, §86.3 (1951). In response to a motion to require petitioners to elect between or state separately a cause of action under the lease and one based on tort, the District Court, with the approval of the parties, struck the alleged violation of the conservation statute from the petition. After petitioners announced that the petition then stated only one cause of action which sought recovery for the breach of the lease, the District Court denied the motion.
The lease provides:
“3. In consideration of the foregoing, the lessee hereby agrees:
“(f) Diligence, prevention of waste. — To exercise reasonable diligence in drilling and operating wells for oil and gas on the lands covered hereby, while such products can be secured in paying quantities; to carry on all operations hereunder in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with approved methods and practice, having due regard for the prevention of waste of oil or gas developed on the land . . . .”
See 30 CFR, §§221.18, 221.35 (1967).
The opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court is not reported.
Indians are expressly authorized to institute proceedings against the United States to establish their right to an allotment. 25 U. S. C. § 345.
See note following 25 U. S. C. § 348. And see 25 U. S. C. § 462, which provides: “The existing periods of trust placed upon any Indian lands and any restriction on alienation thereof are extended and continued until otherwise directed by Congress.”
“This national interest is not to be expressed in terms of property, or to be limited to the assertion of rights incident to the ownership of a reversion or to the holding of a technical title in trust.” Heckman v. United, States, 224 U. S. 413, 437 (1912), quoted with approval in United States v. Hellard, 322 U. S. 363, 366 (1944).
Indians of course are now authorized to bring claims against the United States. See Indian Claims Commission Act, 60 Stat. 1049 (1946), 25 U. S. C. §§ 70-70w. For claims arising after August 13, 1946, see 28 U. S. C. § 1505, conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims.
“[T]he rights of restricted Indians and Indian tribes or pueblos to maintain actions with respect to their lands are clearly recognized, although the United States might not be bound by a judgment in such an action to which it was not a party.” Federal Indian Law 336 (1958).
A proviso to § 396 does give the Secretary the power to offer leases on his own if the allottee is deceased and the heirs have not been determined or cannot be found. 25 U. S. C. § 396.
The Memorandum for the United States as amicus curiae states, at 7:
“In sum, respondent’s contention that, until the trusteeship is ended, the Indian landowners are disabled from maintaining suit for breach of a lease they have granted of their own property is unsupported in the governing statutes, the implementing regulations, or the terms of the lease.”
Section 6 of the lease provides:
“6. Cancellation and forfeiture. — When, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, there has been a violation of any of the terms and conditions of this lease before restrictions are removed, the Secretary of the Interior shall have the right at any time after 30 days notice to the lessee, specifying the terms and conditions violated, and after a hearing, if the lessee shall so request within 30 days of receipt of notice, to declare this lease null and void, and the lessor shall then be entitled and authorized to take immediate possession of the land: Provided, That after restrictions are removed the lessor shall have and be entitled to any available remedy in law or equity for breach of this contract by the lessee.”
The regulation dealing with the removal of restrictions avoids the danger of a negative inference by stating: “Oil and gas leases ... on land from all of which restrictions against alienation have been or shall be removed, even if such leases contain provisions authorizing supervision by the Department, shall, after such removal of restrictions against alienation, be operated entirely free from such supervision, and the authority and power delegated to the Secretary of the Interior in said leases shall cease 25 CFR § 172.28 (1967).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Petitioner Ronald Skipper was convicted in a South Carolina trial court of capital murder and rape. The State sought the death penalty, and a separate sentencing hearing was held before the trial jury under S. C. Code § 16-3-20 (1985), which provides for a bifurcated trial and jury sentencing in capital cases. Following introduction by the State of evidence in aggravation of the offense (principally evidence of petitioner’s history of sexually assaultive behavior), petitioner presented as mitigating evidence his own testimony and that of his former wife, his mother, his sister, and his grandmother. This testimony, for the most part, concerned the difficult circumstances of his upbringing. Petitioner and his former wife, however, both testified briefly that petitioner had conducted himself well during the Tk months he spent in jail between his arrest and trial. Petitioner also testified that during a prior period of incarceration he had earned the equivalent of a high school diploma and that, if sentenced to life imprisonment rather than to death, he would behave himself in prison and would attempt to work so that he could contribute money to the support of his family.
Petitioner also sought to introduce testimony of two jailers and one “regular visitor” to the jail to the effect that petitioner had “made a good adjustment” during his time spent in jail. The trial court, however, ruled that under the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Koon, 278 S. C. 528, 298 S. E. 2d 769 (1982) (Koon I), such evidence would be irrelevant and hence inadmissible. The decision in Koon I, the judge stated, stood for the rule that “whether [petitioner] can adjust or not adjust” was “not an issue in this case.” App. 11.
After hearing closing arguments — during the course of which the prosecutor contended that petitioner would pose disciplinary problems if sentenced to prison and would likely rape other prisoners, id., at 13-14 — the jury sentenced petitioner to death. On appeal, petitioner contended that the trial court had committed constitutional error in excluding the testimony of the jailers and the visitor: the testimony of these witnesses, petitioner argued, would have constituted relevant mitigating evidence, and exclusion of such evidence was improper under this Court’s decisions in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978), and Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982). The Supreme Court of South Carolina rejected petitioner’s contention, stating:
“The trial judge properly refused to admit evidence of [petitioner’s] future adaptability to prison life. State v. Koon, supra. However, evidence of his past adaptability was admitted through testimony of his former wife, his mother and his own testimony. This contention is without merit.” 285 S. C. 42, 48, 328 S. E. 2d 58, 61-62 (1985).
We granted certiorari, 474 U. S. 900 (1985), to consider petitioner’s claim that the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision is inconsistent with this Court’s decisions in Lockett and Eddings, and we now reverse.
There is no disputing that this Court’s decision in Eddings requires that in capital cases “ ‘the sentencer . . . not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.’” Eddings, supra, at 110 (quoting Lockett, supra, at 604 (plurality opinion of Burger, C. J.)) (emphasis in original). Equally clear is the corollary rule that the sentencer may not refuse to consider or be precluded from considering “any relevant mitigating evidence.” 455 U. S., at 114. These rules are now well established, and the State does not question them.
Accordingly, the only question before us is whether the exclusion from the sentencing hearing of the testimony petitioner proffered regarding his good behavior during the over seven months he spent in jail awaiting trial deprived petitioner of his right to place before the sentencer relevant evidence in mitigation of punishment. It can hardly be disputed that it did. The State does not contest that the witnesses petitioner attempted to place on the stand would have testified that petitioner had been a well-behaved and well-adjusted prisoner, nor does the State dispute that the jury could have drawn favorable inferences from this testimony regarding petitioner’s character and his probable future conduct if sentenced to life in prison. Although it is true that any such inferences would not relate specifically to petitioner’s culpability for the crime he committed, see Koon I, supra, at 536, 298 S. E. 2d, at 774, there is no question but that such inferences would be “mitigating” in the sense that they might serve “as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Lockett, swpra, at 604. Consideration of a defendant’s past conduct as indicative of his probable future behavior is an inevitable and not undesirable element of criminal sentencing: “any sentencing authority must predict a convicted person’s probable future conduct when it engages in the process of determining what punishment to impose.” Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262, 275 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). The Court has therefore held that evidence that a defendant would in the future pose a danger to the community if he were not executed may be treated as establishing an “aggravating factor” for purposes of capital sentencing, Jurek v. Texas, supra; see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880 (1983). Likewise, evidence that the defendant would not pose a danger if spared (but incarcerated) must be considered potentially mitigating. Under Eddings, such evidence may not be excluded from the sentencer’s consideration.
The State advances several arguments as to why the exclusion of petitioner’s proffered evidence was, nonetheless, not erroneous. First, the State contends that the trial court ruled only that petitioner’s witnesses could not offer incompetent lay opinion testimony regarding petitioner’s ability to adjust to prison life in the future. Eddings, the State argues, does not displace reasonable state-law rules regarding the competency of testimony. The record does not, however, support the State’s contention that the trial court’s ruling was no more than an evenhanded application of rules restricting the use of opinion testimony. It is true that petitioner’s request for a ruling on the admissibility of the testimony of the two jailers and the “regular visitor” was immediately preceded by an attempt to introduce his former wife’s opinion (ruled inadmissible by the trial judge, App. 10) regarding his prospects for adjustment to prison life. In seeking a ruling on the testimony of the three witnesses at issue here, however, petitioner made it clear that he expected them “to testify that [petitioner] has made a good adjustment” to jail. Id., at 11 (emphasis added). Defense counsel was not offering opinion testimony regarding future events. Under these circumstances, any ruling premised on the assumption that petitioner planned to present incompetent opinion testimony would have been — as the State conceded at oral argument — a “mistake.” Such a misunderstanding could by no means justify the exclusion of nonopinion evidence bearing on the defendant’s ability to adjust to prison life.
Second, the State echoes the South Carolina Supreme Court in arguing that the trial court’s ruling was not improper because it did not prevent petitioner from introducing evidence of past good conduct in jail for purposes of establishing his good character, but only foreclosed the introduction of “irrelevant” evidence of his future adaptability to prison life. There is no clear support for this contention in the record of this case, as the trial court did not explicitly rely on any such distinction and appears to have excluded petitioner’s evidence of good conduct for any purpose whatsoever. The State’s proposed distinction between use of evidence of past good conduct to prove good character and use of the same evidence to establish future good conduct in prison seems to be drawn from the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in another case altogether, State v. Koon, 285 S. C. 1, 328 S. E. 2d 625 (Koon II), cert. denied, 471 U. S. 1036 (1985). There, the court stated that although “future adaptability to prison [is] irrelevant evidence because it does not bear on a defendant’s character, prior record, or the circumstances of his offense[,] . . . [p]ast behavior in prison does bear on a defendant’s character and, therefore, is relevant.” 285 S. C., at 3, 328 S. E. 2d, at 626. This distinction is elusive. As we have explained above, a defendant’s disposition to make a well-behaved and peaceful adjustment to life in prison is itself an aspect of his character that is by its nature relevant to the sentencing determination. Accordingly, the precise meaning and practical significance of the decision in Koon II and of the State’s argument is difficult to assess. Assuming, however, that the rule would in any case have the effect of precluding the defendant from introducing otherwise admissible evidence for the explicit purpose of convincing the jury that he should be spared the death penalty because he would pose no undue danger to his jailers or fellow prisoners and could lead a useful life behind bars if sentenced to fife imprisonment, the rule would not pass muster under Eddings. Since the trial court’s ruling in this case — whether or not it can credibly be said to be consistent with Koon II — sX least had this effect, it cannot stand under Eddings.
Finally, the State seems to suggest that exclusion of the proffered testimony was proper because the testimony was merely cumulative of the testimony of petitioner and his former wife that petitioner’s behavior in jail awaiting trial was satisfactory, and of petitioner’s testimony that, if sentenced to prison rather than to death, he would attempt to use his time productively and would not cause trouble. We think, however, that characterizing the excluded evidence as cumulative and its exclusion as harmless is implausible on the facts before us. The evidence petitioner was allowed to present on the issue of his conduct in jail was the sort of evidence that a jury naturally would tend to discount as self-serving. The testimony of more disinterested witnesses — and, in particular, of jailers who would have had no particular reason to be favorably predisposed toward one of their charges— would quite naturally be given much greater weight by the jury. Nor can we confidently conclude that credible evidence that petitioner was a good prisoner would have had no effect upon the jury’s deliberations. The prosecutor himself, in closing argument, made much of the dangers petitioner would pose if sentenced to prison, and went so far as to assert that petitioner could be expected to rape other inmates. Under these circumstances, it appears reasonably likely that the exclusion of evidence bearing upon petitioner’s behavior in jail (and hence, upon his likely future behavior in prison) may have affected the jury’s decision to impose the death sentence. Thus, under any standard, the exclusion of the evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to constitute reversible error.
The exclusion by the state trial court of relevant mitigating evidence impeded the sentencing jury’s ability to carry out its task of considering all relevant facets of the character and record of the individual offender. The resulting death sentence cannot stand, although the State is of course not precluded from again seeking to impose the death sentence, provided that it does so through a new sentencing hearing at which petitioner is permitted to present any and all relevant mitigating evidence that is available. Eddings, 455 U. S., at 117. The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is therefore reversed insofar as it affirms the death sentence, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The relevance of evidence of probable future conduct in prison as a factor in aggravation or mitigation of an offense is underscored in this particular case by the prosecutor’s closing argument, which urged the jury to return a sentence of death in part because petitioner could not be trusted to behave if he were simply returned to prison. Where the prosecution specifically relies on a prediction of future dangerousness in asking for the death penalty, it is not only the rule of Lockett and Eddings that requires that the defendant be afforded an opportunity to introduce evidence on this point; it is also the elemental due process requirement that a defendant not be sentenced to death “on the basis of information which he had no opportunity to deny or explain.” Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349, 362 (1977).
We do not hold that all facets of the defendant’s ability to adjust to prison life must be treated as relevant and potentially mitigating. For example, we have no quarrel with the statement of the Supreme Court of South Carolina that “how often [the defendant] will take a shower” is irrelevant to the sentencing determination. State v. Plath, 281 S. C. 1, 15, 313 S. E. 2d 619, 627, cert. denied, 467 U. S. 1265 (1984). In the case before us, there is no credible suggestion that petitioner sought to introduce evidence of his personal hygiene practices. Rather, petitioner apparently attempted to introduce evidence suggesting that he had been a well-behaved and disciplined prisoner. Such evidence of adjustability to life in prison unquestionably goes to a feature of the defendant’s character that is highly relevant to a jury’s sentencing 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. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents only one question: whether conspiracy to defraud the United States of taxes on distilled spirits is a “crime involving moral turpitude” within the meaning of § 19 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1917.
Respondent, a native and citizen of Italy, has lived continuously in the United States since he entered this country in 1921. In 1937, respondent was indicted under 18 U. S. C. § 88 for conspiring with seven other defendants to violate twelve sections of the Internal Revenue Code. The indictment specifically charged him with possessing whiskey and alcohol “with intent to sell it in fraud of law and evade the tax thereon.” He was further accused of removing and concealing liquor “with intent to defraud the United States of the tax thereon.” After pleading guilty, respondent was sentenced to imprisonment in a federal penitentiary for a term of one year and one day.
Respondent served his sentence under this conviction, and was released from custody. Less than a year later, he returned to his former activities and in December 1939, he was indicted again with eight other defendants for violating the same federal statutes. He was charged with conspiring to “unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully defraud the United States of tax on distilled spirits.” After being tried and found guilty in 1941, he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years.
While serving his sentence under this second conviction, deportation proceedings were commenced against the respondent under § 19 (a) of the Immigration Act which provides:
. . any alien . . . who is hereafter sentenced more than once to such a term of imprisonment [one year or more] because of conviction in this country of any crime involving moral turpitude, committed at any time after entry . . . shall, upon the warrant of the Attornéy General, be taken into custody and deported. ...”
After continued hearings and consideration of the case by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization and by the Board of Immigration Appeals, respondent was ordered to be deported in January 1946, on the ground that he had twice been convicted and sentenced to terms of one year or more of crimes involving moral turpitude. Deportation was deferred from time to time at respondent’s request until 1949, when the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization moved to execute the warrant of deportation.
Respondent then sought habeas corpus in the District Court, claiming that the deportation order was invalid because the crimes of which he had been convicted did not involve moral turpitude. The District Court held a hearing, and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the District Court and ordered that the respondent be discharged. 183 F. 2d 768 (1950). The Court of Appeals stated that “crimes involving moral turpitude,” as those words were used in the Immigration Act, “were intended to include only crimes of violence, or crimes which are commonly thought of as involving baseness, vileness or depravity. Such a classification does not include the crime of evading the payment of tax on liquor, nor of conspiring to evade that tax.” 183 F. 2d at 772. We granted certiorari to review the decision, 340 U. S. 890 (1950), as conflicting with decisions of the courts of appeals in other circuits.
This Court has interpreted the provision of the statute before us “to authorize deportation only where an alien having committed a crime involving moral turpitude and having been convicted and sentenced, once again commits a crime of that nature and is convicted and sentenced for it.” Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U. S. 6, 9-10 (1948). Respondent has on two separate occasions been convicted of the same crime, conspiracy to defraud the United States of taxes on distilled spirits. Therefore, our inquiry in this case is narrowed to determining whether this particular offense involves moral turpitude. Whether or not certain other offenses involve moral turpitude is irrelevant and beside the point.
The term “moral turpitude” has deep roots in the law. The presence of moral turpitude has been used as a test in a variety of situations, including legislation governing the disbarment of attorneys and the revocation of medical licenses. Moral turpitude also has found judicial employment as a criterion in disqualifying and impeaching witnesses, in determining the measure of contribution between joint tort-feasors, and in deciding whether certain language is slanderous.
In deciding the case before the Court, we look to the manner in which the term “moral turpitude” has been applied by judicial decision. Without exception, federal and state courts have held that a crime in which fraud is an ingredient involves moral turpitude. In the construction of the specific section of the Statute before us, a court of appeals has stated that fraud has ordinarily been the test to determine whether crimes not of the gravest character involve moral turpitude. United States ex rel. Berlandi v. Reimer, 113 F. 2d 429 (1940).
In every deportation case where fraud has been proved, federal courts have held that the crime in issue involved moral turpitude. This has been true in a variety of situations involving fraudulent conduct: obtaining goods under fraudulent pretenses, Bermann v. Reimer, 123 F. 2d 331 (1941); conspiracy to defraud by deceit and falsehood, Mercer v. Lence, 96 F. 2d 122 (1938); forgery with intent to defraud, United States ex rel. Popoff v. Reimer, 79 F. 2d 513 (1935); using the mails to defraud, Ponzi v. Ward, 7 F. Supp. 736 (1934); execution of chattel mortgage with intent to defraud, United States ex rel. Millard v. Tuttle, 46 F. 2d 342 (1930); concealing assets in bankruptcy, United States ex rel. Medich v. Burmaster, 24 F. 2d 57 (1928); issuing checks with intent to defraud, United States ex rel. Portada v. Day, 16 F. 2d 328 (1926). In the state courts, crimes involving fraud have universally been held to involve moral turpitude.
Moreover, there have been two other decisions by courts of appeals prior to the decision now under review on the question of whether the particular offense before us in this case involves moral turpitude within the meaning of § 19 (a) of the Immigration Act. In United States ex rel. Berlandi v. Reimer, 113 F. 2d 429 (1940), and Maita v. Haff, 116 F. 2d 337 (1940), courts of appeals specifically decided that the crime of conspiracy to violate the internal revenue laws by possessing and concealing distilled spirits with intent to defraud the United States of taxes involves moral turpitude. Furthermore, in Guarneri v. Kessler, 98 F. 2d 580 (1938), a court of appeals held that the crime of smuggling alcohol into the United States with intent to defraud the United States involves moral turpitude.
In view of these decisions, it can be concluded that fraud has consistently been regarded as such a contaminating component in any crime that American courts have, without exception, included such crimes within the scope of moral turpitude. It is therefore clear, under an unbroken course of judicial decisions, that the crime of conspiring to defraud the United States is a “crime involving moral turpitude.”
But it has been suggested that the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” lacks sufficiently definite standards to justify this deportation proceeding and that the statute before us is therefore unconstitutional for vagueness. Under this view, no crime, however grave, could be regarded as falling within the meaning of the term “moral turpitude.” The question of vagueness was not raised by the parties nor argued before this Court.
It is significant that the phrase has been part of the immigration laws for more than sixty years. As discussed above, the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” has also been used for many years as a criterion in a variety of other statutes. No case has been decided holding that the phrase is vague, nor are we able to find any trace of judicial expression which hints that the phrase is so meaningless as to be a deprivation of due process.
Furthermore, this Court has itself construed the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude.” In United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, Director of Immigration, 289 U. S. 422 (1933), the Court interpreted the same section of the Immigration Statute now before us. There, an alien had been convicted of counterfeiting government obligations with intent to defraud, and one question of the case was whether the crime of counterfeiting involved moral turpitude. This question was raised by the parties and discussed in the briefs. The Court treated the question without hesitation, stating that the crime of counterfeiting obligations of the United States was “plainly a crime involving moral turpitude.” 289 U. S. at 423. (Emphasis supplied.)
The essential purpose of the “void for vagueness” doctrine is to warn individuals of the criminal consequences of their conduct. Williams v. United States, 341 U. S. 97, decided April 23, 1951; Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 103-104 (1945). This Court has repeatedly stated that criminal statutes which fail to give due notice that an act has been made criminal before it is done are unconstitutional deprivations of due process of law. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451 (1939); United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81 (1921). It should be emphasized that this statute does not declare certain conduct to be criminal. Its function is to apprise aliens of the consequences which follow after conviction and sentence of the requisite two crimes.
Despite the fact that this is not a criminal statute, we shall nevertheless examine the application of the vagueness doctrine to this case. We do this in view of the grave nature of deportation. The Court has stated that “deportation is a drastic measure and at times the equivalent of banishment or exile .... It is the forfeiture for misconduct of a residence in this country. Such a forfeiture is a penalty.” Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, supra, at 10. We shall, therefore, test this statute under the established criteria of the “void for vagueness” doctrine.
We have several times held that difficulty in determining whether certain marginal offenses are within the meaning of the language under attack as vague does not automatically render a statute unconstitutional for indefiniteness. United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U. S. 396, 399 (1930). Impossible standards of specificity are not required. United States v. Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1 (1947). The test is whether the language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385 (1926).
We conclude that this test has been satisfied here. Whatever else the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” may mean in peripheral cases, the decided cases make it plain that crimes in which fraud was an ingredient have always been regarded as involving moral turpitude. We have recently stated that doubt as to the adequacy of a standard in less obvious cases does not render that standard unconstitutional for vagueness. See Williams v. United States, supra. But there is no such doubt present in this case. Fraud is the touchstone by which this case should be judged. The phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” has without exception been construed to embrace fraudulent conduct. We therefore decide that Congress sufficiently forewarned respondent that the statutory consequence of twice conspiring to defraud the United States is deportation.
Reversed.
39 Stat. 889, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 155 (a).
Less than three years after entering the United States, respondent was convicted for transporting liquor and sentenced to a term in the reformatory. In 1931, he was convicted and fined for transferring license plates.
35 Stat. 1096, now 18 U. S. C. § 371:
“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
These charges were based upon 26 U. S. C. (1934 ed.) §§ 1155 (f), 1440 and 1441.
The record establishes that respondent was a large-scale violator engaged in a sizable business. The second indictment alone charged him with possessing 4,675 gallons of alcohol and an undetermined quantity of distilled spirits. At the rate of $2.25 a gallon then in effect, the tax on the alcohol alone would have been over $10,000.
39 Stat. 889, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 155 (a).
Section 19(a) further provides: . . The provision of this section respecting the deportation of aliens convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude shall not apply to one who has been pardoned, nor shall such deportation be made or directed if the court, or judge thereof, sentencing such alien for such crime shall, at the time of imposing judgment or passing sentence or within thirty days thereafter, due notice having first been given to representatives of the State, make a recommendation to the Attorney General that such alien shall not be deported in pursuance of this chapter . . . .” 39 Stat. 889, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 155 (a). The record does not indicate that respondent has been pardoned, nor that the sentencing judge recommended that he not be deported, nor that respondent requested that such recommendation be made.
In re Kirby, 10 S. D. 322, 73 N. W. 92, 39 L. R. A. 856 (1897). Bartos v. United States District Court, 19 F. 2d 722 (1927); see Bradway, Moral Turpitude as the Criterion of Offenses that Justify Disbarment, 24 Cal. L. Rev. 9-27.
Fort v. Brinkley, 87 Ark. 400, 404, 112 S. W. 1084, 1085 (1908). “It seems clearly dedueible from the above cited authorities that the words ‘moral turpitude’ had a positive and fixed meaning at common law . . . .”
3 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), 540; cases are collected at 40 A. L. R. 1049, and 71 A. L. R. 219.
Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Christenson, 183 Minn. 182, 236 N. W. 618 (1931).
Baxter v. Mohr, 37 Misc. 833, 76 N. Y. S. 982 (1902).
State decisions have held that the following crimes involve moral turpitude: passing a check with intent to defraud, Bancroft v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of Oklahoma, 202 Okla. 108, 210 P. 2d 666 (1949); using the mails to defraud, Neibling v. Terry, 352 Mo. 396, 177 S. W. 2d 502 (1944), In re Comyns, 132 Wash. 391, 232 P. 269 (1925); obtaining money and property by false and fraudulent pretenses, In re Needham, 364 Ill. 65, 4 N. E. 2d 19 (1936); possessing counterfeit money with intent to defraud, Fort v. Brinkley, 87 Ark. 400, 112 S. W. 1084 (1908). One state court has specifically held that the wilful evasion of federal income taxes constitutes moral turpitude. Louisiana State Bar Assn. v. Steiner, 204 La. 1073, 16 So. 2d 843 (1944).
The term “moral turpitude” first appeared in the Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1084, which directed the exclusion of “persons who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.” Similar language was reenacted in the Statutes of 1903 and 1907. § 2, Act of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1213; § 2, Act of Feb. 20, 1907, 34 Stat. 898. It has been suggested that the fact that this phrase has been used in the Immigration Laws for over sixty years has no weight in upholding its constitutionality. Of course, the mere existence of a statute for over sixty years does not provide immunity from constitutional attack. We have recently held an equally ancient statute unconstitutional for vagueness. Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507 (1948). There, a statute, which employed vague terminology wholly lacking in common law background or interpretation, was aimed at limiting rights of free speech. Even in the Winters case, however, several dissenting members of this Court were of the view that the venerability of the statute was an element to be considered in deciding the question of vagueness.
The phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” presents no greater uncertainty or difficulty than language found in many other statutes repeatedly sanctioned by the Court. The Sherman Act provides the most obvious example, “restraint of trade” as construed to mean “unreasonable or undue restraint of trade,” Nash v. United States, 229 U. S. 373 (1913). Compare other statutory language which has survived attack under the vagueness doctrine in this Court: “in excess of the number of employees needed by such licensee to perform actual services,” United States v. Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1 (1947); “any offensive, derisive or annoying word,” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942); “connected with or related to the national defense,” Gorin v. United States, 312 U. S. 19 (1941); “psychopathic personality,” Minnesota v. Probate Court, 309 U. S. 270 (1940); “wilfully overvalues any security,” Kay v. United States, 303 U. S. 1 (1938); “fair and open competition,” Old Dearborn Co. v. Seagram Corp., 299 U. S. 183 (1936); “reasonable variations shall be permitted,” United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 287 U. S. 77 (1932); “unreasonable waste of natural gas,” Bandini Petro leum Co. v. Superior Court, 284 U. S. 8 (1931); “political purposes," United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U. S. 396 (1930); “range usually occupied by any cattle grower,” Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U. S. 343 (1918).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The petitioner is under sentence of death for murder in the first degree imposed by a California superior court and affirmed by the State Supreme Court. 28 Cal. 2d 671, 171 P. 2d 428. The validity of that sentence is not here challenged. But § 1367 of the California Penal Code provides that “A person cannot be tried, adjudged to punishment, or punished for a public offense, while he is insane.’.’ Thus if petitioner is insane, California law prohibits his execution under the death sentence which he received. The legal questions here presented relate to the procedures adopted by California to determine whether petitioner is sane or insane as a matter of fact.
It is petitioner’s contention that, though having been pronounced insane in a judicial proceeding after his conviction, and though he in fact is still insane, he is about to be executed because a state doctor, acting under authority of state statutes, has declared him restored to sanity. The doctor reached his determination without notice or hearings, and without any opportunity on petitioner’s part to obtain an original court hearing and adjudication of his sanity, or even to obtain a court review of the doctor’s conclusion that he is sane. This procedure it is argued constitutes a denial to petitioner of that due process of law guaranteed him by the Fourteenth Amendment.
This contention was urged upon the California Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceedings there instituted. That court entertained and considered the petition, but, with two judges dissenting, denied relief, sustaining the validity of the power of the state’s executive agents to follow the prescribed statutory procedures. 30 Cal. 2d 838, 186 P. 2d 134. We granted certiorari because of the serious nature of the due process contentions presented in the petition. 333 U. S. 841. Here the California attorney general, while supporting the State Supreme Court’s denial of habeas corpus, asserts that California affords petitioner an adequate judicial remedy by way of mandamus, a procedure which has not yet been sought by petitioner.
The California procedure may perhaps be better understood by explaining the application of the controlling California statutes to petitioner’s case. While he was in prison awaiting execution of the death sentence a question arose concerning the petitioner’s sanity at that time. Section 3701 of the State Penal Code prescribes that if “there is good reason to believe” that a defendant under sentence of death “has become insane, the warden must call such fact to the attention of the district attorney.” It is the district attorney’s “duty” immediately to institute proceedings in an appropriate trial court to determine the sanity of the defendant, and the court “must at once” summon a jury of twelve to “hear such inquiry.” In petitioner’s case this prescribed course was followed, a judicial hearing was held as provided by § 3702, and petitioner was adjudged insane. In accordance with § 3703 the court then ordered that petitioner “be taken to a state hospital for the insane and be there kept in safe confinement until his reason is restored.” It will be noted that the petitioner obtained a judicial hearing as to sanity only because the warden instituted proceedings after determining that there was “good reason to believe” that the petitioner was insane. Thus, the opportunity for a person under sentence of death to have a hearing before judge and jury on the question of his sanity depends in the first instance solely on the warden.
After adjudication of insanity the petitioner was taken to a state hospital for the insane in compliance with the trial court’s order of commitment. In accordance with § 3704 the warden then suspended the death sentence and delivered certified copies of the court’s order to the governor and to the medical superintendent of the state hospital to which petitioner was sent. As § 3704 provides, the superintendent was directed that when petitioner “recovers his reason,” the superintendent “must certify that fact” to the governor, who is then required to issue to the warden his warrant appointing a day for the execution of the judgment. The warden then returns the defendant to the state prison pending the execution of the judgment. This course was followed with reference to the petitioner. Eighteen days after his admission to the state hospital the medical superintendent certified to the governor that the petitioner was then sane. He was returned to the custody of the prison warden, and the governor set a new date for his execution.
The medical superintendent’s determination of petitioner’s sanity was based on his own ex 'parte investigation, no notice or hearings having been afforded petitioner or any person on his behalf. It is thus clear that the California statutory scheme here challenged provides neither an administrative nor a judicial hearing as a prerequisite to a determination that a condemned defendant judicially adjudicated to be insane has been restored to sanity; one man in an ex parte investigation decides the question upon which hangs the defendant’s life, in the absence of a later request by the prison warden for a judicial hearing on the ground that there is then “reason to believe” the defendant has become insane.
The holding of the State Supreme Court in the habeas corpus proceeding was:
“There is no authority ... for the proposition that defendant has a right to habeas corpus or other judicial proceeding to determine the question of his sanity after his release from the state hospital. In fact, section 3700 of the Penal Code expressly prohibits such a proceeding. Once the superintendent certifies that defendant is sane, he is remanded to the custody of the warden for execution and ‘No judge, court or other officer other than the Governor’ can then suspend the execution of the judgment, ‘except the warden of the State Prison to whom he is delivered. . . .’ ” In re Phyle, 30 Cal. 2d at 842-843, 186 P. 2d at 137.
For the statements in its opinion that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment conferred no right on a condemned defendant to any kind of judicial adjudication or review on the question of sanity, the State Supreme Court primarily relied on Nobles v. Georgia, 168 U. S. 398. We do not think that either the actual holding or what was said in the opinion in that case would necessarily require a rejection of the contentions made here against the California procedures.
The Georgia law under scrutiny in the Nobles case provided that the sanity of a person previously condemned to death should be determined by a tribunal formed in the following manner: “The sheriff of the county, with the concurrence and assistance of the Ordinary thereof, [emphasis added] shall summon a jury of twelve men to inquire into such insanity . . . .” If this tribunal found insanity the sheriff was required to suspend execution of sentence and report his actioñ to the presiding judge. Restoration of sanity so as to justify execution was to be determined by the presiding judge “by inquisition or otherwise.” Thus “the only question” in the Nobles case, as the Court there said, was “whether ... in order to constitute due process of law” the question of insanity of a condemned defendant must “be tried by a jury in a judicial proceeding surrounded by all the safeguards and requirements of a common law jury trial, and even although by the state law full and adequate administrative and quasi judicial process is created for the purpose of investigating the suggestion.” P. 405. This agency for a hearing to inquire into the prisoner’s sanity, composed as it was of sheriff, county judge and jury, was referred to as an “apt and special tribunal.” There is provision in the California statutes for a hearing before a judge and jury when, but only when, the warden is of opinion that there “is reason to believe” a defendant is insane.
The Nobles case does stand for the proposition that a condemned defendant has no “absolute right” to a hearing on the question of his sanity on his mere “suggestion.” Such an absolute right, this Court thought, would make the punishment of a defendant “depend solely upon his fecundity in making suggestion after suggestion of insanity, to be followed by trial upon trial.” P. 406. For this reason, the Court in the Nobles opinion cited and quoted from legal commentators and from judicial opinions which emphasized, as the opinion in the Nobles case itself emphasized, the importance of leaving to the “discretion of a judge” the most appropriate procedure for determining the sanity of a defendant already sentenced to death. It was in this connection that the Court made the statement in the Nobles case upon which the California Supreme Court particularly relied, that “the manner in which such question should be determined was purely a matter of legislative regulation.”
Reading this statement in its,context and in relation to the Georgia procedure, we do not understand that the Court in the Nobles case passed upon the question here urged: whether a state which bars the execution of insane persons can submit to a single individual this question, crucial to life, to be decided by that individual ex parte, with or without notice and hearings as the individual may choose, and without any judicial supervision, control or review whatever. The Nobles case we do understand to be an authority for the principle that a condemned defendant cannot automatically block execution by suggestions of insanity, and that a state tribunal, particularly a judge, must be left free to exercise a reasonable discretion in determining whether the facts warrant a full inquiry and hearing upon the sanity of a person sentenced to death.
What has been said previously indicates the gravity of the questions here raised under the due process clause as heretofore construed by this Court, both the contention that execution of an insane man is offensive to the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46; Carter v. Illinois, 329 U. S. 173, and the different contention that life shall not be taken by a state as the result of the unreviewable ex parte determination of a crucial fact made by a single executive officer. See Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276. It is not appropriate for us to pass on such constitutional questions in this habeas corpus case if, as the California attorney general contends, there is a state remedy by mandamus available to petitioner under which he can invoke judicial action to compel the warden to initiate judicial proceedings, and in which mandamus proceedings the court will hear and consider evidence to determine whether there is “reason to believe” that the petitioner is insane. New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson, Warden, 318 U. S. 688; Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U. S. 211; Carter v. Illinois, 329 U. S. 173. See also Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. 427, 437.
The State Supreme Court in denying habeas corpus said that the state statutes made “no provision for a judicial determination of the question of the sanity of a defendant delivered to the warden of a state prison for execution except as set forth in” § 3701. That is the section which requires a judicial inquiry with a court and jury only when and if the warden certifies that “there is good reason to believe” that a person sentenced to death has “become insane.” But it does not necessarily follow from the fact that petitioner cannot obtain a full-fledged judicial hearing as to sanity on his own motion made directly to a state court that he is without some other adequate state remedy. And the state attorney general asserts here that the petitioner does have an “ample remedy, if the facts support him, by application to the California courts for a writ of mandamus” to compel the warden to institute proceedings under § 3701.
Thus we have an unequivocal declaration by the state attorney general that petitioner has not attempted to take advantage of an available state remedy. The attorney general is the highest non-judicial legal officer of California, and is particularly charged with the duty of supervising administration of the criminal laws. His statement on this question is entitled to great weight in the absence of controlling state statutes and court decisions. Nor is there anything in the State Supreme Court’s opinion in this case that need be considered in conflict with the attorney general’s opinion. While that court held that there was no statutory provision for petitioner to obtain a sanity hearing except through action by the warden as prescribed in § 3701, it did not hold or even consider whether there was judicial power under state law to compel the warden to do his duty under § 3701. It did declare, clearly and emphatically, that the statute imposed a mandatory obligation on the warden to initiate judicial proceedings if there was good reason to believe a condemned defendant insane, an obligation that continued to rest upon the warden even after certification of restoration to sanity by the medical superintendent. The Supreme Court also declared that this duty would continue up to the very time of execution. Failure of the warden to perform this obligation, so the court said, would be a “violation of . . . section 1367,” which section prohibits execution of an insane man. In view of this mandatory obligation upon the warden to initiate proceedings if “there is good reason to believe” a defendant sentenced to death is insane, it would be somewhat anomalous, to say the least, if California courts were wholly without power to correct an executive agent’s abuse of authority in a matter of such great significance as the execution of insane persons.
The jurisdiction of California courts to issue mandamus has its source in Art. VI, §§ 4, 4b, 5 of the state constitution. The writ can issue to any inferior tribunal or person to compel an act which the law specifically enjoins. Code of Civil Procedure of California, § 1085. It has been held that the writ may issue against the secretary of state, Hutchinson v. Brown, 122 Cal. 189, 54 P. 738, or even against the governor. Elliott v. Pardee, Governor, 149 Cal. 516, 520, 86 P. 1087, 1089.
Petitioner contends, however, that mandamus would not be available under California law if there is another adequate remedy, see Kahn v. Smith, 23 Cal. 2d 12, 142 P. 2d 13, that here habeas corpus is available, and hence mandamus is not. This contention is fully answered by the State Supreme Court’s opinion in this case, holding that neither habeas corpus nor any other remedy is available to test sanity of a condemned defendant, except that remedy under § 3701 which only the warden can institute. Hence, so far as it here appears, mandamus to compel action by the warden is the only available remedy.
Petitioner contends that this remedy is inadequate because under California law no relief could be hoped for in a mandamus proceeding without a showing that the warden’s non-action was arbitrary and capricious. We cannot know, of course, just what precise standards the State Supreme Court may hold must be met by petitioner in order to obtain the judicial inquiry provided in § 3701. We are persuaded by the attorney general’s statements and brief, and by the state constitution, state statutes, and state decisions to which he referred, that mandamus is probably available, and that in a mandamus proceeding some issues of fact concerning petitioner’s sanity can be drawn by the parties, resolved by the courts, and provide support for relief. Different language has been used in different opinions concerning the conditions upon which the writ will issue in California. Although it has been said that generally the writ will issue only to correct an abuse of discretion, Bank of Italy v. Johnson, 200 Cal. 1, 31-33, 251 P. 784, 795-796 and cases cited, it has also been pointed out that in some circumstances writs can issue to compel action in a particular way. Wood v. Strother, 76 Cal. 545, 549, 18 P. 766, 769; Landsborough v. Kelly, 1 Cal. 2d 739, 744, 37 P. 2d 93, 95.
In considering what the issues may be in a mandamus proceeding, it must be borne in mind that the warden is under a mandatory duty to initiate judicial proceedings, not when a defendant is insane, but when “there is good reason to believe” he is insane. We cannot say at this time that California’s remedy by mandamus will be less than a substantial equivalent of one which authorized him to apply directly to a court for a full hearing. For this Court held in Nobles v. Georgia, supra, that in the absence of sufficient reasons for holding a full hearing into the sanity of a defendant sentenced to death, a state judge may deny such a hearing consistently with due process. As previously pointed out, the decision in the Nobles case emphasized that due process of law had never necessarily envisioned a full court hearing every time the insanity of a condemned defendant was suggested. Applications for inquiries into sanity made by a defendant sentenced to death, unsupported by facts, and buttressed by no good reasons for believing that the defendant has lost his sanity, cannot, with any appropriate regard for society and for the judicial process, call for the delays in execution incident to full judicial inquiry. And a court can just as satisfactorily determine by mandamus as by direct application whether there are good reasons to have a full-fledged judicial inquiry into a defendant’s sanity.
In this situation we find no federal constitutional question presented which is ripe for decision here. So here, as in Woods v. Nierstheimer, supra, being unable to say that the judgment denying habeas corpus may not rest on an adequate non-federal ground, the writ of certio-rari is
Dismissed.
The opinion of the State Supreme Court affirming petitioner’s sentence shows: Upon arraignment in the Superior Court counsel was appointed for petitioner at his request. His pleas were “Not guilty” and “Not guilty by reason of insanity.” Later petitioner informed his counsel that he wished to withdraw these pleas and enter a plea of guilty. The trial judge then examined petitioner at length, satisfied himself that the change of plea was voluntarily entered by petitioner with full knowledge of his legal rights, and then accepted it. Evidence was then taken by the court to determine the degree of the murder and to fix the punishment. Two physicians appointed by the court testified that in their judgment petitioner was sane. Other witnesses testified to the facts of the crime. The murder was committed by petitioner while he was in the act of perpetrating a robbery. During the entire proceedings, so the State Supreme Court found from the record, the appointed counsel participated and represented petitioner “with fidelity and proficiency.” People v. Phyle, 28 Cal. 2d 671, 171 P. 2d 428.
“3701. Insanity of defendant, how determined. If, after his delivery to the warden for execution, there is good reason to believe that a defendant, under judgment of death, has become insane, the warden must call such fact to the attention of the district attorney of the county in which the prison is situated, whose duty it is to immediately file in the superior court of such county a petition, stating the conviction and judgment, and the fact that the defendant is believed to be insane, and asking that the question of his sanity be inquired into. Thereupon the court must at once cause to be summoned and impaneled, from the regular jury list of the county, a jury of twelve persons to hear such inquiry.”
“3702. Duty of district attorney upon hearing. The district attorney must attend the hearing, and may produce witnesses before the jury, for which purpose he may issue process in the same manner as for witnesses to attend before the grand jury, and disobedience thereto may be punished in like manner as disobedience to process issued by the court.”
“3703. Convict found insane. The verdict of the jury must be entered upon the minutes, and thereupon the court must make and cause to be entered an order reciting the fact of such inquiry and the result thereof, and when it is found that the defendant is insane, the order must direct that he be taken to a State hospital for the insane, and there kept in safe confinement until his reason is restored.”
“3704. Convict found sane: Duties of warden. If it is found that the defendant is sane, the warden must proceed to execute the judgment as specified in the warrant; if it is found that the defendant is insane, the warden must suspend the execution and transmit a certified copy of the order mentioned in the last section to the Governor and deliver the defendant, together with a certified copy of such order, to the medical superintendent of the hospital named in such order. When the defendant recovers his reason, the superintendent of such hospital must certify that fact to the Governor, who must thereupon issue to the warden his warrant appointing a day for the execution of the judgment, and the warden shall thereupon return the defendant to the State prison pending the execution of the judgment.”
“3700. Governor may suspend. No judge, court, or officer, other than the governor, can suspend the execution of a judgment of death, except the warden of the State prison to whom he is delivered for execution, as provided in the six succeeding sections, unless an appeal is taken.
See cases collected in 49 A. L. R. 804, et seq.
See also Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369-370; Regal Drug Corp. v. Wardell, 260 U. S. 386, 392; Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U. S. 304, 322; Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 123-124; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 176; St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 38, 49-54, and concurring opinion, Brandeis, J., at 76-78. Cf. United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 263; Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. 427, 436.
California Government Code §§ 12510-12512, 12519, 12550-12553.
See Union Ins. Co. v. Hoge, 21 How. 35, 66; Fox v. Standard Oil Co., 294 U. S. 87, 96; Driscoll v. Edison Co., 307 U. S. 104, 115.
See Edison Co. v. Labor Board, 305 U. S. 197, 234; Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator, 312 U. S. 126, 152-153.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner Kennedy seeks leave to proceed informa pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Kennedy is allowed until February 1, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk of the Gourt not to accept any further petitions for certiorari nor petitions for extraordinary writs from Kennedy in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Kennedy has abused this Court’s certiorari and extraordinary writ processes. In October 1998, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Kennedy informa pauperis status. See In re Kennedy, post, p. 807. At that time, Kennedy had filed four petitions for extraordinary writs and six petitions for certio-rari, all of which were both patently frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. The instant petition for an extraordinary writ thus constitutes Kennedy’s 12th frivolous filing with this Court.
We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Kennedy’s abuse of the writ of certiorari and of the extraordinary writ has been in noncriminal eases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Kennedy from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order, however, will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process.
It is so 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 Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On July 23, 1954, an information was filed -in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania charging appellee with a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 214 (originally § 1 of the Act of December 11, 1926, 44 Stat. 918). That statute provides:
“Whoever pays or offers or promises any money or thing of value, to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office or place under the United States for any person, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
The information alleged that appellee had offered S. Walter Stauffer, a member of Congress from Pennsylvania, to contribute $1,000 a year to the Republican Party in consideration of Stauffer’s use of influence to procure for appellee the postmastership of York, Pennsylvania. The District Court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States. 168 F. Supp. 382. The Government appealed directly to this Court, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 358 U.. S. 806, to determine whether the allegations of the information constituted a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 214.
We turn first to the language of the statute. There are alternative constructions of its language. One sensible reading is to say that even though the Republican Party was to be the ultimate recipient of the money, this was a promise to Stauffer of money (which it plainly was) in consideration of his use of influence. Since Stauffer is a “person,” the statute covers the alleged offense. It may be urged that although a promise was made to
Stauffer it was not a promise of money to him. Since the word “to” immediately follows the words “money or thing of value” and not the word “promises,” it is possible to read the statute as requiring that the recipient of the money or thing of value be the “person, firm, or corporation”, which the statute describes. But either construction of the statute covers the classic three-party case: e. g., A tells X he will give $1,000 to Y if X will use influence to get him a job. . Under the first construction this is a promise of $1,000 to X in consideration of the use of influence. Under the second construction this is a promise ,to give money to Y in consideration of a promise to use influence; a standard third-party beneficiary situation. The only difficulty with this second construction in the context of this ease is the necessity of finding that the Republican Party is a “person, firm, or corporation,” as those .words are used in the statute. The Republican Party is not a legal entity. It is an amorphous group of individuals that acts and only can 'act through persons. Its funds are received and managed by persons. Certainly the word “person” in the statute is broad enough to include the Republican Party, and since the content and manifest purpose of the statute confirm, as we shall see, such a construction, it would unjustifiably contract the law to withdraw gifts to the Republican Party from its scope. Thus, no matter how the statute is read, one thing is clear — its terms cover this case. Shirey’s endeavor to purchase himself a postmastership as alleged has been interdicted by the Congress. Awkwardness is not ambiguity, nor do defined multiple meanings, each of which is satisfied by the allegations of the information, constitute a want of definiteness.
Not only does the compulsion of language within the statutory , framework seem clear, but the purpose and history of the enactment powerfully reaffirm the meaning yielded by its language. The bill was first introduced in Congress with a Committee Report which stated:
“This bill seeks to punish the purchase and sale of public offices. Certain Members of Congress have brought to the attention of the House both by speeches on the floor and statements before the Judiciary Committee a grave situation, disclosing corruption in connection with postal appointments in Mississippi and South Carolina. It is believed that this bill will prevent corrupt practices in connection with patronage appointments in thé future.” H. R. Rep. No. 1366, 69th Cong., 1st Sess.
The information in this case deals, with the very kind of situation that gave rise to the pro vision, under scrutiny. In the years preceding the enactment of this legislation members of Congress referred to contributions to party treasuries and to campaign funds, as well as direct payments to those in charge of patronage, as among the corrupt methods of obtaining postmasterships. See, e. g., 65 Cong. Rec. 1*408-1413. These revelations on the floor of the Congress, as disclosed by the authoritative history of enactment, indicate the aim of Congress to proscribe payments to political. parties in return for influence. Indeed this form of payment was a major concern of Congress. Certainly we. cannot infer that Congress expressed this concern in self-defeating terms.
Statutes, including penal enactments, are not inert exercises in literary composition. They are instruments of government, and in construing them “the general purpose is a more important aid to the meaning than any rule which grammar or formal logic may lay down.” United States v. Whitridge, 197 U. S. 135, 143. This is so because the purpose of an enactment is embedded in its words even though it is not always pedantically expressed in words. See United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U. S. 396, 399. Statutory meaning, it is to be remembered, is more to be felt than demonstrated, see United States v. Johnson, 221 U. S. 488, 496, or, as Judge Learned Hand has put it, the art of interpretation is “the art of proliferating a purpose.” Brooklyn Nat. Corp. v. Comm’r, 157 F. 2d 450, 451. In ascertaining this purpose it is important to remember that no matter how elastic is the use to which the term scientific may be put, it cannot be used to describe the legislative process. That is a crude but practical process of the adaptation by the ordinary citizen of means to an end, except when it concerns technical problems beyond the ken of the average man.
Applying these generalities to the immediate occasion, it is clear that the terms, the history, and the manifest purpose of 18 U. S. C. § 214 coalesce in a construction of that statute which validates the information against Shirey. The evil which Congress sought to check and the mischief wrought by what it proscribed are the same when the transaction is triangular as when only two parties are involved. It is incredible to suppose that Congress meant to prohibit Shirey from giving $1,000 to Stauffer, to be passed on by the latter to the Party fund, but that Shirey was outside the congressional prohibition for securing the same influence by a promise to deposit $1,000 directly in the Party’s fund. That is not the kind of finessing by which this Court has heretofore allowed penal legislation to be construed. See, e. g., United States v. Mosley, 238 U. S. 383, and United States v. Saylor, 322 U. S. 385.
The judgment is
Reversed.
The information charges as follows:
“On or about the 5th day of December 1953, in the City of York, Middle District of Pennsylvania, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, GEORGE DONALD SHIREY, in violation of the Act of Congress, June 25, 1948, c 645, Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 694,18 U. S. C. Sec. •214, did KNOWINGLY, WILFULLY and UNLAWFULLY offer or promise to S. WALTER STAUFFER, a Member of Congress of the 19th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, to donate $1,000 a year to the Republican Party to be used as they see fit, in consideration of the use or the promise to use any influence 'to procure for him the appointive office, under thé United States, of Postmaster of York, Pennsylvania,”..
Whether the word “person” in a particular statute includes a' particular body, a corporation, or association is essentially a matter of construction of that statute, aided, where possible, by general statutory definitions. If the purpose of a statute is such as to dictate the inclusion of a particular body within its scope then the statute is. generally so interpreted: Since 18 U. S. C. § 214 was aimed at prohibiting the purchase of influence, it is difficult to conclude that Congress would prohibit payments to firms and corporations and not proscribe payments to political organizations, since the influence of political parties in securing jobs and their involvement in the patronage process is greater than that of private companies. We must be blind not to know that among the abuses which led to the legislation were gifts to political parties and campaign treasuries, etc. Although these mostly took the form of payments to local chairmen, etc., there is no reason to assume that Congress meant to proscribe the payment to the officer of the Party but if a check were made out to the Party itself, a check which could be cashed and used by the officers of the Party, it was not outlawed.
In Georgia v. Evans, 316 U. S. 159, the Court decided that § 7 of the Sherman Act allowing "any person” to bring a treble damage action, allowed the State of Georgia to bring such an action. This was in the face of an earlier case holding that the same act did not allow the United States to' sue. In reconciling the cases the Court pointed out that the scope of the word “person” depended on its “legislative environment,” and pointed to the differences in considerations which led to the exclusion of the United States and the inclusion of Georgia.
In Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 360, a statute taxed “persons” selling liquor. Person was defined to include “partnership, association, company or corporation, as well as a natural person.” The Court decided this allowed a State to be taxed, saying that the meaning of the word person “depends upon the connection in which the word is found.”
In Stanley v. Schwalby, 147 U. S. 508, the Court said that the word “person” in a Texas statute of limitations included the United States, and thus the United States could claim the benefit of the statute. The Court said that “the word ‘person’ in the statute would include them as a body politic and corporate.”
Under these principles the statutory context here clearly calls for including the Republican Party within the term “person.”
The bill was introduced by Congressman Stevenson. 67 Cong. Rec. 6419. Two years before, in describing the “corruption in connection with postal appointments in . . . South Carolina” to which the Committee Report refers, Congressman Stevenson said, in response to the' question “Where did this money finally find its home?”:
“I do not know: As I said here once before, I doubt if much of it gets to thé Republican executive committee, but I do not care where it goes. Either it goes into his pocket and the pockets of his machine or it goés into the coffers of the Republican Party. If it does, it is the most blatant defiance of the civil service law that any party has ever had the hardihood to put over, and it is as disgraceful as the Teapot Dome proposition any day.” 65 Cong. Rec. 1410.
When the bill which became § 1 of the Act of December 11, 1926 (now 18 U. S. C. § 214), was introduced in the House, it was coupled with a bill requiring the filing of an affidavit by certain officers of the United States. (This bill, with changes from its original wording, is now 5 U. S. C. § 21a.) Mr. Graham, introducing both bills, said: “They are correlative. T promised the committee and the gentlemen who are proponents of the bill that I would try to get unanimous consent to consider both bills together.” 67 Cong. Réc. 10840.
The text of this “correlative” bill was as follows:
. “Be it enacted, etc., That each individual hereafter appointed as an officer of the United States by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or by the President alone, or by a court of law, or by the head of a department, shall, within 30 days after the effective date of his appointment, file with the Comptroller General of the United States an affidavit under oath stating that neither , he nor anyone acting in his behalf has given, transferred, or paid any consideration for or in the expectation or hope of receiving assistance in securing such appointment.
“Sec. 3. When used in this Act the term ‘consideration’ includes a payment, distribution, gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money, or anything of value, or a contract, promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforceable, to make such a payment, distribution, gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit.” Ibid.
This Act has been since amended, but the portions here relevant— the last phrases - of § 1 — remain unchanged. ' This is the affidavit Shirey would have-to file were he appointed Postmaster of York. It is blear, that he could not truthfujly file such' an affidavit if the allegations of the information are true.' The fact that the sponsor of both bills expressly declared them to be correlative is persuasive evidence that an act which would make the oath impossible to take fe a violation, of § 214.
This Court reviews judgments, not arguments assailing them or seeking' to sustain them. See Williams v. United States, 168 U. S. 382, 389. The judgment which the Government brought here for review under the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907 is that “The information does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United. States.” The correctness of this judgment depends on the construction of 18 U. S. C. §214 and more particularly whether that section supports the allegations of the information. Arguments invoked by the Government do not determine the meaning of a statute nor do they define the scope of our inquiry into its meaning. If §214 brings the allegations of this information within its scope, an offense is charged and the course of the Government’s reasoning is beside the point.
It is claimed that because § 2 of the Act of December 11, 1926, 44 Stat. 918, which deals with the user of influence, is restricted in scope to the-“payee” of the money or thing'of value, a similar restriction must be read into § 1. There is not one shred of evidence in the legislative history or in the statutes themselves to indicate that the two sections are in any way to be read “in pari materia.” In fact, normal principles of statutory construction tell us that the use of the word “payee” in § 2, and its absence.in § 1, is convincing evidence that the provisions are different in scope and not congruent. A look at the other statutes in the bribery and graft section of 18 U. S. C. shows that the wording of other Acts directed to the receipt and offer of bribes, ete., is not identical in the statute directed to offer and that directed to receipt. Whether this would mean a difference in ultimate construction is not now our concern.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
These cases all involve the validity of a single order of the Interstate Commerce Commission establishing through railroad routes and prescribing joint through rates for carriage of certain goods over the routes. The Commission’s order was made after lengthy hearings upon complaint of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company. The Rio Grande’s main line runs from Ogden, Salt Lake City, and Provo, Utah, across much of Colorado to Denver, Pueblo, and Trinidad. The chief controversy involved in this case is between the Rio Grande and the Union Pacific Railroad Company. The Union Pacific lines which are relevant here run from points in Washington and Oregon through Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska, going as far east as Omaha and Kansas City. The Union Pacific and Rio Grande connect at Ogden, Salt Lake City, and Provo, Utah, and at Denver, Colorado. The connection at Ogden is known as the Ogden Gateway, meaning the gateway between the northwestern states served by the Union Pacific and states to the south and east served by the Rio Grande. The Union Pacific has used its strategic position in the northwest territory in such a way that practically all traffic between the Northwest, Denver and points east and south of Denver goes over its lines. For this reason the Northwest is often referred to as “closed door” territory. This situation caused the Rio Grande to file its complaint with the Commission. It charged that the Union Pacific had agreements with other connecting railroads named defendants under which goods could be carried to and from the Northwest at joint through rates, but that the only way the Rio Grande could carry goods to and from this area was by exacting higher “combination rates,” which are the sum of local rates. These high rates practically bar the Rio Grande as a connecting carrier for through shipments to and from the Northwest. The Rio Grande asked the Commission to order the Union Pacific to establish and maintain for the future “just, reasonable and non-discriminatory competitive joint through rates” with the Rio Grande. It charged that the Union Pacific’s failure to establish and maintain such rates violated §§ 1 (4), 3, 15 (1), and 15 (3) of the Interstate Commerce Act. Section 15 (1) authorizes the Commission to proscribe individual or joint rates or practices that are “unjust or unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory or unduly preferential or prejudicial” and to prescribe rates and practices that are “just, fair, and reasonable.” Section 15 (3) empowers the Commission to establish through routes and joint rates whenever deemed by the Commission “to be necessary or desirable in the public interest.” Section 15 (4), which is very important in this controversy, places restrictive conditions upon the Commission’s power to establish through routes under § 15 (3) when the establishment of a through route would require a railroad “without its consent, to embrace in such route substantially less than the entire length of its railroad and of any intermediate railroad operated in conjunction and under a common management or control therewith, which lies between the termini of such proposed through route . ...” This provision is generally referred to as a prohibition against making a railroad “short-haul” itself. Among other findings the Commission must make under § 15 (4) before establishing a through route which requires a railroad to short-haul itself is that the new route “is needed in order to provide adequate, and more efficient or more economic, transportation . . . .”
The Rio Grande’s petition before the Commission alleged that through routes with the Union Pacific already existed through the Ogden Gateway. It contended that they had been created and used by the Union Pacific. On this basis Rio Grande claimed that the restrictive conditions of § 15 (4) did not apply and that the Commission need not concern itself with those conditions but should proceed to establish reasonable joint rates under § 15 (3). After hearing much evidence the Commission rejected this contention and found that the through routes claimed by Rio Grande did not exist. The Commission went on to find, however, that through routes should be established with reference to certain commodities such as fruits, perishable foods, and livestock in a limited geographical area. The Commission found in accordance with § 15 (4) that these new routes were needed “to provide adequate and more economic transportation . . . It also found as required by § 15 (3) that through routes and joint rates for the specified commodities were “necessary and desirable in the public interest." 287 I. C. C. 611, 659.
On the basis of its findings the Commission ordered the Union Pacific to establish through routes for the specified commodities and to establish joint rates the same as applied on its own and other connecting lines. The Union Pacific considered itself aggrieved because the order required establishment of some through routes and joint rates. The Rio Grande considered itself aggrieved both because of the geographical limitations of the Commission’s order and because joint rates were not established for all commodities. The Union Pacific challenged the ICC order in a three-judge United States District Court in Nebraska and the Rio Grande challenged it in a three-judge United States District Court in Colorado. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1336, 2284, 2321-2325. The Colorado court upset the order on a single ground. It held that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding that through routes were not in existence. Had the Commission found there were established through routes, the Colorado court reasoned, much broader relief for the Rio Grande might have been ordered, since the restrictions of § 15 (4) would not have been applicable. Consequently the Colorado court remanded the case to the Commission for further consideration. 131 F. Supp. 372. The Nebraska court accepted the Commission’s finding that no through routes were in existence. It then held that there was evidence before the Commission sufficient to support the finding under § 15 (4) that through routes were needed “in order to provide adequate and more economic transportation" for specified commodities shipped from the Northwest to initial destination points on the Rio Grande for “in-transit privileges incident to reshipment to points east of Denver . . ." 132 F. Supp. 72, 82. The Nebraska court declined, however, to sustain the Commission’s action with reference to shipments not requiring such transit services. Both District Court decrees are now before us on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1253 and 2101 (b). They were consolidated for oral argument and we treat them together here. It is convenient to take up first the Colorado court’s holding.
In considering the question of through routes under § 15 (4) we begin with our recent holdings and opinions in Thompson v. United States, 343 U. S. 549; United States v. Great Northern R. Co., 343 U. S. 562. We there emphasized the purpose of § 15 (4) to bar the Commission from compelling railroads to establish through routes resulting in trunkline “short-hauls” without faithful observance of restrictive conditions imposed by that section. At the same time we recognized that Commission action is not necessary to the creation of through routes. We pointed out that a through route is ordinarily a voluntary arrangement, express or implied, between connecting carriers, and that the existence of such an arrangement depends on the circumstances of particular cases. We said in Thompson v. United States, supra, at 557, that “In short, the test of the existence of a 'through route’ is whether the participating carriers hold themselves out as offering through transportation service.” Findings of through routes can therefore be made on the basis of express agreements between carriers or on the basis of inferences drawn from continuous practices sufficient to show that through routes exist even though not provided for in formal contracts or tariffs. The question in each case is one of fact. Cf. Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 I. C. C. 163, 166-167. The Colorado court viewed the evidence here as showing beyond dispute the existence of through routes both by formal tariffs and by long railroad practices. Whether the evidence could have justified the Commission in finding the existence of through routes we need not determine. We are satisfied, however, that the evidence before the Commission did not compel it to make such a finding and that its conclusion that the through routes claimed were not in existence is supported by substantial evidence.
There was evidence that as early as 1897 the Union Pacific and lines it controlled did establish through routes to and from points in the “closed” northwest territory through the Ogden Gateway, and did establish joint through rates with the Rio Grande on the same basis as the joint through rates on Union Pacific’s own lines. But these joint rates were canceled by Union Pacific in amended tariffs published between 1906 and 1912. Apparently there was no language in the published amended tariffs expressly and formally declaring that the through routes by way of the Ogden Gateway were also to be deemed closed. The amended tariffs, however, resulted in very high combination rates for northwest traffic transported by the Rio Grande. The effect of these high rates has been greatly to handicap if not actually to close the Rio Grande as an artery for through traffic between the Northwest, Denver and points south and east. Of course the effect of such rates might not be enough standing alone to show a voluntary abandonment of the through routes. See Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 658, 666; Thompson v. United States, supra, at 556-558. At the same time it cannot be said that the Union Pacific’s failure formally to declare the through routes abandoned in 1906 (when it canceled joint rates) automatically left the through routes in existence for § 15 (4) purposes in 1949 when this litigation started. Cancellation of the rates in 1906 without formal cancellation of the routes is only a circumstance to be considered along with other circumstances in determining whether through routes now exist. The Colorado court relied on railroad practices as other circumstances which, considered with the failure expressly to abandon through routes, were sufficient to compel the Commission to hold that through routes did exist. We turn to that.
At best for the Rio Grande the evidence of railroad practices with reference to the continued existence of through routes showed the following. Despite the high combination rates a small number of shipments continue to trickle through the Ogden Gateway to and from the closed northwest territory. In 1948, which the Commission considered a representative year, a number of carload shipments moved on through bills of lading along the alleged through routes. But none of them coming from the Northwest went further than points on the Rio Grande in Colorado also served by the Union Pacific and connecting lines. There were a few shipments of various commodities from east and south of Denver which went by way of the Rio Grande through the Ogden Gateway. The total shipments over the alleged through routes, however, were no more than a fractional part of one percent of the traffic carried to and from the Northwest by way of the Union Pacific routes. It is also undisputed that through routes and joint rates exist for eastbound shipments of sheep and goats. During World War II some Army troop and supply trains moved over the Rio Grande on through bills of lading. In addition to the foregoing some traffic moved over the Rio Grande in 1949 when snow storms blocked the Union Pacific route through Wyoming. These movements were made under service orders of the Commission, which did not exercise its authority under § 15 (4) to establish emergency through routes.
The Union Pacific produced evidence tending to show that there were no through routes. It quite plainly appears from the record that there has been a long-standing struggle between the Union Pacific and the Rio Grande over the efforts of the Union Pacific to keep the Ogden Gateway closed. We think the record supports the finding of the Commission that:
“There is no indication that any of the defendants has ever solicited any traffic from and to the areas here concerned for routing over a Rio Grande route by which a higher combination rate applied, or has ever used such a Rio Grande route except where called upon to do so by routing specified by the shipper or by a prior connecting carrier. In other words, so far as this record shows, 'the carriers’ course of business’ has been and is to use the Union Pacific routes except where called upon to use the Rio Grande routes by force of shippers’ or connecting carriers’ routing. The whole course of conduct of the Union Pacific, so far as revealed, has been for many years and is now to guard jealously its long haul and not open commercially the Rio Grande routes on this traffic.” 287 I. C. C., at 618.
We adhere to the “holding out” test of the Thompson case. The evidence before the Commission was not such as to compel it to find that the Union Pacific held itself out as offering through service over the Rio Grande lines. It was error for the Colorado District Court to set aside the Commission’s finding and to remand the case to the Commission. This brings us to a consideration of the Nebraska District Court’s action.
The Commission required the Union Pacific to establish through routes and joint rates with the Rio Grande for the carriage of certain commodities including livestock, fresh fruits and vegetables, frozen foods, butter, and eggs. The order rested on the Commission’s conclusion that such through routes and joint rates were “necessary and desirable in the public interest, in order to provide adequate and more economic transportation . . . .” 287 I. C. C., at 659. This conclusion was based on findings from a vast amount of evidence both oral and written. The pertinent language of § 15 (4) allows the Commission to establish through routes where “needed in order to provide adequate, and more efficient or more economic, transportation.” The dispute in the Nebraska court and here relates principally to the adequacy of the existing transportation services. The efficiency of Union Pacific services was established beyond dispute.
Section 15 (4) empowers the Commission to consider the interests of shippers and the kind of services they get and need as well as the interests of carriers in determining whether additional routes should be established to provide “adequate” and “more economic” transportation service. We have held that in determining this question the Commission should look beyond the mere adequacy of the carrier’s physical operations “to the broader public interest which embraces service to shippers and the rates they pay.” Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, 323 U. S. 588, 591-593. The duty of the Commission, as we there stated, is to try to strike a fair balance in satisfying the needs of shippers, railroads, and the public. This of course calls for the Commission to exercise its informed judgment, having in mind its statutory obligation to develop, coordinate and preserve an adequate national transportation system. This it did. Relying on our interpretation of § 15 (4) in the Pennsylvania Railroad case, the Commission considered the various interests here. It found that: “Because of their generally perishable nature, food articles . . . must be moved to market with expedition and care, and over as many routes as possible. This requires that many routes be open in order that unnecessary interruptions of the free flow of such commodities may be avoided and that as much flexibility as possible in the distribution process be permitted. A number of services, not only at origin and destination, but en route, which are not usually required in the movement of ordinary traffic, must be provided for these perishable and semiperishable commodities.” 287 I. C. C., at 656. There are facilities along the Rio Grande route for feeding and grazing livestock in transit, and for partial unloading, storing or processing other shipments in transit. As a result shippers in the northwest territory were found to be “debarred from effective participation in the widespread system developed for the marketing of such commodities” and processors, shippers and dealers along the Rio Grande were found to be at a disadvantage in competing with those on the Union Pacific. For the specified commodities the Commission found the Union Pacific routes to be “inadequate and less economical than are the Rio Grande routes.” The Nebraska District Court sustained the Commission’s order with reference to shipments which required transit services on the Rio Grande. We agree with this portion of the holding. We cannot say that the Commission acted in excess of its authority in concluding, on the mass of evidence before it, that through routes and joint rates on the specified commodities were needed to provide adequate and more economic transportation and were necessary in the public interest.
But the scope of the Commission’s order was cut down by the Nebraska court insofar as it established through routes and joint rates on shipments that did not require transit services such as we have mentioned. We disagree with the Nebraska District Court in this respect. The evidence showed and the Commission found that in marketing food and other perishable products it is a general practice among railroads to allow diversion of carloads in transit as markets are found and sales are made. The successful operation of this practice requires the existence of joint through rates to the final market, since diversion or reconsignment would often, as a practical matter, be unavailable to a shipper who is compelled to reconsign his goods at high combination rates. The Commission found that “If a shipment reaches a point through which a combination of rates applies and the sale is lost, it is frequently necessary to dispose of the shipment at that point at a forced or distress price. Such points are called closed or pocket markets.” 287 I. C. C., at 642. To illustrate its conclusion that combination rates result in inadequate transportation service in situations where shippers are compelled to reconsign, the Commission noted that: “Idaho producers are in competition with shippers in other producing areas and find it difficult to compete on shipments routed over the Rio Grande via Ogden or Salt Lake City. One Idaho shipper has made few sales of potatoes in the Southwest in the last several years because of pocket markets there.” 287 I. C. C., at 643. Pocket markets, of course, exist because reconsignment is possible only at high combination rates. We see no reason why a shipper’s privilege to have his goods reconsigned at joint rates should not be considered on the same basis as transit services in determining the adequacy and economy of existing transportation. We think it was error for the Nebraska court to narrow the scope of the Commission’s order by excluding shipments of commodities which so urgently need the advantage of reconsignment privileges at joint rates.
Many other arguments are made against the Commission’s order. It is pointed out, for example, that the Rio Grande road has more curves than the Union Pacific. Its grades are steeper. Consequently its traffic is sometimes slower. It is contended that the evidence as a whole is insufficient to justify the holding that the establishment of through routes will be of such great advantage to shippers and the public that the Union Pacific should be compelled to short-haul itself. We are not unmindful of the force of the arguments made by the Union Pacific and by those who have intervened on its side. It is entirely possible that the Commission could have made findings contrary to those it did make. But on the whole we are unable to say that the Commission did not strike a fair balance in finding that the evidence required the establishment of these through routes and joint rates. After consideration of all the contentions made, we hold that the Nebraska court should have sustained the Commission’s order in full. Since the Commission’s order is justified under §§ 15 (1), 15 (3) and 15 (4) we have no occasion to consider contentions raised under §§ 3 (1) and 3 (4).
The judgment of the District Court of Colorado is reversed with directions to dismiss the bill. The judgment of the Nebraska District Court is affirmed insofar as it affirmed the order of the Commission, and is reversed insofar as the court refused to enforce the Commission’s order.
It is so ordered.
24 Stat. 379, 380, 384, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §§ 1 (4), 3, 15 (1), 15 (3). Section 1 (4) makes it the duty of common carriers “to establish reasonable through routes with other such carriers, and just and reasonable rates . . . .” And § 3 (4) enjoins carriers to “afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic” without discrimination or undue prejudice.
24 Stat. 384, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 15 (4).
Five Commissioners thought that through routes were in existence; five were of the opinion that they were not. Under ICC practice this meant that the Rio Grande had failed to prove its allegation that through routes existed.
The Commission ordered the railroads:
“to maintain through routes, via Ogden or Salt Lake City, Utah, in connection with the line of the complainant, for the interstate transportation, in carloads, of granite and marble monuments from origins in Vermont- and Georgia to destinations in the excluded territory in the northwest area, as described in the report, and of ordinary livestock, fresh fruits and vegetables, dried beans, frozen poultry, frozen foods, butter, and eggs, in carloads, from origins in the described excluded territory to destinations in the United States south and east of a line drawn along the southern boundary of Kansas, thence the eastern boundary of Kansas to but not including Kansas City, thence immediately west of points on the Missouri River from Kansas City, Kans., to Omaha, Nebr., thence immediately north of points on the lines of the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Chicago and North Western Railway Company from Omaha to Chicago, 111., including destinations in the lower peninsula of Michigan and in Oklahoma and Texas; and to apply on such traffic, over such through routes, joint rates the same as those maintained and applied on like traffic from and to the same points over routes embracing the lines of the Union Pacific Railroad Company through Wyoming.”
54 Stat. 899. See also New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184; United States v. Great Northern R. Co., 343 U. S. 562, 575-576.
Because of the inability of most granite and marble monument retailers to purchase entire carload lots the Commission found “an urgent need for the establishment of joint through rates on this traffic to destinations in the excluded territory with stop-oif privileges at intermediate points on the Rio Grande.” 287 I. C. C., at 638.
In reaching our conclusion we have not overlooked attacks on the breadth of the order with respect to marble, granite, and livestock shipments, nor challenges to that part of the order correcting discrimination in favor of the Bamberger Railroad.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
announced the entry of the following order and decree:
Since our opinion which was announced in this case June 23, 1947, two stipulations have been filed in this Court, signed by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Interior of the United States on the one hand and by the Attorney General of the State of California on the other hand. In these stipulations the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior purport to renounce and disclaim for the United States Government paramount governmental power over certain particularly described submerged lands in the California coastal area. In such stipulations the United States Attorney General and Secretary of the Interior furthermore purport to bind the United States to agreements which purport to authorize state lessees of California coastal submerged lands to continue to occupy and exploit those lands, and which agreements also purport to authorize California under conditions set out to execute leases for other submerged coastal lands.
Robert E. Lee Jordan has filed a petition in this Court praying that he be permitted to file a motion as amicus curiae or in the alternative as an intervenor to have the foregoing stipulations and agreements set aside and declared null and void on the ground among others that the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior are without authority to bind the United States by agreements which it is alleged would if valid alienate and surrender the Government’s paramount power over the submerged lands concerning which the stipulations are made.
It is ordered that the petition of Robert E. Lee Jordan to file the motion here to declare the stipulations null and void be denied, without prejudice to the assertion of any right he may have in a proper district court.
It is further ordered that the stipulations between the United States Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior on the one hand and the Attorney General of California on the other, which stipulations purport to bind the United States, be stricken as irrelevant to any issues now before us.
And for the purpose of carrying into effect the conclusions of this Court as stated in its opinion announced June 23, 1947, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:
1. The United States of America is now, and has been at all times pertinent hereto, possessed of paramount rights in, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals and other things underlying the Pacific Ocean lying seaward of the ordinary low-water mark on the coast of California, and outside of the inland waters, extending seaward three nautical miles and bounded on the north and south, respectively, by the northern and southern boundaries of the State of California. The State of California has no title thereto or property interest therein.
2. The United States is entitled to the injunctive relief prayed for in the complaint.
3. Jurisdiction is reserved by this Court to enter such further orders and to issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed advisable or necessary to give full force and effect to this decree.
Inasmuch as the stipulations of July 26, 1947, have been stricken, Mb. Justice Frankfurter desires explicitly to note his understanding that insofar as the meaning or scope or validity of the stipulations may give rise to any legal issue, no such issue has been before the Court or has here been considered.
Mr. Justice Jackson 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.
The petitioner and one Chirichillo were convicted in a Federal District Court on all counts of a five-count indictment against them which charged violation of the Internal Revenue laws in connection with the operation of a still. The Court of Appeals reversed petitioner’s conviction on counts four and five because of insufficient evidence, but affirmed as to counts one, two, and three. 155 F. 2d 592. We granted certiorari. 329 U. S. 698. Count one charged that the defendants had carried on “the business of distiller . . . with intent wilfully to defraud the . . . United States of the tax on . . . spirits so distilled . . . .” in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 2833 (a). Count two charged them with having had possession and custody of the still in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 2810 (a). Count three charged that they had made and fermented mash for the production of alcohol in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 2834. It is argued that the evidence was insufficient to support any of the three counts here at issue. The Government concedes its insufficiency as to counts two and three.
There was testimony to show the following: Chirichillo rented a farmhouse under an assumed name and installed a 300-gallon still with all equipment necessary to ferment mash and distill alcohol. The still was operated day and night. Chirichillo himself mixed the ingredients to make the mash in the attic of the 2½-story frame building, but the alcohol distillation was carried on in another part of the building. Petitioner was at the house two or three times a week. When there he took instructions from Chirichillo and helped him in the operation of the still; he helped manufacture the alcohol. When Chirichillo carried his products to Newark, the car in which he carried the illicitly distilled alcohol would follow along behind another car—sometimes petitioner’s, sometimes another helper’s. The farmhouse where the illicit business was carried on appeared from the outside to be deserted; the windows were without shades and the house had been practically stripped of furniture.
We accept the Government’s concession that the evidence fails to show that this petitioner had made, or helped to make, the mash as charged in count three. All of the evidence showed that Chirichillo alone handled and mixed the ingredients of the mash, and there is nothing whatever to indicate that the petitioner ever took any part in, or aided and abetted, this particular part of the unlawful process in any manner, or, indeed, that he was ever in or around the attic where the mash was made from ingredients stored there. The Internal Revenue statutes have broken down the various steps and phases of a continuous illicit distilling business and made each of them a separate offense. Thus, these statutes have clearly carved out the conduct of making mash as a separate offense, thereby distinguishing it from the other offenses involving other steps and phases of the distilling business. Consequently, testimony to prove this separate offense of making mash must point directly to conduct within the narrow margins which the statute alone defines. One who neither engages in the conduct specifically prohibited, nor aids and abets it, does not violate the section which prohibits it.
The sufficiency of the evidence as to count two which charged that the petitioner had custody or possession of the still is a closer question. It might be possible that petitioner’s helping to make the alcohol aided and abetted in its “custody or possession.” But that would be a very strained inference under any circumstances. Here again the statutes treat custody or possession as a wholly distinct offense. Yet there was no testimony that the petitioner ever exercised, or aided the exercise of, any control over the distillery. His participation in carrying the finished product by car does not fit the category of “custody and possession” so nearly as it resembles the transportation of illegal liquor, 26 U. S. C. § 2803—an offense which the Circuit Court of Appeals has found the evidence insufficient to prove. Nor was there any testimony that the petitioner acted in any other capacity calculated to facilitate the custody or possession, such as, for illustration, service as a caretaker, watchman, lookout, or in some other similar capacity. Under these circumstances, we accept the Government’s concession that a judgment of guilty should not have been rendered on the second count.
We think there was adequate evidence to support a finding of guilt on the first count which charged operation of the business of distilling to defraud the Government of taxes. There was certainly ample evidence to show that Chirichillo carried on the business of a distiller and that the petitioner helped him to do it. 18 U. S. C. § 550 provides that one who aids and abets another to commit a crime is guilty as a principal. Consequently, the jury had a right to find, as it did, that the petitioner and Chirichillo were equally guilty of operating the business of the distillery. See United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 503, 515, 518.
But, it is argued, there was no evidence that the petitioner acted with knowledge that the distillery business was carried on with an intent to defraud the Government of its taxes. The same evidence as to knowledge of this guilty purpose, however, that applied to Chirichillo was almost, if not quite, equally persuasive against both defendants. Petitioner assisted in the manufacture of alcohol in Chirichillo’s still which was operated under conditions of secretiveness in an apparently abandoned farmhouse. The finished alcohol was carried to Newark in a car which followed another car, sometimes the petitioner’s. The members of the jury could properly draw on their own experience and observations that lawful stills, unlike the still in which petitioner worked, usually are not operated clandestinely and do not deliver their products in the fashion employed here. The members of the jury were not precluded from drawing inferences as to fraudulent purposes from these circumstances, nor were they compelled to believe that this petitioner was oblivious of the purposes of what went on around him. Men in the jury box, like men on the street, can conclude that a person who actively helps to operate a secret distillery knows that he is helping to violate Government revenue laws. That is a well known object of an illicit distillery. Doubtless few who ever worked in such a place, or even heard about one, would fail to understand the cry: “The Revenuers are coming!” We hold that the verdict of guilty on the first count must stand.
The only statute for violation of which petitioner’s conviction is sustained by us carries a minimum mandatory sentence of fine of one hundred dollars and imprisonment, 26 U. S. C. § 2833 (a). In announcing sentence at a morning session, the trial judge mentioned imprisonment only. Thereafter the petitioner was taken briefly to the U. S. Marshal’s office and then to a local federal detention jail awaiting transportation to the penitentiary where he was finally to be confined. But about five hours after the sentence was announced, the judge recalled the petitioner and, according to stipulation, stated in the presence of petitioner and his counsel that “in the imposition of sentence this morning ... it has been called to my attention that there are certain mandatory fines and penalties which I omitted to impose. For the record now minimum mandatory fines and penalties will be imposed.” Thus a one hundred dollar fine was fixed, as required by law, along with the imprisonment sentence. Petitioner charges that this action constituted double jeopardy forbidden by the Federal Constitution.
It is well established that a sentence which does not comply with the letter of the criminal statute which authorizes it is so erroneous that it may be set aside on appeal, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 168-169; Murphy v. Massachusetts, 177 U. S. 155, 157, or in habeas corpus proceedings. In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242. But in those cases it was recognized that an excessive sentence should be corrected, even though the prisoner had already served part of his term, not by absolute discharge of the prisoner, but by an appropriate amendment of the invalid sentence by the court of original jurisdiction, at least during the term of court in which the invalid sentence was imposed. Cf. De Benque v. United States, 66 App. D. C. 36, 85 F. 2d 202. In the light of these cases, the fact that petitioner has been twice before the judge for sentencing and in a federal place of detention during the five-hour interim cannot be said to constitute double jeopardy as we have heretofore considered it. Petitioner contends, however, that these cases are inapplicable here because correction of this sentence so as to make it lawful increases his punishment. Cf. United States v. Benz, 282 U. S. 304, 309. If this inadvertent error cannot be corrected in the manner used here by the trial court, no valid and enforceable sentence can be imposed at all. Cf. Jordan v. United States, 60 F. 2d 4, 6, with Barrow v. United States, 54 App. D. C. 128, 295 F. 949. This Court has rejected the “doctrine that a prisoner, whose guilt is established, by a regular verdict, is to escape punishment altogether, because the court committed an error in passing the sentence.” In re Bonner, supra at 260. The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner. See King v. United States, 69 App. D. C. 10, 15, 98 F. 2d 291, 296. In this case the court “only set aside what it had no authority to do and substitute [d] directions required by the law to be done upon the conviction of the offender.” In re Bonner, supra at 260. It did not twice put petitioner in jeopardy for the same offense. The sentence, as corrected, imposes a valid punishment for an offense instead of an invalid punishment for that offense.
Other contentions here do not merit our discussion. The judgment as to count one is affirmed. The judgment is reversed as to counts two and three.
It is so ordered.
Compare Rule 45c, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
In Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, relied on by petitioner here, the defendant had been sentenced to fine and imprisonment for violation of a statute which authorized a sentence only of fine or imprisonment. Since he had paid his fine and therefore suffered punishment under a valid sentence, it was held that his sentence had been “executed by full satisfaction of one of the alternative penalties of the law ....’’ Murphy v. Massachusetts, supra at 160. Therefore, Lange’s plea, that the trial court could not correct the sentence without causing him to suffer double punishment, was sustained. Cf. In re Bradley, 318 U. S. 50. But here the petitioner had not suffered any lawful punishment until the court had announced the full mandatory sentence of imprisonment and fine.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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, except as to Part IV-C.
Ordinarily, the Government must assess a deficiency against a taxpayer within “3 years after the return was filed.” 26 U. S. C. § 6501(a) (2000 ed.). The 3-year period is extended to 6 years, however, when a taxpayer “omits from gross income an amount properly includible therein which is in excess of 25 percent of the amount of gross income stated in the return.” § 6501(e)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The question before us is whether this latter provision applies (and extends the ordinary 3-year limitations period) when the taxpayer overstates his basis in property that he has sold, thereby understating the gain that he received from its sale. Following Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner, 357 U. S. 28 (1958), we hold that the provision does not apply to an overstatement of basis. Hence the 6-year period does not apply.
I
For present purposes the relevant underlying circumstances are not in dispute. We consequently assume that (1) the respondent taxpayers filed their relevant tax returns in April 2000; (2) the returns overstated the basis of certain property that the taxpayers had sold; (3) as a result the returns understated the gross' income that the taxpayers received from the sale of the property; and (4) the understatement exceeded the statute’s 25% threshold. We also take as undisputed that the Commissioner asserted the relevant deficiency within the extended 6-year limitations period, but outside the default 3-year period. Thus, unless the 6-year statute of limitations applies, the Government’s efforts to assert a tax deficiency came too late. Our conclusion — that the extended limitations period does not apply — follows directly from this Court’s earlier decision in Colony.
II
In Colony this Court interpreted a provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the operative language of which is identical to the language now before us. The Commissioner there had determined
“that the taxpayer had understated the gross profits on the sales of certain lots of land for residential purposes as a result of having overstated the ‘basis’ of such lots by erroneously including in their cost certain unallowable items of development expense.” Id., at 30.
The Commissioner’s assessment came after the ordinary 3-year limitations period had run. And, it was consequently timely only if the taxpayer, in the words of the 1939 Code, had “omit[ted] from gross income an amount properly includible therein which is in excess of 25 per centum of the amount of gross income stated in the return . . . .” 26 U. S. C. § 275(c) (1940 ed.). The Code provision applicable to this case, adopted in 1954, contains materially indistinguishable language. See § 6501(e)(1)(A) (2000 ed.) (same, but replacing “per centum” with “percent”). See also Appendix, infra.
In Colony this Court held that taxpayer misstatements, overstating the basis in property, do not fall within the scope of the statute. But the Court recognized the Commissioner’s contrary argument for inclusion. 357 U. S., at 32. Then as now, the Code itself defined “gross income” in this context as the difference between gross revenue (often the amount the taxpayer received upon selling the property) and basis (often the amount the taxpayer paid for the property). Compare 26 U. S. C. §§22, 111 (1940 ed.) with §§ 61(a)(3), 1001(a) (2000 ed.)- And, the Commissioner pointed out, an overstatement of basis can diminish the “amount” of the gain just as leaving the item entirely off the return might do. 357 U. S., at 32. Either way, the error wrongly understates the taxpayer’s income.
But, the Court added, the Commissioner’s argument did not fully account for the provision’s language, in particular the word “omit.” The key phrase says “omits ... an amount.” The word “omits” (unlike, say, “reduces” or “understates”) means “ ‘[t]o leave out or unmentioned; not to insert, include, or name.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1939)). Thus, taken literally, “omit” limits the statute’s scope to situations in which specific receipts or accruals of income are left out of the computation of gross income; to inflate the basis, however,, is not to “omit” a specific item, not even of profit.
While finding this latter interpretation of the language the “more plausiblfe],” the Court also noted that the language was not “unambiguous.” Colony, 357 U. S., at 33. It then examined various congressional Reports discussing the relevant statutory language. It found in those Reports
“persuasive indications that Congress merely had in mind failures to report particular income receipts and accruals, and did not intend the [extended] limitation to apply whenever gross income was understated . . . .” Id., at 35.
This “history,” the Court said, “shows ... that the Congress intended an exception to the usual three-year statute of limitations only in the restricted type of situation already described,” a situation that did not include overstatements of basis. Id., at 36.
The Court wrote that Congress, in enacting the provision,
“manifested no broader purpose than to give the Commissioner an additional two [now three] years to investigate tax returns in cases where, because of a taxpayer’s omission to report some taxable item, the Commissioner is at a special disadvantage .. . [because] the return on its face provides no clue to the existence of the omitted item.... [W]hen, as here [i. e., where the overstatement of basis is at issue], the understatement of a tax arises from an error in reporting an item disclosed on the face of the return the Commissioner is at no such disadvantage . . . whether the error be one affecting ‘gross income’ or one, such as overstated deductions, affecting other parts of the return.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
Finally, the Court noted that Congress had recently enacted the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. And the Court observed that “the conclusion we reach is in harmony with the unambiguous language of § 6501(e)(1)(A),” id., at 37, i. e., the provision relevant in this present case.
III
In our view, Colony determines the outcome in this case. The provision before us is a 1954 reenactment of the 1939 provision that Colony interpreted. The operative language is identical. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to give the same language here a different interpretation without effectively overruling Colony, a course of action that basic principles of stare decisis wisely counsel us not to take. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U. S. 130, 139 (2008) (“[SJtare decisis in respect to statutory interpretation has special force, for Congress remains free to alter what we have done” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 172-173 (1989).
The Government, in an effort to convince us to interpret the operative language before us differently, points to differences in other nearby parts of the 1954 Code. It suggests that these differences counsel in favor of a different interpretation than the one adopted in Colony. For example, the Government points to a new provision, § 6501(e)(l)(A)(i), which says:
“In the case of a trade or business, the term ‘gross income’ means the total of the amounts received or accrued from the sale of goods or services (if such amounts are required to be shown on the return) prior to the diminution by the cost of such sales or services.”
If the section’s basic phrase “omi[ssion] from gross income” does not apply to overstatements of basis (which is what Colony held), then what need would there be for clause (i), which leads to the same result in a specific subset of cases?
And why, the Government adds, does a later paragraph, referring to gifts and estates, speak of a taxpayer who “omits . . . items includible in [the] gross estate”? See § 6501(e)(2) (emphasis added). By speaking of “items” there does it not imply that omission of an “amount” covers more than omission of individual items — indeed that it includes overstatements of basis, which, after all, diminish the amount of the profit that should have been reported as gross income?
In our view, these points are too fragile to bear the significant argumentative weight the Government seeks to place upon them. For example, at least one plausible reason why Congress might have added clause (i) has nothing to do with any desire to change the meaning of the general rule. Rather when Congress wrote the 1954 Code (prior to Colony), it did not yet know how the Court would interpret the provision’s operative language. At least one lower court had decided that the' provision did not apply to overstatements about the cost of goods that a business later sold. See Uptegrove Lumber Co. v. Commissioner, 204 F. 2d 570 (CA3 1953). But see Reis v. Commissioner, 142 F. 2d 900, 902-903 (CA6 1944). And Congress could well have wanted to ensure that, come what may in the Supreme Court, Upte-grove’s interpretation would remain the law where a “trade or business” was at issue.
Nor does our interpretation leave clause (i) without work to do. 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)). That provision also explains how to calculate the denominator for purposes of determining whether a conceded omission amounts to 25% of “gross income.” For example, it tells us that a merchant who fails to include $10,000 of revenue from sold goods has not met the 25% test if total revenue is more than $40,000, regardless of the cost paid by the merchant to acquire those goods. But without clause (i), the general statutory definition of “gross income” requires subtracting the cost from the sales price. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 61(a)(3), 1012. Under such a definition of “gross income,” the calculation would take (1) total revenue from sales, $40,000, minus (2) “the cost of such sales,” say, $25,000. The $10,000 of revenue would thus amount to 67% of the “gross income” of $15,000. And the clause does this work in respect to omissions from gross income irrespective of our interpretation regarding overstatements of basis.
The Government’s argument about subsection (e)(2)’s use of the word “item” instead of “amount” is yet weaker. The Court in Colony addressed a similar argument about the word “amount.” It wrote:
“The Commissioner states that the draftsman’s use of the word ‘amount’ (instead of, for example, ‘item’) suggests a concentration on the quantitative aspect of the error — that is whether or not gross income was understated by as much as 25%.” 357 U. S., at 32.
But the Court, while recognizing the Commissioner’s logic, rejected the argument (and the significance of the word “amount”) as insufficient to prove the Commissioner’s conclusion. And the addition of the word “item” in a different subsection similarly fails to exert an interpretive force sufficiently strong to affect our conclusion. The word’s appear-anee in subsection (e)(2), we concede, is new. But to rely in the case before us on this solitary word change in a different subsection is like hoping that a new batboy will change the outcome of the World Series.
IV
A
Finally, the Government points to Treasury Regulation § 301.6501(e)-l, which was promulgated in final form in December 2010. See 26 CFR §801.6501(e)-l (2011). The regulation, as relevant here, departs from Colony and interprets the operative language of the statute in the Government’s favor. The regulation says that “an understated amount of gross income resulting from an overstatement of unre-covered cost or other basis constitutes an omission from gross income.” § 301.6501(e)-l(a)(l)(iii). In the Government’s view this new regulation in effect overturns Colony’s interpretation of this statute.
The Government points out that the Treasury Regulation constitutes “an agency’s construction of a statute which it administers.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842 (1984). See also Mayo Foundation for Medical Ed. and Research v. United States, 562 U. S. 44 (2011) (applying Chevron in the tax context). The Court has written that a “court’s prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute . . ..” National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967, 982 (2005) (emphasis added). And, as the Government notes, in Colony itself the Court wrote that “it cannot be said that the language is unambiguous.” 357 U. S., at 33. Hence, the Government concludes, Colony cannot govern the outcome in this case. The question, rather, is whether the agency’s construction is a “permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron, supra, at 843. And, since the Government argues that the regulation embodies a reasonable, hence permissible, construction of the statute, the Government believes it must win.
B
We do not accept this argument. In our view, Colony has already interpreted the statute, and there is no longer any different construction that is consistent with Colony and available for adoption by the agency.
C
The fatal flaw in the Government’s contrary argument is that it overlooks the reason why Brand X held that a “prior judicial construction,” unless reflecting an “unambiguous” statute, does not trump a different agency construction of that statute. 545 U. S., at 982. The Court reveals that reason when it points out that “it is for agencies, not courts, to fill statutory gaps.” Ibid. The fact that a statute is unambiguous means that there is “no gap for the agency to fill” and thus “no room for agency discretion.” Id., at 982-983.
In so stating, the Court sought to encapsulate what earlier opinions, including Chevron, made clear. Those opinions identify the underlying interpretive problem as that of deciding whether, or when, a particular statute in effect delegates to an agency the power to fill a gap, thereby implicitly taking from a court the power to void a reasonable gap-filling interpretation. Thus, in Chevron the Court said that, when See also United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 229 (2001); Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 741 (1996); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 448 (1987); Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U. S. 199, 231 (1974).
“Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. . . . Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit. [But in either instance], a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.” 467 U. S., at 843-844.
Chevron and later cases find in unambiguous language a clear sign that Congress did not delegate gap-filling authority to an agency; and they find in ambiguous language at least a presumptive indication that Congress did delegate that gap-filling authority. Thus, in Chevron the Court wrote that a statute’s silence or ambiguity as to a particular issue means that Congress has not “directly addressed the precise question at issue” (thus likely delegating gap-filling power to the agency). 467 U. S., at 843. In Mead the Court, describing Chevron, explained:
“Congress ... may not have expressly delegated authority or responsibility to implement a particular provision or fill a particular gap. Yet it can still be apparent from the agency’s generally- conferred authority and other statutory circumstances that Congress would expect the agency to be able to speak with the force of law when it addresses ambiguity in the statute or fills a space in the enacted law, even one about which Congress did not actually have an intent as to a particular result.” 533 U. S., at 229 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Chevron added that “[i]f a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect.” 467 U. S., at 843, n. 9 (emphasis added).
As the Government points out, the Court in Colony stated that the statutory language at issue is not “unambiguous.” 357 U. S., at 33. But the Court decided that case nearly 30 years before it decided Chevron. There is no reason to believe that the linguistic ambiguity noted by Colony reflects a post-Chevron conclusion that Congress had delegated gap-filling power to the agency. At the same time, there is every reason to believe that the Court thought that Congress had “directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” and thus left “[no] gap for the agency to fill.” Chevron, supra, at 842-843. . -,
For one thing, the Court said that the taxpayer had the better side of the textual argument. Colony, 357 U. S., at 33. For another, its examination of legislative history led it to believe that Congress had decided the question definitively, leaving no room for the agency to reach a contrary result. It found in that history “persuasive indications” that Congress intended overstatements of basis to fall outside the statute’s scope, and it said that it was satisfied that Congress “intended an exception . . . only in the restricted type of situation” it had already described. Id., at 35-36. Further, it thought that the Commissioner’s interpretation (the interpretation once again advanced here) would “create a patent incongruity in the tax law.” Id., at 36-37. And it reached this conclusion despite the fact that, in the years leading up to Colony, the Commissioner had consistently advocated the opposite in the circuit courts. See, e. g., Uptegrove, 204 F. 2d 570; Reis, 142 F. 2d 900; Goodenow v. Commissioner, 238 F. 2d 20 (CA8 1956); American Liberty Oil Co. v. Commissioner, 1 T. C. 386 (1942). Cf. Staff v. Commissioner, 220 F. 2d 65 (CA9 1955); Davis v. Hightower, 230 F. 2d 549 (CA5 1956). Thus, the Court was aware it was rejecting the expert opinion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. And finally, after completing its analysis, Colony found its interpretation of the 1939 Code “in harmony with the [now] unambiguous language” of the 1954 Code, which at a minimum suggests that the Court saw nothing in the 1954 Code as inconsistent with its conclusion. 357 U. S., at 37.
It may be that judges today would use other methods to determine whether Congress left a gap to fill. But that is beside the point. The question is whether the Court in Colony concluded that the statute left such a gap. And, in our view, the opinion (written by Justice Harlan for the Court) makes clear that it did not.
Given principles of stare decisis, we roust follow that interpretation. And there being no gap to fill, the Government’s gap-filling regulation cannot change Colony’s interpretation of the statute. We agree with the taxpayers that overstatements of basis, and the resulting understatements of gross income, do not trigger the extended limitations period of § 6501(e)(1)(A). The Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion. See 634 F. 3d 249 (CA4 2011). And its judgment is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX
We reproduce the applicable sections of the two relevant versions of the U. S. Code below. Section 6501 was amended and reorganized in 2010. See Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, § 513,124 Stat. 111. But the parties agree that the amendments do not affect this case. We therefore have referred to, and reproduce here, the section as it appears in the 2000 edition of the U. S. Code.
Title 26 U. S. C. §275 (1940 ed.)
“Period of limitation upon assessment and collection,
“(a) General rule.
“The amount of income taxes imposed by this chapter shall be assessed within three years after the return was filed, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period.
“(c) Omission from gross income.
“If the taxpayer omits from gross income an amount properly includible therein which is in excess of 25 per centum of the amount of gross income stated in the return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time within 5 years after the return was filed.”
Title 26 U. S. C. §6501 (2000 ed.)
“Limitations on assessment and collection.
“(a) General rule
“Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amount of any tax imposed by this title shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed (whether or not such return was filed on or after the date prescribed) or, if the tax is payable by stamp, at any time after such tax became due and before the expiration of 3 years after the date on which any part of such tax was paid, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such tax shall be begun after the expiration of such period. . . .
“(e) Substantial omission of items
“Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c)—
“(1) Income taxes
“In the case of any tax imposed by subtitle A—
“(A) General rule
“If the taxpayer omits from gross income an amount properly includible therein which is in excess of 25 percent of the amount of gross income stated in the return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time within 6 years after the return was filed. For purposes of this subparagraph—
“(i) In the case of a trade or business, the term ‘gross income’ means the total of the amounts received or accrued from the sale of goods or services (if such amounts are required to be shown on the return) prior to diminution by the cost of such sales or services; and
“(ii) In determining the amount omitted from gross income, there shall not be taken into account any amount which is omitted from gross income stated in the return if such amount is disclosed in the return, or in a statement attached to the return, in a manner adequate to apprise the Secretary of the nature and amount of such item.
“(2) Estate and gift taxes
“In the case of a return of estate tax under chapter 11 or a return of gift tax under chapter 12, if the taxpayer omits from the gross estate or from the total amount of the gifts made during the period for which the return was filed items includible in such gross estate or such total gifts, as the case may be, as exceed in amount 25 percent of the gross estate stated in the return or the total amount of gifts stated in the return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time within 6 years after the return was filed. ...”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is still another chapter in the protracted problem of the time certain items are to be recognized as income for the purposes of the federal income tax. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue increased the 1952, 1953 and 1954 ordinary income of the taxpayers by including in gross income for those years amounts received or receivable under contracts executed during those years despite the fact that the contracts obligated taxpayers to render performance in subsequent periods. These increases produced tax deficiencies which the taxpayers unsuccessfully challenged in the Tax Court on the ground that the amounts could be deferred under their accounting method. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with the taxpayers and reversed the Tax Court, 283 F. 2d 234, the decision having been rendered prior to ours in American Automobile Assn. v. United States, 367 U. S. 687. Following the American Automobile Association case, certiorari in this case was granted, the judgment of the lower court vacated, 367 U. S. 911, and the cause remanded for further consideration in light of American Automobile Association. 368 U. S. 873. In a per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that in view of American Automobile Association, the taxpayers’ accounting method “does not, for income tax purposes, clearly reflect income” and affirmed the judgment for the Commissioner, 296 F. 2d 721. We brought the case back once again to consider whether the lower court misapprehended the scope of American Automobile Association. 370 U. S. 902.
Taxpayers, husband and wife, formed a partnership to operate ballroom dancing studios (collectively referred to as “studio”) pursuant to Arthur Murray, Inc., franchise agreements. Dancing lessons were offered under either of two basic contracts. The cash plan contract required the student to pay the entire down payment in cash at the time the contract was executed with the balance due in installments thereafter. The deferred payment contract required only a portion of the down payment to be paid in cash. The remainder of the down payment was due in stated installments and the balance of the contract price was to be paid as designated in a negotiable note signed at the time the contract was executed.
Both types of contracts provided that (1) the student should pay tuition for lessons in a certain amount, (2) the student should not be relieved of his obligation to pay the tuition, (3) no refunds would be made, and (4) the contract was noncancelable. The contracts prescribed a specific number of lesson hours ranging from five to 1,200 hours and some contracts provided lifetime courses entitling the student additionally to two hours of lessons per month plus two parties a year for life. Although the contracts designated the period during which the lessons had to be taken, there was no schedule of specific dates, which were arranged from time to time as lessons were given.
Cash payments received directly from students and amounts received when the negotiable notes were discounted at the bank or fully paid were deposited in the studio’s general bank account without segregation from its other funds. The franchise agreements required the studio to pay to Arthur Murray, Inc., on a weekly basis, 10% of these cash receipts as royalty and 5% of the receipts in escrow, the latter to continue until a $20,000 indemnity fund was accumulated. Similarly, sales commissions for lessons sold were paid at the time the sales receipts were deposited in the studio’s general bank account.
The studio, since its inception in 1946, has kept its books and reported income for tax purposes on an accrual system of accounting. In addition to the books, individual student record cards were maintained showing the number of hours taught and the number still remaining under the contract. The system, in substance, operated as follows. When a contract was entered into, a “deferred income” account was credited for the total contract price. At the close of each fiscal period, the student record cards were analyzed and the total number of taught hours was multiplied by the designated rate per hour of each contract. The resulting sum was deducted from the deferred income account and reported as earned income on the financial statements and the income tax return. In addition, if there had been no activity in a contract for over a year, or if a course were reduced in amount, an entry would be made canceling the untaught portion of the contract, removing that amount from the deferred income account, and recognizing gain to the extent that the deferred income exceeded the balance due on the contract, i. e., the amounts received in advance. The amounts representing lessons taught and the gains from cancellations constituted the chief sources of the partnership’s gross income. The balance of the deferred income account would be carried forward into the next fiscal year to be increased or decreased in accordance with the number of new contracts, lessons taught and cancellations recognized.
Deductions were also reported on the accrual basis except that the royalty payments and the sales commissions were deducted when paid irrespective of the period in which the related receipts were taken into income. Three certified public accountants testified that in their opinion the accounting system employed truly reflected net income in accordance with commercial accrual accounting standards.
The Commissioner included in gross income for the years in question not only advance payments received in
5 The following schedule reflects ordinary net income on the studio’s books and returns: cash but the full face amounts of notes and contracts executed during the respective years. The Tax Court and the Court of Appeals upheld the Commissioner, but the United States in this Court has retreated somewhat and does not now claim the includibility in gross income of future payments which were not evidenced by a note and which were neither due by the terms of the contract nor matured by performance of the related services. The question remaining for decision, then, is this: Was it proper for the Commissioner, exercising his discretion under § 41, 1939 Code, and § 446 (b), 1954 Code, to reject the studio’s accounting system as not clearly reflecting income and to include as income in a particular year advance payments by way of cash, negotiable notes and contract installments falling due but remaining unpaid during that year? We hold that it was since we believe the problem is squarely controlled by American Automobile Association, 367 IT. S. 687.
Gross income:
1952 1953 1954
Contract amounts transferred to earned income.. $143,949.63 $243,277.46 $325,266.97
Gains from cancellation... 26,861.40 19,483.36 28,448.61
Other income. 4,041.21 11,426.23 16,987.31
Total. 174,852.24 274,187.05 370,702.89
Deductions. 137,267.91 223,390.69 301,609.76
Ordinary net income 37,584.33 50,796.36 69,093.13
The Court there had occasion to consider the entire legislative background of the treatment of prepaid income. The retroactive repeal of § 452 of the 1954 Code, “the only law incontestably permitting the practice upon which [the taxpayer] depends,” was regarded as reinstating long-standing administrative and lower court rulings that accounting systems deferring prepaid income could be rejected by the Commissioner.
“[T]he fact is that § 452 for the first time specifically declared petitioner’s system of accounting to be acceptable for income tax purposes, and overruled the long-standing position of the Commissioner and courts to the contrary. And the repeal of the section the following year, upon insistence by the Treasury that the proposed endorsement of such tax accounting would have a disastrous impact on the Government’s revenue, was just as clearly a mandate from the Congress that petitioner’s system was not acceptable for tax purposes.” 367 U. S., at 695.
Confirming that view was the step-by-step approach of Congress in granting the deferral privilege to only limited groups of taxpayers while exploring more deeply the ramifications of the entire problem.
Plainly, the considerations expressed in American Automobile Association are apposite here. We need only add here that since the American Automobile Association decision, a specific provision extending the deferral practice to certain membership corporations was enacted, § 456,1954 Code, added by § 1, Act of July 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 222, continuing, at least so far, the congressional policy of treating this problem by precise provisions of narrow applicability. Consequently, as in the American Automobile Association case, we invoke the “long-established policy of the Court in deferring, where possible, to congressional procedures in the tax field,” and, as in that case, we cannot say that the Commissioner’s rejection of the studio’s deferral system was unsound.
The American Automobile Association case rested upon an additional ground which is also controlling here. Relying upon Automobile Club of Michigan v. Commissioner, 353 U. S. 180, the Court rejected the taxpayer’s system as artificial since the advance payments related to services which were to be performed only upon customers’ demands without relation to fixed dates in the future. The system employed here suffers from that very same vice, for the studio sought to defer its cash receipts on the basis of contracts which did not provide for lessons on fixed dates after the taxable year, but left such dates to be arranged from, time to time by the instructor and his student. Under the contracts, the student could arrange for some or all of the additional lessons or could simply allow their rights under the contracts to lapse. But even though the student did not demand the remaining lessons, the contracts permitted the studio to insist upon payment in accordance with the obligations undertaken and to retain whatever prepayments were made without restriction as to use and without obligation of refund. At the end of each period, while the number of lessons taught had been meticulously reflected, the studio was uncertain whether none, some or all of the remaining lessons would be rendered. Clearly, services were rendered solely on demand in the fashion of the American Automobile Association and Automobile Club of Michigan cases.
Moreover, percentage royalties and sales commissions for lessons sold, which were paid as cash was received from students or from its note transactions with the bank, were deducted in the year paid even though the related items of income had been deferred, at least in part, to later periods. In view of all these circumstances, we hold the studio’s accrual system vulnerable under § 41 and § 446 (b) with respect to its deferral of prepaid income. Consequently, the Commissioner was fully justified in including payments in cash or by negotiable note in gross income for the year in which such payments were received. If these payments are includible in the year of receipt because their allocation to a later year does not clearly reflect income, the contract installments are likewise includible in gross income, as the United States now claims, in the year they become due and payable. For an accrual basis taxpayer “it is the right to receive and not the actual receipt that determines the inclusion of the amount in gross income,” Spring City Co. v. Commissioner, 292 U. S. 182, 184; Commissioner v. Hansen, 360 U. S. 446, and here the right to receive these installments had become fixed at least at the time they were due and payable.
We affirm the Court of Appeals insofar as that court held includible the amounts representing cash receipts, notes received and contract installments due and payable. Because of the Commissioner’s concession, we reverse that part of the judgment which included amounts for which services had not yet been performed and which were not due and payable during the respective periods and we remand the case with directions to return the case to the Tax Court for a redetermination of the proper income tax deficiencies now due in light of this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The controversy turns upon the accounting method employed by a partnership in which the taxpayers were equal partners. Since a partnership is not a taxable entity, the partners being liable in their individual capacities for their distributive share of partnership income, § 181, Int. Rev. Code of 1939; § 701, Int. Rev. Code of 1954, the proper statement of the partnership’s income affects only the tax liabilities of the partners individually. However, as there is no other dispute in the case, for convenience the discussion will center upon the partnership’s accounting method without further mention of its effect upon the respective tax liabilities of the partners.
Although the contracts stated they were noncancelable, the studio frequently rewrote contracts reducing the number of lessons for a smaller sum of money. Also, despite the fact that the contracts provided that no refunds would be made, and despite the fact that the studio discouraged refunds, occasionally a refund would be made on a canceled contract.
Notes taken from the students were ordinarily transferred, with full recourse, to a local bank which would deduct the interest charges and credit the studio with approximately 50% of the face amount. The remaining 50% was held in a reserve account, unavailable to the studio, until the note was fully paid, at which time the reserved amount was transferred to the studio’s general bank account.
Though the studio is not a taxable entity, it is still required to prepare and file an information return showing, inter alia, items of gross income and allowable deductions. § 187, 1939 Code; § 6031, 1954 Code.
“Upon reconsideration, however, we concede the error of accruing future payments which are neither due as a matter of contract, nor matured by performance of the related services. Indeed, the Studio’s right to collect the installment on its due date depends on its continuing ability and willingness to perform. Until that time, its right to receive payment has not fully ripened.” Brief for the United States, p. 67.
“SEC. 41. GENERAL RULE.
“The net income shall be computed upon the basis of the taxpayer’s annual accounting period (fiscal year or calendar year, as the case may be) in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed in keeping the books of such taxpayer; but if no such method of accounting has been so employed, or if the method employed does not clearly reflect the income, the computation shall be made in accordance with such method as in the opinion of the Commissioner does clearly reflect the income. If the taxpayer’s annual accounting period is other than a fiscal year as defined in section 48 or if the taxpayer has no annual accounting period or does not keep books, the net income shall be computed on the basis of the calendar year.”
“SEC. 446. GENERAL RULE FOR METHODS OF ACCOUNTING.
“(a) GeNeral Rule. — Taxable income shall be computed under the method of accounting on the basis of which the taxpayer regularly computes his income in keeping his books.
“(b) Exceptions. — If no method of accounting has been regularly used by the taxpayer, or if the method used does not clearly reflect income, the computation of taxable income shall be made under such method as, in the opinion of the Secretary or his delegate, does clearly reflect income.
“(c) Permissible Methods. — Subject to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b), a taxpayer may compute taxable income under any of the following methods of accounting—
“(1) the cash receipts and disbursements method;
“(2) an accrual method;
“(3) any other method permitted by this chapter; or
“(4) any combination of the foregoing methods permitted under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate.”
The treatment of “gains from cancellations” underlines this aspect of the case. These gains, representing amounts paid or promised in advance of lessons given, were recognized in those periods in which the taxpayers arbitrarily decided the contracts were to be deemed canceled. The studio made no attempt to report estimated cancellations in the year of receipt, choosing instead to defer these gains to periods bearing no economic relationship to the income recognized. Cf. Continental Tie & Lumber Co. v. United States, 286 U. S. 290.
Negotiable notes are regarded as the equivalent of cash receipts, to the extent of their fair market value, for the purposes of recognition of income. § 39.22 (a)-4, Treas. Reg. 118, 1939 Code; § 1.61-2 (d)(4), Treas. Reg., 1954 Code; Mertens, Federal Income Taxation (1961), § 11.07. See Pinellas Ice Co. v. Commissioner, 287 U. S. 462.
See note 3, supra. See also § 41, 1939 Code.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Safety Appliance Acts require railroad cars used in interstate commerce to be equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact. This case brings before us for review another action for damages by a railroad employee under the Safety Appliance Acts and the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The trial court instructed the jury that there could be no liability based on any “defect” in the “automatic coupling system,” but submitted the case on issues of negligence. There was a verdict against the plaintiff upon which judgment for the railroad was entered. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 170 F. 2d 719. We granted certiorari because of the confusion which has developed in the application of the two statutes. 336 U. S. 935. Our duty to review certain cases of this nature is settled. Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U. S. 53 (1949); Keeton v. Thompson, 326 U. S. 689 (1945); Ellis v. Union Pacific R. Co., 329 U. S. 649 (1947).
On February 2, 1946, the petitioner was injured while acting as “swing man” of a switching crew on the respondent railroad. The crew of five men were engaged at night in switching operations at and near the International Paper Company plant in Panama City, Florida. The conductor of the crew had laid out a plan for coupling together a number of cars, some of which were on storage tracks and one on the main line. The ultimate objective was to switch some wood rack cars loaded with pulpwood into the wood yard of the paper concern. In the conductor’s absence petitioner was in charge of the switching operations and attempted to carry out the instructions given him.
The engine, after coupling in front of it a box car followed by eight flat cars, was engaged in backing the train of cars onto the main line, in order to couple, at the end of the train, a Louisville & Nashville Railroad wood rack car loaded with pulpwood. The petitioner had previously set the brake and had opened both lips of the coupler on the L. & N. car preparatory to attaching the car to the train. He had given the footboard man the slow signal ahead for coupling, which had been passed on to the engineer. The engineer brought the train forward and hit the L. & N. car in the usual manner necessary for coupling, but instead of coupling to the train the L. & N. car started rolling down the tracks, which were, at this point, on a downgrade.
Petitioner saw that the L. & N. car had not coupled and ran after it for some fifty or sixty feet, climbed to the bulkhead where the brake wheel was located, and applied the hand brake to stop the car. He was able to bring the car to a stop only after it had left the main line and traveled around a curve for some six car lengths. Looking up, he saw the train moving toward him about twenty feet away at a speed which conflicting testimony places at a maximum of fifteen miles per hour to a minimum of two miles per hour. Petitioner grabbed the brake wheel to brace himself, but the train hit the L. & N. car so violently that it threw the petitioner about six feet down into its hold. This time the coupling was successful, and as the L. & N. car jerked from the impact some of the pulpwood loaded in the car was pitched forward on the petitioner, causing the alleged injuries.
The engineer testified that he did not know whether the L. & N. car had safely coupled at the first impact. He contended that after this impact, he received the come-ahead signal from the petitioner, whereupon he moved the train forward at about six miles per hour. The testimony was in sharp conflict with reference to this signal, as well as to other details of the incident.
Defendant moved for a directed verdict as to the failure to couple on the ground that while the coupler failed to couple on the initial impact, “it worked previously and worked subsequently, and the proof shows no defect in it; and under the finding in Western & Atlantic Railroad Company vs. Gentile, 198 S. E. 257, that this rule of law is laid down . . . that the failure of couplers to couple automatically by impact is not per se a violation of this Act . . . .” The District Court granted the motion, instructing the jury “that there is no evidence in this case . . . from which you could properly find there was defect in this . . . automatic coupling system on that car.” The Court of Appeals affirmed on another theory: that the failure to couple on the first impact “was the remote, not the proximate, cause of plaintiff’s injuries.”
The trial court did submit the cause on the more general negligence allegations, and on these a verdict was returned for the respondent. But petitioner objects to those portions of the trial court’s charge covering contributory negligence. The Court of Appeals admitted that standing alone, the charge “might possibly have been prejudicial,” but stated that here it was “inconsequential.”
In these conclusions the court below was in error.
First. Since 1893 the Congress has made it unlawful for a railroad company such as respondent to use any car on its line “not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact.” This Court has repeatedly attempted to make clear that this is an absolute duty unrelated to negligence, and that the absence of a “defect” cannot aid the railroad if the coupler was properly set and failed to couple on the occasion in question. See O’Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern R. Co., 338 U. S. 384, 390 (1949), and cases cited. The fact that the coupler functioned properly on other occasions is immaterial.
But respondent contends that when the L. & N. car came to rest after the failure of the coupler “its capacity for doing harm was spent.” The second movement, it argues, in which the coupling worked perfectly, started a new chain of events resulting in Carter’s injury.
We cannot agree that the various events were so divisible. This was a two-pronged complaint, alleging the right to recover under the Safety Appliance Act and the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. In this situation the test of causal relation stated in the Employers’ Liability Act is applicable, the violation of the Appliance Act supplying the wrongful act necessary to ground liability under the F. E. L. A. See Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 291 U. S. 205, 216 (1934); O’Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern R. Co., supra; Coray v. Southern Pacific Co., 335 U. S. 520 (1949). Sometimes that violation is described as “negligence per se,” H. R. Rep. No. 1386, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 6; San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U. S. 476, 484 (1916); but we have made clear in the O’Donnell case that that term is a confusing label for what is simply a violation of an absolute duty.
Once the violation is established, only causal relation is in issue. And Congress has directed liability if the injury resulted “in whole or in part” from defendant’s negligence or its violation of the Safety Appliance Act. We made clear in Coray v. Southern Pacific Co., supra, 335 U. S. at 523, that if the jury determines that the defendant’s breach is “a contributory proximate cause” of injury, it may find for the plaintiff. See also Union Pacific R. Co. v. Hadley, 246 U. S. 330, 333 (1918); Spokane & I. E. R. Co. v. Campbell, 241 U. S. 497, 510 (1916).
Certainly there was evidence upon which a jury could find a causal relation between the failure to couple, the action of petitioner in running and stopping the rolling car, the engineer’s justified assumption that the car had coupled when in fact it had failed to do so, and the continued movement of the train into the standing car, thus causing injury. See Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Layton, 243 U. S. 617 (1917); Erie R. Co. v. Caldwell, 264 F. 947 (1920). It was error to take this phase of the case from the jury.
Second. In ruling on petitioner’s general negligence allegations the trial court fell into errors in its charge on contributory negligence which occur so frequently that we will discuss them briefly. The charge is replete with phrases such as, “if you should find his [the petitioner’s] own negligence was the proximate cause of whatever injury followed,” the verdict must be for the respondent. With proper explanations, the court could have advised the jury that if petitioner’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injury, the verdict must be for respondent; but here the court again and again used such phrases as “if you should find his injury was directly or proximately caused by his own negligence,” verdict must be for the railroad; and if you find “that his own negligence in no manner contributed to his injury”; “if you find ... he was not negligent in any manner,” the verdict must be for the plaintiff. We are unable to say such error was inconsequential. It violates the direct command of the Act of Congress. The “fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee . . . .” 35 Stat. 66, 45 U. S. C. § 53. The negligence of the petitioner and that of the railroad should have been submitted to the jury, and in the light of this comparison a verdict reached that would do justice to all concerned. See Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 318 U. S. 54, 65 (1943).
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.
“It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars.” 27 Stat. 531, 45 U. S. C. § 2.
35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §§ 51-59.
See Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U. S. 477, 483 (1947).
Respondent conceded, in opposing certiorari, that “the Safety Appliance Act was violated— ... a coupling failed to couple on impact . . . .” That statement is apparently abandoned now, for the argument is that Carter set the coupler improperly. On the record before us it is clear that that is a jury question.
Our ruling here, of course, is directed at the trial court’s charge on the petitioner’s general negligence allegations. In violations of the Safety Appliance Act, no employee “shall be held to have been guilty of contributory negligence 45 U. S. C. § 53, even for purposes of jury comparison. See Coray v. Southern Pacific Co., supra.
Respondent argues that the Court remedied these errors after the oral charge had been given. We see no basis for that conclusion; the Court’s action at that time was equivocal at best. The record recites the following:
“Mr. Pettus: Your Honor said if the plaintiif negligently caused his own injury, he could not recover. If the plaintiff by his negligence proximately caused his injury, he couldn’t recover. Your Honor omitted ‘sole’. In other words, if the plaintiff’s negligence were the sole proximate cause, of course he couldn’t recover.
“The Court: I will modify it to that extent. That simply means whether his own negligence was wholly responsible for his injury. If he is totally responsible, it would not make any difference as to negligence on the other side. . . .
“Mr. Pettus: We except to that latter part of your Honor’s charge, ‘would not make any difference on the other side.’ We except to your Honor’s charge that there was no defect in the hand brake, and also that portion of your Honor’s charge that the plaintiff negligently set the hand brake, automatic coupling, and that was the proximate cause, without limiting it and saying it was the sole cause. In other words, was the proximate cause and not the sole cause. And then when your Honor was reading a written charge you said, in explanation, ‘if the direct or proximate cause of plaintiff’s own negligence,’ and we except to that on the ground you did not say it must be the sole cause. We asked you an explanatory charge on that rule, if your Honor will give it at this time. I think your Honor overlooked charging it. If you will look at the rule.
“The Court: I think I will refuse this charge.
“Mr. Pettus: Refuse it ?
“The Court: Yes. Give you an exception.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Decree of October 27, 1947 (332 U. S. 804), and the Supplemental Decrees heretofore entered in this cause on January 31, 1966 (382 U. S. 448), June 13, 1977 (432 U. S. 40), and November 27, 1978 (439 U. S. 30), be, and the same hereby are further supplemented as follows:
1. The inland waters of the Port of San Pedro include those waters enclosed by a straight line from the eastern end of the Long Beach breakwater (NOS Chart 18749, 33°43'23'' N., 118°08'10'' W.) to the seaward end of the east jetty of Anaheim Bay (NOS Chart 18749, 33°43'36" N., 118°05'57'' W.).
2. The inland waters of San Diego Bay are those enclosed by a straight line from the seaward end of Point Loma (NOS Chart 18772, 32°39'46" N., 117°14'29" W.) to the point at which the line of mean lower low water intersects with the southern seaward end of the entire Zuniga jetty (NOS Chart 18772, 32°40'00.5" N., 117°13'19" W.).
3. The following artificial structures do not form part of the coastline of California for purposes of establishing the federal-state boundary line under the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq.:
a. The Sharp Beach pier (NOS Chart 18685, 37°38'00" N., 122°29'41" W.);
b. The Morro Strand pier (NOS Chart 18703, 35°24'-38.4" N., 120°52'31.9" W.);
c. The Port Orford pier (NOS Chart 18721, 34°28'09.6" N., 120°13'38.8" W.);
d. The Ellwood pier (NOS Chart 18721, 34°25'39" N., 119°55'20" W.) ;
e. The Santa Barbara Biltmore Hotel pier (NOS Chart 18725, 34°24'59.4" N., 119°38'30" W.);
f. The Carpintería pier (NOS Chart 18725, 34°23'06" N., 119°30'4.6" W.);
g. The Punta Gorda causeway and Rincon Island (NOS Chart 18725, 34°20'48.1" N., 119°26'39" W.);
h. The Venice pier (NOS Chart 18744, 30°59'06" N., 118°28'35" W.);
i. The Manhattan Beach pier (NOS Chart 18744, 33°-53'00" N., 118°24'48.2" W.);
j. The Hermosa Beach pier (NOS Chart 18744, 33°51'-40.2" N., 118°24'16.9" W.);
k. The Huntington Beach pier (NOS Chart 18740, 33°-09'14" N., 118°00'21" W.);
l. The Newport Beach pier (NOS Chart 18754, 33°36'-22.0" N., 117°55'49.6" W.);
m. The Balboa Beach pier (NOS Chart 18754, 33°35'54.4" N., 117°54'01.1" W.);
n. The Oceanside pier (NOS Chart 18740, 33°11'29.4" N., 117°23'18" W.);
o. The Ocean Beach pier (NOS Chart 18754, 32°44'-58.5" N., 117°15'30.5" W.); and
p. The Imperial Beach pier (NOS Chart 18772, 32°34'-46.6" N., 117°08'08.0" W.).
4. The parties having paid their own costs and having contributed equally to a fund for expenses of the Special Master, any amounts remaining in said fund after deduction of all expenses by the Special Master shall be divided equally and returned to each party by the Special Master.
5. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Government seeks to appeal to this Court a decision by a District Court in Massachusetts holding that appellee Sisson could not be criminally convicted for refusing induction into the Armed Forces. TheJDistrict Court’s opinion was bottomed on what that..court-understood to be Sisson’s rights of conscience as a nonreligious objector to the Vietnam war, but not wars in general, under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The District Court’s primary conclusion, reached after a full trial, was that the Constitution prohibited “the application of the 1967 draft act to Sisson to require him to render combat service in Vietnam” because as a “sincerely conscientious man,” Sisson’s interest in not killing in the Vietnam conflict outweighed “the country’s present need for him to be so employed,” 297 F. Supp. 902, 910 (1969).
The District Court characterized its own decision as an arrest of judgment, and the Government seeks review here pursuant to the “arresting judgment” provision of the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, an Act that narrowly limits the Government’s right to appeal in criminal cases to certain types of decisions. On October 13, 1969, this Court entered an order postponing further consideration of the question of jurisdiction to the hearing of the case on the merits, 396 U. S. 812 (1969). For reasons that we elaborate in what follows, we conclude that the decision below, depending as it does on facts developed at Sisson’s trial, is not an arrest of judgment but instead is a directed acquittal. As such, it is not a decision that the Government can appeal. Consequently, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without our considering the merits of this case. We, of course, intimate no view concerning the correctness of the legal theory by which the District Court evaluated the facts developed at the trial.
As a predicate for our conclusion that we have no jurisdiction to entertain the Government’s appeal, a full statement of the proceedings below is desirable.
I
A single-count indictment charged that Sisson "did unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully fail and neglect and refuse to perform a duty” imposed by the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 and its regulations, in violation of § 12 of the Act, 81 Stat. 105, 50 U. S. C. App. § 462 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), because he failed to obey an order by his local draft board to submit to induction.
Prior to trial, Sisson’s attorney moved to dismiss the indictment on three grounds. It was claimed that Sisson’s refusal to submit to induction was justified first, because “the government’s military involvement in Vietnam violates international law”; and, second, because Sisson “reasonably believed the government’s military involvement in Vietnam to be illegal.” As a third ground, Sisson claimed that the Selective Service Act and its regulations were unconstitutional (a) because the procedures followed by local boards lacked due process; and (b) because compulsory conscription during peacetime was unnecessary and stifled fundamental personal liberties. In support of the motion to dismiss, appellee stated:
“At the time I refused to submit to induction into the armed forces I believed, as I believe today, that the United States military involvement in Vietnam is illegal under international law as well as under the Constitution and treaties of the United States. I believed then, and still believe, that my participation in that war would violate the spirit and the letter of the Nuremberg Charter. On the basis of my knowledge of that war, I could not participate in it without doing violence to the dictates of my conscience.”
At the hearing on appellee’s motion to dismiss, the District Judge said that he had “an open mind” concerning appellee’s first and third grounds. However, the court said there was “nothing to” the second ground, noting that what “the defendant reasonably believes... cannot be raised in the way that you propose... because that does not appear on the face of the indictment.” (App. 49.) The District Court later amplified this conclusion by saying:
“Point 2 is plainly premature because nobody can test the issue as to whether defendant reasonably believes the government’s military involvement in Vietnam is illegal without knowing what he reasonably believed, and what he believed is a question of evidence and not a question which appears on the face of the indictment.” (App. 52.) (Emphasis supplied.)
Defense counsel did not dispute the District Court’s analysis, and noted that he had raised the issue in his motion to dismiss only “in the interest of economy,” because “[i]t was not clear at the time I filed the motion that the government would challenge this fact.” (App. 52.) The court expressed doubts concerning the Government’s willingness to concede this fact, and, when asked by the court, the government counsel specifically stated his opposition to the motion to dismiss. The court thereupon found the “second ground” of the motion to dismiss without merit.
A short time after this hearing, the District Court issued two written opinions, 294 F. Supp. 511 and 515 (1968), that denied the other grounds of the motion to dismiss. After determining that appellee had the requisite standing to raise the issues involved, the court held that the political question doctrine foreclosed consideration of whether Congress could constitutionally draft for an undeclared war, or could order Sisson to fight in the allegedly “genocidal war.”
An order accompanying the second pretrial opinion also dealt with various offers of proof that defense counsel had made in an informal letter to the court, not part of the record. From the order it appears that appellee’s counsel stated he would “offer evidence to show that [Sisson] properly refused to be inducted on the basis of his right of conscience, both statutory and constitutional.” Not understanding the scope of this rather ambiguous offer of proof, the District Court in its order ruled that if Sisson wished to make a conscientious objector claim based on religious objections not to wars in general but to the Vietnam war in particular, Sisson should make his offer of proof initially to the judge
“to elicit a ruling whether the First Amendment precludes the Congress from requiring one who has religious conscientious objections to the Vietnam war to respond to the induction order he received. If the Court rules favorably to defendant on the Constitutional issue of law, then both defense and prosecution are entitled to submit to the trier of fact evidence relevant to the question whether defendant indeed is a religious conscientious objector to the Vietnam war.” 294 F. Supp., at 519.
At the trial, however, it appears that defense counsel did not try to prove that Sisson should have received a conscientious objector exemption, nor did he request a ruling on the First Amendment issues referred to by the trial court. Instead it seems that the defense strategy was to prove that Sisson believed the Vietnam war to be illegal under domestic and international law, and that this belief was reasonable. If unable to get a direct adjudication of the legality of the war, the defense at least hoped to convince the jury that Sisson lacked the requisite intent to “wilfully” refuse induction.
There was evidence submitted at the trial that did bear on the conscientious objector issue, however. When asked why he had refused induction, Sisson emphasized that he thought the war illegal. He also said that he felt the Vietnam war was “immoral,” “illegal,” and “unjust,” and went against “my principles and my best sense of what was right.” The court asked Sisson what the basis for his conclusions was, particularly what Sisson meant when he said the war was immoral. Sisson said that the war violated his feelings about (1) respect for human life, (2) value of man’s freedom, and (3) the scale of destruction and killing consonant with the stated purposes of American intervention. Sisson also stated, in response to the trial judge’s question, that his “moral values come from the same sources [the trial court had] mentioned, religious writings, philosophical beliefs.”
The prosecution did not allow Sisson’s testimony to stand without cross-examination. In apparent reliance on the court’s pretrial ruling that Sisson’s beliefs concerning the war were irrelevant to the question of whether his refusal to submit to induction was wilful the government counsel concentrated on showing that Sisson had refused induction deliberately, of his own free will, and knowing the consequences. The prosecution also brought out that Sisson had failed to appeal his I-A classification when it had been issued, and that he had accepted, as an undergraduate, a II-S student classification.
In the final arguments to the jury, just as in the opening statements, neither counsel mentioned a religious or nonreligious conscientious objector issue. The defense argued that the key to the case was whether Sisson had “wilfully” refused to submit to induction, and tried to suggest his beliefs about the war were relevant to this. The government lawyer simply pointed out the operative facts of Sisson’s refusal. He also attacked Sisson’s sincerity by pointing out the inconsistency between Sissons’ broad statements that he opposed deferments because they discriminated against the poor, see n. 2, supra, and his willingness to accept a II-S deferment while he was at Harvard College. (See App. 187-188.)
The instructions to the jury made no reference to a conscientious objector claim, and the jury was not asked to find whether Sisson was “sincere” in his moral beliefs concerning the war. Instead the trial court told the jury that the crux of the case was whether Sisson’s refusal to submit to induction was “unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully” done, The jury, after deliberating about 20 minutes, brought in a verdict of guilty.
After the trial, the defendant made a timely motion under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 34 to arrest the judgment on the ground that the District Court lacked jurisdiction. Pointing to the fact that the District Court had ruled before the trial that the political question doctrine prevented its consideration of defenses requiring an adjudication of the legality of the Vietnam war, the defense argued that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction under Article III and the Due Process Clause to try the defendant for an offense to which the illegality of the war might provide a defense.
The District Court, in granting what it termed a motion in arrest of judgment, did not rule on the jurisdictional argument raised in the defense motion. Instead, the court ruled on what it termed defendant’s “older contention” that the indictment did not charge an offense based on defendant’s “never-abandoned” Establishment, Free Exercise, and Due Process Clause arguments relating to conscientious objections to the Vietnam war.
The court first stated the facts of the case, in effect making findings essential to its decision. The opinion describes how Sisson’s demeanor on the stand convinced the court of his sincerity. The court stated that “Sisson’s table of ultimate values is moral and ethical... [and] reflects quite as real, pervasive, durable, and commendable a marshalling of priorities as a formal religion.” The critical finding for what followed was that:
“What another derives from the discipline of a church, Sisson derives from the discipline of conscience.
“... Sisson bore the burden of proving by objective evidence that he was sincere. He was as genuinely and profoundly governed by his conscience as would have been a martyr obedient to an orthodox religion.” 297 F. Supp., at 905.
Building on these findings, the court first held that the Free Exercise and Due Process Clauses “prohibit the application of the 1967 draft act to Sisson to require him to render combat service in Vietnam” because as a “sincerely conscientious man,” Sisson’s interest in not killing in the Vietnam conflict outweighed “the country’s present need for him to be so employed.” The District Court also ruled that § 6 (j) of the Selective Service Act, 50 U. S. C. App. §456 (j) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), offends the Establishment Clause because it “unconstitutionally discriminated against atheists, agnostics, and men, like Sisson, who, whether they be religious or not, are motivated in their objection to the draft by profound moral beliefs which constitute the central convictions of their beings.” 297 F. Supp., at 911.
II
The Government bases its claim that this Court has jurisdiction to review the District Court’s decision exclusively on the “arresting judgment” provision of the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731 The relevant statutory language provides:
“An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the United States from the district courts direct to the Supreme Court of the United States in all criminal cases in the following instances:
“From a decision arresting a judgment of conviction for insufficiency of the indictment or information, where such decision is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment or information is founded/’
Thus, three requirements must be met for this Court to have jurisdiction under this provision. First, the decision of the District Court must be one “arresting a judgment of conviction.” Second, the arrest of judgment must be for the “insufficiency of the indictment or information.” And third, the decision must be “based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment or information is founded.”
Because the District Court’s decision rests on facts not alleged in the indictment but instead inferred by the court from the evidence adduced at trial, we conclude that neither the first nor second requirement is met.
A
We begin with the first requirement: was the decision below one “arresting a judgment of conviction”? In using that phrase in the Criminal Appeals Act, Congress did not, of course, invent a new procedural classification. Instead, Congress acted against a common-law background that gave the statutory phrase a well-defined and limited meaning. An arrest of judgment was the technical term describing the act of a trial, judge refusing to enter judgment on the verdict because of an error appearing on the face of the record that rendered the judgment invalid. 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *393; 3 H. Stephen, New Commentaries on the Laws of England 628 (1st Am. ed. 1845); 2 J. Bishop, New Criminal Procedure § 1285 (2d ed. 1913).
For the purpose of this case the critical requirement is that a judgment can be arrested only on the basis of error appearing on the “face of the record,” and not on the basis of proof offered at trial. This requirement can be found in early English common-law cases. In Sutton v. Bishop, 4 Burr. 2283, 2287, 98 Eng. Rep. 191, 193 (K. B. 1769), it was stated: “[T]he Court ought not to arrest judgments upon matters not appearing upon the face of the record; but are to judge upon the record itself.” Once transported to the United States, this essential limitation of arrests of judgment was explicitly acknowledged by this Court. In United States v. Klintock, 5 Wheat. 144, 149 (1820), the Court stated that “judgment can be arrested only for errors apparent on the record.” And later in Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604 (1884), the Court said, “[A] motion in arrest of judgment can only be maintained for a defect apparent upon the face of the record, and the evidence is no part of the record for this purpose,” id., at 608. See Carter v. Bennett, 15 How. 354, 356-357 (1854); United States v. Norris, 281 U. S. 619 (1930).
This venerable requirement of the common law has been preserved under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the courts have uniformly held that in granting a motion in arrest of judgment under Rule 34, a district court must not look beyond the face of the record. E. g., United States v. Zisblatt, 172 F. 2d 740 (C. A. 2d Cir.), appeal dismissed on Government’s motion, 336 U. S. 934 (1949); United States v. Lias, 173 F. 2d 685 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1949); United States v. Bradford, 194 F. 2d 197 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1952). See 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 571 (1969); 5 L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules § 34:7 (1967). Therefore, whether we interpret the statutory phrase “decision arresting a judgment” as speaking “to the law, as it then was [in 1907]... as it had come down from the past,” or do no more than interpret it as simply imposing the standards of Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 34, a decision based on evidence adduced at trial cannot be one arresting judgment.
The court below clearly went beyond the “face of the record” in reaching its decision. As noted earlier, the opinion explicitly relies upon the evidence adduced at the trial, including demeanor evidence, for its findings that Sisson was “sincere” and that he was “as genuinely and profoundly governed by his conscience” as a religious conscientious objector.
To avoid the inescapable conclusion that the District Court's opinion was not an arrest of judgment, the Government makes two arguments. First, the Government suggests that these factual findings of the District Court, based on the evidence presented at trial, were not essential to its constitutional rulings, but instead only part of “the circumstantial framework” of the opinion below. (Jurisdictional Statement 9; see Brief 8.) This cannot withstand analysis, however, for the factual findings were absolutely essential, under the District Court’s own legal theory, to its disposition of the case. Without a finding that Sisson was sincerely and fundamentally opposed to participation in the Vietnam conflict, the District Court could not have ruled that under the Due Process and Free Exercise Clauses Sisson’s interest in not serving in Vietnam outweighed the Government’s need to draft him for such service.
Second, the Government argues that even though the District Court made findings on evidence adduced at trial, the facts relied on were “undisputed.” Adopting the language used by the court below, the Government claims that “in substance the case arises upon an agreed statement of facts.” 297 F. Supp., at 904. The Government then goes on to argue that decisions of this Court have “recognized that a stipulation of facts by the parties in a criminal case” can be relied on by the District Court without affecting the jurisdiction for an appeal, citing United States v. Halseth, 342 U. S. 277 (1952), and United States v. Fruehauf, 365 U. S. 146 (1961). The Government then concludes that it would be exalting form over substance to hold there was no appeal in a case where the Government has not contested the facts, and yet allow an appeal to lie from a motion to dismiss resting upon a stipulation of the parties.
Preliminarily, it should be noted that this Court has never held that an appeal lies from a decision which depends, not upon the sufficiency of the indictment alone, but also on a stipulation of the parties. In Halseth the parties did enter into a stipulation for purposes of a motion to dismiss. But the facts in the stipulation were irrelevant to the legal issue of whether the federal anti-lottery statute reached a game not yet in existence. Therefore, neither the District Court in dismissing the indictment, nor this Court in affirming its decision, had to rely on the stipulation. And, for purposes of deciding whether jurisdiction for an appeal under § 3731 existed, the Court obviously did not have to decide — and it did not discuss — whether reliance on a stipulation would make any difference. Insofar as United States v. Fruehauf, supra, the other case cited by the Government, is relevant at all it seems to point away from the Government’s contention. In Fruehauj this Court refused to consider the merits of an appeal under § 3731 from a District Court decision dismissing an indictment on the basis of a “ ‘judicial admission’ culled from a pretrial memorandum” of the Government by the District Judge. Rather than penalizing the Government by dismissing the appeal, however, the Court simply exercised its discretion under 28 U. S. C. § 2106 by setting aside the ruling below, and remanding the case for a new trial on the existing indictment.
Not only do the cases cited by the Government fail to establish its contention, but other authority points strongly in the opposite direction. In United States v. Norris, 281 U. S. 619 (1930), this Court said that a “stipulation was ineffective to import an issue as to the sufficiency of the indictment, or an issue of fact upon the question of guilt or innocence,” because of “the rule that nothing can be added to an indictment without the concurrence of the grand jury,” id., at 622. While it is true that Norris is complicated by the fact that the defendant had entered a guilty plea, the Court said that even “[i]f [the stipulation had been] filed before plea and [had been] given effect, such a stipulation would oust the jurisdiction of the court,” id., at 622-623. Norris, together with the policy, often expressed by this Court, that the Criminal Appeals Act should be strictly construed against the Government’s right to appeal, see, e. g., United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 192 (1939), makes it at least very doubtful whether the parties should, on the basis of a stipulation, be able to secure review under the motion-in-arrest provisions of § 3731.
We do not decide that issue, however, for there was nothing even approaching a stipulation here. Before the court’s final ruling below, the parties did not in any way, formally or informally, agree on the factual findings made in its opinion. It is relevant to recall that before the trial the government attorney specifically refused to stipulate whether Sisson sincerely believed the war to be illegal, and, if so, whether such a belief was reasonable. Moreover, given that the government attorney cross-examined Sisson, and later pointed out the inconsistency between Sisson’s acceptance of a II-S student deferment and his claim that he disapproved of deferments as unfair, it hardly seems the Government accepted Sisson’s sincerity insofar as it was an issue in the case. Therefore, far from being like a case with a formal stipulation between the parties, the most that can be said is that after the District Court’s decision the Government chose to accept the opinion’s findings of fact. Even assuming reliance on a formal stipulation were permissible, it would still be intolerable to allow direct review whenever the District Court labels its decision a motion in arrest, and the Government merely accepts the lower court’s factual findings made after a trial — for this would mean the parties and the lower court simply could foist jurisdiction upon this Court.
B
The second statutory requirement, that the decision arresting judgment be “for insufficiency of the indict-meht,” is also not met in this case. Senator Nelson, one of the sponsors of the Criminal Appeals Act, made it plain during the debates that this second element was an important limitation. He said:
“The arrest of judgment... on which an appeal lies, is not a general motion covering all the grounds on which a judgment may be arrested. It is simply for arrest of judgment because of the insufficiency of the indictment — that is, the failure of the indictment to charge a criminal offense.” 41 Cong. Rec. 2756. (Emphasis supplied.)
See also 40 Cong. Rec. 9033. Although the District Court’s opinion recites as a conclusion that the indictment in this case did “not charge an offense” for purposes of Rule 34, surely the indictment alleged the necessary elements of an offense. The decision below rests on affirmative defenses which the court thought Sisson could claim because of his beliefs. It has never been thought that an indictment, in order to be sufficient, need anticipate affirmative defenses, United States v. Fargas, 267 F. Supp. 452, 455 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1967) (“Any questions as to the validity of the local board’s refusal to grant conscientious objector exemption are matters of defense... [that] [t]here is no necessity for the indictment to negate.. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, the correctness of the District Court’s constitutional theory that sincere nonreligious objectors to particular wars have a constitutional privilege that bars conviction, the facts essential to Sisson’s claim of this privilege do not appear from any recitals in the indictment. As the District Court itself said before trial, “[W]hat [Sisson] believed is a question of evidence and not a question which appears on the face of the indictment.” (App. 52.) In short, this indictment cannot be taken as insufficient for, on the one hand, it recites the necessary elements of an offense, and on the other hand, it does not allege facts that themselves demonstrate the availability of a constitutional privilege.
C
The same reason underlying our conclusion that this was not a decision arresting judgment — i.e., that the disposition is bottomed on factual conclusions not found in the indictment but instead made on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial — convinces us that the decision was in fact an acquittal rendered by the trial court after the jury’s verdict of guilty.
For purposes of analysis it is helpful to compare this case to one in which a jury was instructed as follows:
“If you find defendant Sisson to be sincere, and if you find that he was as genuinely and profoundly governed by conscience as a martyr obedient to an orthodox religion, you must acquit him because the government’s interest in having him serve in Vietnam is outweighed by his interest in obeying the dictates of his conscience. On the other hand, if you do not so find, you must convict if you find that petitioner did wilfully refuse induction.”
If a jury had been so instructed, there can be no doubt that its verdict of acquittal could not be appealed under § 3731 no matter how erroneous the constitutional theory underlying the instructions. As Senator Knox said of the bill that was to become the Criminal Appeals Act:
“Mark this: It is not proposed to give the Government any appeal under any circumstances when the defendant is acquitted for any error whatever committed by the court.
“The Government takes the risks of all the mistakes of its prosecuting officers and of the trial judge in the trial, and it is only proposed to give it an appeal upon questions of law raised by the defendant to defeat the trial and if it defeats the trial.
“The defendant gets the benefit of all errors in the trial which are in his favor, and can challenge all errors in the trial which are against him.” 41 Cong. Rec. 2752.
Quite apart from the statute, it is, of course, well settled that an acquittal can “not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting [the defendant] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.... [I]n this country a verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offence,” United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 671 (1896).
There are three differences between the hypothetical case just suggested and the case at hand. First, in this case it was the judge — not the jury — who made the factual determinations. This difference alone does not support a legal distinction, however, for judges, like juries, can acquit defendants, see Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29. Second, the judge in this case made his decision after the jury had brought in a verdict of guilty. Rules 29 (b) and (c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, expressly allow a federal judge to acquit a criminal defendant after the jury “returns a verdict of guilty.” And third, in this case the District Judge labeled his post-verdict opinion an arrest of judgment, not an acquittal. This characterization alone, however, neither confers jurisdiction on this Court, see n. 7, supra, nor makes the opinion any less dependent upon evidence adduced at the trial. In short, we see no distinction between what the court below did, and a post-verdict directed acquittal.
rH i — I h-i
The dissenting opinions of both The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice White suggest that we are too niggardly-in our interpretation of the Criminal Appeals Act, and each contends that the Act should be more broadly construed to give effect to an underlying policy that is said to favor review. This Court has frequently stated that the “exceptional right of appeal given to the Government by the Criminal Appeals Act is strictly limited to the instances specified,” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 192 (1939), and that such appeals “are something unusual, exceptional, not favored,” Carroll v. United States, 354 U. S. 394, 400 (1957); see United States v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370, 399 (1908); United States v. Dickinson, 213 U. S. 92, 103 (1909); cf. Will v. United States, 389 U. S. 90, 96 (1967). The approach suggested by our Brothers seems inconsistent with these notions. Moreover, the background and legislative history of the Criminal Appeals Act demonstrate the compromise origins of the Act that justify the principle of strict construction this Court has always said should be placed on its provisions. Because the Criminal Appeals Act, now 18 U. S. C. §3731 (1964 ed., Supp. IV), has descended unchanged in substance from the original Criminal Appeals Act, which was enacted on March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1246, the crucial focus for this inquiry must be the legislative history of the 1907 Act.
A
Beginning in 1892 — 15 years before the enactment of the Criminal Appeals Act — the Attorneys General of the United States regularly recommended passage of legislation allowing the Government to appeal in criminal cases. Their primary purpose was perhaps best expressed by Attorney General Miller in his 1892 report: “As the law now stands... it is in the power of a single district judge, by quashing an indictment, to defeat any criminal prosecution instituted by the Government.” There was no progress, however, until President Theodore Roosevelt, outraged by a decision of Judge Humphrey preventing the prosecution of the Beef Trust, made this proposed reform into a “major political issue,” and demanded the enactment of legislation in his 1906 annual message to Congress.
The House, as one commentator has written, “was obedient to the presidential command.” It passed, without debate, a very broad bill giving the Government the same right to appeal legal issues decided adversely to it as had earlier been accorded a criminal defendant. The Senate would not accept any such sweeping change of the traditional common-law rule giving the Government no appeal at all. The substitute bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out narrowed the House bill substantially, and limited the Government's right to appeal to writs of error from decisions (1) quashing an indictment or sustaining a demurrer to an indictment; (2) arresting judgment of conviction because of the insufficiency of the indictment; and (3) sustaining special pleas in bar when the defendant had not been put in jeopardy. Even as narrowed, the bill met opposition on the floor, and the session closed without Senate action.
The next session, after the bill was again reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was debated for three days on the floor and again met strong opposition. Reflecting the deep concern that the legislation not jeopardize interests of defendants whose cases were appealed by the Government, amendments were adopted requiring the Government to appeal within 30 days and to prosecute its cases with diligence; and allowing defendants whose eases were appealed to be released on their own recognizance in the discretion of the presiding judge. Various Senators were particularly concerned lest there be any possibility that a defendant who had already been through one trial be subjected to another trial after a successful appeal by the Government. In response to this concern, an amendment was then adopted requiring that a verdict in favor of the defendant not be set aside on appeal no matter how erroneous the legal theory upon which it might be based. For these purposes, it was made plain that it made no difference whether the verdict be the result of the jury’s decision or that of the judge. Moreover, as we explore in more detail later, the debates suggest that apart from decisions arresting judgment, there were to be no appeals taken in any case in which jeopardy had attached by the impaneling of the jury. Finally, to limit further the scope of the Act to cases of public importance, the Government’s right to appeal (under all but the special plea in bar provision) was confined to cases in which the ground of the District Court’s decision was the “invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded.”
With all these amendments the Senate passed the bill without division on February 13, 1907, but the House, after referring the Senate’s version to its Judiciary Committee, disagreed with the Senate bill and proposed a conference. The conference committee, apart from divesting the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to hear any government appeals, adopted the Senate version of the bill with merely formal changes. Both the Senate and the House approved the bill reported out by the committee and with the President’s signature the Criminal Appeals Act became law.
B
With this perspective, we now examine the arguments made in opposition to our conclusion. It is argued in dissent that § 3731 “contemplates that an arrest of judgment is appropriate in other than a closed category of cases defined by legal history,” and concludes that “evidence adduced at trial can be considered by a district court as the basis for a motion in arrest of judgment when that evidence is used solely for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the charging statute as applied,” post, at 314 (dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice).
The dissenters propose in effect to create a new procedure — label it a decision arresting judgment — in order to conclude that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal by the Government. The statutory phrase “decision arresting a judgment” is not an empty vessel into which this Court is free to pour a vintage that we think better suits present-day tastes. As we have shown, Congress defined our jurisdiction in the Criminal Appeals Act in terms of procedures existing in 1907. As a matter of interpretation, this Court has no right to give the statutory language a meaning inconsistent with its common-law antecedents, and alien to the limitations that today govern motions in arrest of judgment under Rule 34.
Radical reinterpretations of the statutory phrase “decision arresting a judgment” are said to be necessary in order to effectuate a broad policy, found to be underlying the Criminal Appeals Act, that this Court review important legal issues. The axiom that courts should endeavor to give statutory language that meaning that nurtures the policies underlying legislation is one that guides us when circumstances not plainly covered by the terms of a statute are subsumed by the underlying policies to which Congress was committed. Care must be taken, however, to respect the limits up to which Congress was prepared to enact a particular policy, especially when the boundaries of a statute are drawn as a compromise resulting from the countervailing pressures of other policies. Our disagreeing Brothers, in seeking to energize the congressional commitment to review, ignore the subtlety of the compromise that limited our jurisdiction, thereby garnering the votes necessary to enact the Criminal Appeals Act.
In this regard, the legislative history reveals a strong current of congressional solicitude for the plight of a criminal defendant exposed to additional expense and anxiety by
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Rutledge
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is the fourth in a series seeking here a determination of the invalidity, on constitutional grounds, of the First and Second Renegotiation Acts and allied legislation.
In Coffman v. Breeze Corporations, 323 U. S. 316, and in Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129, the Royalty Adjustment Act was attacked. The Alma Motor case was remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for a determination of the Act’s applicability. The suit in the Coffman case was by a patent owner to restrain his licensees from paying accrued royalties to the Government pursuant to the Act’s provisions. We held that the complaint had been rightly dismissed for want of equity jurisdiction, since the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law by suit against its licensees, and also for want of a justiciable case or controversy.
In Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal, 326 U. S. 371, a government contractor challenged the Renegotiation Acts. The complaint sought to enjoin the Secretary of the Navy from taking action “which would stop payment by the government of money lawfully in the United States Treasury to satisfy the government’s and not the Secretary’s debt to the appellant.” 326 U. S. at 374. Accordingly we held that the Government was an indispensable party. Since it neither had been joined in the suit nor had consented to be sued in such a proceeding, it followed that the complaint had been properly dismissed.
In one other case, Macauley v. Waterman S. S. Cory., 327 U. S. 540, constitutionality was not involved, but coverage of the Renegotiation Acts was put in issue. The suit was brought in a District Court for a declaratory judgment and to restrain further renegotiation proceedings affecting the specified contracts. The contractor had not sought a decision on coverage from the Tax Court. We held that the Tax Court has power to decide such questions in the proceedings authorized by § 403 (e) (1) of the Second Renegotiation Act. Hence, under the authority of Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41, the complaint in the Waterman case'also was held rightly to have been dismissed, in this instance for the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedy.
Now the Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corporation seeks a declaratory judgment that the First and Second Renegotiation Acts are unconstitutional on various grounds. Injunctive relief also is asked. And, in addition to the constitutional questions, determination is sought of issues of coverage and other matters.
The defendants, appellees here, consist of the members of the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, the Secretary of War, and the Under Secretary of War. Pursuant to the statutory requirement, 50 Stat. 751, 752, 28 U. S. C. § 380 (a), a district court of three judges was especially convened. After hearing, the complaint was dismissed. One ground for this action was that the suit is premature, since proceedings were pending and undetermined in the Tax Court, pursuant to appellant’s applications, for redetermination of its allegedly excessive profits for 1942 and 1943. The court also held that it was without jurisdiction in equity, since in its view adequate remedy at law was available to Aircraft. Probable jurisdiction of the appeal was duly noted here.
We think the District Court correctly dismissed the complaint, and for the reasons stated as grounding its action. The issues expansively include almost all comprehended in the causes previously determined here. But the case reaches this Court in a posture differing in some substantial respects from that characterizing any of those proceedings. Hence it becomes necessary to set forth with some particularity the facts and controlling issues.
I.
Appellant is in the business of manufacturing diesel fuel injection equipment and precision parts, and aircraft precision parts. Its manufacturing activities, insofar as material, were carried on under subcontracts with government contractors. The contractor in turn furnished the completed aircraft or engines to the United States.
Pursuant to the First Renegotiation Act, the Secretary of War, acting through his delegate the Under Secretary of War, determined on October 27, 1943, that during the fiscal year ended November. 30, 1942, appellant had realized excessive profits (less tax credits) amounting to $204,000. On April 29, 1944, the Under Secretary directed appellant’s customers to withhold this sum from appellant. Thereafter it filed a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the alleged excessive profits. Nevertheless, on July 19, 1944, the Under Secretary further directed appellant’s customers to pay the $204,000 into the Treasury of the United States, and this direction was obeyed.
Following the fiscal year ended November 30, 1943, renegotiation proceedings were instituted under the Second Renegotiation Act. On January 11, 1945, the Under Secretary of War, as delegate of the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, entered an order determining that appellant had realized excessive profits of $1,265,000. Deduction of tax credits reduced this amount to approximately $270,000. Appellant again filed a petition for redetermination with the Tax Court. Then followed this suit.
The amended complaint is too lengthy for detailed sum-marization in this opinion. Apart from allegations going to constitutionality and coverage, including asserted defects in the renegotiation procedures followed, the complaint sought to establish jurisdiction in the District Court, equitable in character, by showing the inadequacy of all available legal or other remedies. These included the pending Tax Court proceedings, possible suit in the Court of Claims following completion of the Tax Court’s determination, and actions at law against appellant’s customers, contractors with the Government, to recover the amounts said to be due under their various contracts.
In particular it was alleged that, notwithstanding the pendency of the Tax Court proceedings, the Board and the Secretary, or his delegates, were taking steps to prevent Aircraft’s customers from paying over to it moneys owing on contracts, aggregating $270,000, and claimed to be due the Government as excessive profits. The complaint alleged further that the Board and the Secretary were threatening to direct Aircraft’s customers to pay these sums into the Treasury and that, unless they were restrained, such payment would be made, to appellant’s irreparable injury. No direct relief was asked, by way of judgment or decree, for refund of the $204,000 collected by the Government from appellant’s customers, pursuant to the First Renegotiation Act, as excessive profits realized in 1942. It was suggested, however, that if that Act should be found invalid and the Second Act sustained, the Government should be permitted to collect only the difference between $270,000, the amount determined to be excessive profits for 1943, and the $204,000 collected for 1942. The suggestion, of course, if formally made, would be substantially a claim against the Government by way of setoff of the latter amount. Cf. Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal, supra.
The Government has contested each of appellant’s claims. But its primary contentions have been aimed at Aircraft’s jurisdictional showing. It argues that the suit in substance and legal effect is one against the United States, to which there has been no governmental consent, cf. Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal, supra; that the suit is premature, because the Tax Court proceedings have not been completed and until this has been done Aircraft will not have exhausted its administrative remedy, cf. Macauley v. Waterman S. S. Corp., supra; that the Tax Court has been given exclusive jurisdiction in renegotiation matters; and that, in any event, there is no jurisdiction of an equitable character in the District Court, to afford the relief appellant seeks, since it has an adequate remedy at law by suit upon its contracts to recover any amounts due from its customers, in which all questions of constitutionality may be determined. Cf. Coffman v. Breeze Corporations, supra.
In the latter connection appellee Hirsch, as chairman of the Board, has filed an affidavit admitting that he and the other appellees, unless restrained, will take steps, as appellant alleges, to prevent payment of the $270,000 by its customers to it, and also to secure payment of that sum into the Treasury. The affidavit sets forth, however, that direction for payment will not be required or made as to more than two or three of appellant’s customers and, in the event this does not result in payment of the full amount, the Government will proceed to collect whatever may remain by suit against appellant.
Aircraft, on the other hand, both in the amended complaint and by the supporting affidavit of its president, alleged that no such sum as $270,000 was owing to it from, or could be collected by direction to, any two or three of its customers. Rather it was set forth that collection of any such amount could be made only by direction to some sixteen or more customers. And on the same basis it is asserted that Aircraft’s remedy by suit against its customers would require institution of numerous actions in different jurisdictions, resulting in expense and delay, as well as loss of good will and incurring the continued risk of the customers’ solvency. Accordingly Aircraft claims that jurisdiction in equity is conferred upon the District Court both by reason of the multiplicity of suits involved in asserting the legal remedy by actions against its customers and because of the injurious consequences which would follow from pursuing that course.
II.
We do not find it necessary to undertake determining the threshold question whether the suit is one against the United States. Were the issue squarely presented as a formal claim for refund or setoff concerning the $204,000 collected by the Government for 1942, the case in that aspect would be very close to Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal, supra.
We do not tarry, however, to consider further this feature of the case, since the absence of formal and specific claim in the nature of setoff or otherwise indicates, we think, a strategic decision to avoid the difficulties which would follow upon its definite and unequivocal assertion, on the score of the nature of the suit as being one in fact and function against the Government. Something more than a mere suggestion of claim for relief is required to bring into play judicial power of affording remedy, especially when it appears there may be good reason deliberately accepted for going no farther. This is reinforced when the suggestion, if acted on, would involve the Court in decision of serious constitutional questions. They are not to be entertained upon dubious presentations or, most certainly, when the presentation reasonably may be taken as not intended to put them forward squarely and inescapably. Cf. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549; Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129. Accordingly we put to one side the lengthy allegations concerning the 1942 determination, and confine our consideration to the issues relating to the redeter-mination made for the fiscal year of 1943.
These also, the Government urges, substantially are effective to make the suit one against the Government, to which it has not consented. And for this view, likewise, it relies upon the Mine Safety decision, as well as others. Appellant undertakes to distinguish the cases upon the basis that in the Mine Safety case the official action sought to be enjoined was conduct effective to stop the payment of funds out of the Treasury, whereas here the analogous conduct affects no funds in the Government’s actual possession but seeks only to touch moneys held by third persons for appellant’s or the Government’s account. The difference, it is urged, is between action affecting only the withholding of government moneys and action effective to bring about collection from third persons of moneys claimed to be due to the Government.
That difference indeed may be substantial. But we do not decide whether it is sufficient to enable the appellant to avoid the difficulty presented of foreclosing the Government’s claim by a suit brought only against its officials, essentially as trespassers, without joining the Government itself. In other words, we do not determine whether the suit is, in legal effect, one against the Government, since in our opinion the other grounds going to the District Court’s jurisdiction are adequate to sustain its dismissal of the cause.
Ordinarily of course issues relating to exhaustion of administrative remedies, as a condition precedent to securing judicial relief, and to the existence of jurisdiction in equity are either separate or separable matters, to be treated as entirely or substantially distinct. The one generally speaking is simply a condition to be performed prior to invoking an exercise of jurisdiction by the courts. The other goes to the existence of judicial power in the basic jurisdictional sense. In this case, however, the exhaustion problem and that of equity jurisdiction are closely, indeed inseparably, related. And both are colored by the relevant specific provisions of the Renegotiation Acts, more particularly the Second, since it alone provides for Tax Court redetermination.
In Macauley v. Waterman S. S. Corp., supra, we were called upon to consider the relation between the Tax Court proceedings; as provided by § 403 (e) (1), and judicial proceedings instituted in the district or other courts of the United States in regard to renegotiation matters. Section 403 (e) (1) authorizes “any contractor or subcontractor aggrieved by an order of the Board determining the amount of excessive profits received or accrued by” him, to file a petition for redetermination with the Tax Court within ninety days after notice of the order is mailed. The section then provides:
“Upon such filing such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction, by order,, to finally determine the amount, if any, of such excessive profits received or accrued by the contractor or subcontractor, and such determination shall not be reviewed or redetermined by any court or agency.”
The section expressly states that the proceeding “shall not be treated as a proceeding to review the determination of the Board, but shall be treated as a proceeding de novo.” And the Tax Court is given the same powers and duties, “insofar as applicable,” respecting “the contractor, the subcontractor, the Board and the Secretary, and in respect of the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers,” together with other procedural matters, as the court has under specified sections of the Internal Revenue Code in redetermining a deficiency in taxes. Moreover, § 403 (e) (1) commands: “The filing of a petition under this subsection shall not operate to stay the execution of the order of the Board under subsection (c) (2).”
In the Waterman case, taking account of these provisions, we said: “The legislative history of the Renegotiation Act, moreover, shows that Congress intended the Tax Court to have exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions of fact and law, which latter include the issue raised here of whether the contracts in question are subject to the Act.” 327 U. S. at 544. “To grant the injunction sought,” the opinion continued, “the District Court would have to decide this issue in the first instance. Whether it ever can do so or not, it cannot now decide questions of coverage when the administrative agencies authorized to do so have not yet made their determination. Here just as in the Myers case, the administrative process, far from being exhausted, had hardly begun. The District Court consequently was correct in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to act.” Ibid., 544 — 545.
The Waterman case differed from this one in three respects. There the appellant had “hardly begun” the administrative process, while here Aircraft has done all that it can do. The Waterman Corporation had contracted directly with a government agency, the Maritime Commission. Here the appellant is a subcontractor, a difference of some importance in the matter of jurisdiction in equity later to be noted. The Waterman case, as we have said, raised only questions of coverage, not issues of constitutionality. Here both types of question are presented. On the other hand, the cases are substantially identical in the nature of the relief sought. Each complaint asked for a declaratory judgment upon the legal issues and for injunctive relief restraining further action looking toward application óf the Act’s provisions.
We do not think the differences mentioned are sufficient to distinguish the cases for purposes of applying the exhaustion rule. Certainly no such effect can be derived from the fact that in the Waterman case the plaintiff had not begun the administrative process, while here Aircraft has gone as far as it can. The doctrine, wherever applicable, does not require merely the initiation of prescribed administrative procedures. It is one of exhausting them, that is, of pursuing them to their appropriate conclusion and, correlatively, of awaiting their final outcome before seeking judicial intervention.
The very purpose of providing either an exclusive or an initial and preliminary administrative determination is to secure the administrative judgment either, in the one case, in substitution for judicial decision or, in the other, as foundation for or perchance to make unnecessary later judicial proceedings. Where Congress has clearly commanded that administrative judgment be taken initially or exclusively, the courts have no lawful function to anticipate the administrative decision with their own, whether or not when it has been rendered they may intervene either in presumed accordance with Congress’ will or because, for constitutional reasons, its will to exclude them has been exerted in an invalid manner. To do this not only would contravene the will of Congress as a matter of restricting or deferring judicial action. It would nullify the congressional objects in providing the administrative determination. In this case these include securing uniformity of administrative policy and disposition, expertness of judgment, and finality in determination, at least of those things which Congress intended to and could commit to such agencies for final decision.
There can be no doubt whatever, in view of the legislative history, that Congress had each of these ends in view when it provided for the Tax Court proceedings, as well as for action by the Board prior to that stage. -Indeed the Board was created in large part to bring under a single aegis the last stage of informal renegotiation before the Tax Court action, in order thus to secure as nearly as possible uniform policy and administration of renegotiation problems. This policy was followed and reinforced in the provision for Tax Court redetermination. And that procedure was chosen deliberately in preference to judicial review in the Court of Claims or elsewhere, primarily because of the Tax Court’s expertness in fiscal matters analogous to those arising in connection with renegotiation problems, as well as its essentially judicial procedures and experience.
It is equally clear that Congress intended to endow the Tax Court’s decisions with a very large degree of finality, as appears from the very terms of § 403 (e) (1), from the whole structure of the Act, and from the legislative history. The express command of § 403 (e) (1) is not simply that the Tax Court shall have “exclusive jurisdiction, by order, to finally determine” the amount of excessive profits, if any. It is also that the determination “shall not be reviewed or redetermined by any court or agency.” This is buttressed by the prohibition that filing the petition shall not operate to stay execution of the Board’s order under § 403 (c) (2). And not irrelevant to the statute’s general policy of finality are the provisions making the Board’s determinations final, if the petition for Tax Court redetermination is not filed in the specified time, and those of the Secretary or his delegates final if similar action is not taken to secure redetermination by the Board. § 403 (c) (1).
True, the statute expressly confers rights to follow through the various stages of the procedure to the end of the Tax Court phase. Nevertheless its entire structure indicates the congressional purpose to have matters of renegotiation promptly and expeditiously settled; and to accomplish this as far as possible both by informal negotiations and by introducing the compulsion of finality at every stage unless each succeeding one is taken as commanded.
At the height of the war Congress recognized, as did the procuring agencies, that speed in procurement, and consequently in production of war materials, outweighed all other considerations normally applicable. And while renegotiation was a product of that necessity rather than a cause, the problems it raised were time consuming and closely related to pricing difficulties. Often they worked to hinder and delay the process of procurement. Congress therefore sought, so far as possible, to relieve the interrelated processes from the tedious burden of litigation. It did this by writing the policy of finality into the Act’s provisions at each successive procedural stage, although saving the right of resort eventually to the Tax Court to those acting promptly in the prescribed way.
We do not express any opinion, indeed we explicitly reserve decision, upon the question of the finality of Tax Court decisions in these matters. But we cannot infer from a statute so conditioned in background, purpose, terms and compulsion derived from the inevitable circumstances of its application that Congress intended to allow skirting the procedures devised altogether or partially, more particularly in any case where following them could result in no greater loss than the delay and inconvenience which would flow from inability to seek some other remedy not dependent upon their completion.
We are not forced in this case, however, to decide whether Congress intended to give the Tax Court the last word upon all questions of fact and law, or whether it could do so if that were surely its purpose. Nor need we become involved in an attempt to decide what particular questions it might have left, or did leave, for that body’s final and conclusive disposition. For it seems obvious, in view of the Act’s terms, history, objects and the policies incorporated, that Congress clearly and at the very least intended the Tax Court’s functions not only to be put in motion but to be fully performed, before judicial intervention should take place at the instance of one in appellant’s position.
This indeed was the ruling of the Waterman case. And we do not think the effect of that ruling is exhausted simply because constitutional questions were not raised there, but have been put forward in this cause. Nor is it overcome, in our judgment, by the showing which has been made on this record of irreparable injury and of the need as well as the power of equity to forestall the complete operation of the congressionally prescribed procedure.
On the contrary, whatever may be true of other situations, in this case the very fact that constitutional issues are put forward constitutes a strong reason for not allowing this suit either to anticipate or to take the place of the Tax Court’s final performance of its function. When that has been done, it is possible that nothing will be left of appellant’s claim, asserted both in that proceeding and in this cause, concerning which it will have basis for complaint.
The Tax Court may decide entirely in appellant’s favor. Indeed, if it can sustain there the claims and issues it offers to support here, that possibility is not an unlikely one. For, apart from the questions of constitutionality and of the Tax Court’s power to decide them finally or otherwise, appellant has put forward, in both proceedings, claims of exemption and noncoverage relating to contracts involving much larger amounts than the aggregate sums affected by renegotiation, after deduction of tax credits. And if those claims are well founded, as to which of course we express no opinion, the Tax Court’s determination of these matters of coverage, which we held in the Waterman case are initially at least for its disposition, well might render consideration of the constitutional questions by it unnecessary and this cause moot.
Certainly that possible outcome should not be anticipated, either here or by the District Court, through a decision in this case on the constitutional issues. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549. No more should it be forestalled by decision upon the matters of coverage. Macauley v. Waterman S. S. Corp., supra.
It is true that the presence of constitutional questions, coupled with a sufficient showing of inadequacy of prescribed administrative relief and of threatened or impending irreparable injury flowing from delay incident to following the prescribed procedure, has been held sufficient to dispense with exhausting the administrative process before instituting judicial intervention. But, without going into a detailed analysis of the decisions, this rule is not one of mere convenience or ready application. Where the intent of Congress is clear to require administrative determination, either to the exclusion of judicial action or in advance of it, a strong showing is required, both of inadequacy of the prescribed procedure and of impending harm, to permit short-circuiting the administrative process. Congress’ commands for judicial restraint in this respect are not lightly to be disregarded.
More especially is this true with legislation, of this type, adopted during and to meet the emergency of war and resting, at least in part, upon war powers. For, in such cases, “only if we could say in advance of resort to the statutory procedure that it is incapable of affording due process to petitioners could we conclude that they have shown any legal excuse for their failure to resort to it or that their constitutional rights have been or will be infringed,” Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 435, a statement implicitly requiring exhaustion, not merely initiation, of the statutory procedure.
We need not decide in this case, however, whether mere doubt concerning the adequacy of administrative or other relief would be sufficient for allowing anticipation of the administrative determination. For that course is not to be followed if there is another remedy, not inconsistent with the congressional command, and of certain character, even though it be neither so expeditious or convenient as some other sought to be substituted which circumvents that command. To this of course should be added the further qualification that following the prescribed remedy, upon the showing made, will not certainly or probably result in the loss or destruction of substantive rights.
/, This brings us to consideration of the showing made / here in support of equity’s intervention. That showing, I we think when considered in the light of the foregoing I principles and of the statute’s clear purpose and intent,'is not sufficient.
Whatever may be the scope allowed generally for equity to intervene upon the ground of inadequacy of legal remedies, where no explicit congressional command exists for following a prescribed procedure, the problem when such a mandate is present is entirely different from one tendered in its absence. The very fact that Congress has made the direction must be cast into the scales as against the factors which, without that fact, would or might be of sufficient weight to turn the balance in favor of allowing utilization of equity’s resources. That fact itself may be of such weight as to turn the scales the other way, even in situations much more doubtful than the present one. In short, the so-called general principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction in equity are not to be taken, in such a case, as isolated from all effect of the legislative mandate or necessarily or even readily as overriding it.
In the first place, there can be no doubt of the availability or indeed of the certainty and effectiveness of appellant’s remedy at law by suit upon its contracts against its customers claimed to owe it money under those agreements. Suits of that character are not forbidden, either expressly or impliedly by the Renegotiation Acts. Nor are they made dependent upon completion of the Tax Court proceedings. Moreover we know of no reason why every question of constitutionality which has been raised in this suit could not be presented and determined in such a suit.
In addition, there is special reason in the statutory provisions why that course should be followed rather than allowing the present suit. Appellant is, as we have pointed out, a subcontractor, not a contractor with the Government. While its suit could be instituted directly only against the contractor with whom it had dealt, nevertheless it is hardly conceivable that the Government would permit the suit to go to final judgment without intervention by it or, at the least, undertaking the responsibility for making the defense. For by § 403 (c) (2) it is expressly provided: “Each contractor and subcontractor is hereby indemnified by the United States against all claims by any subcontractor on account of amounts withheld from such subcontractor pursuant to this paragraph.”
In the face of this indemnity, the contractor becomes substantially a stakeholder as between the Government and the subcontractor, and the latter’s suit against the contractor, if terminated favorably to the complainant, would obligate the Government to indemnify or reimburse the contractor for the liability thus incurred. In effect, the Government has consented to suit by the contractor in the Court of Claims on account of any liability the contractor incurs by virtue of lawful payment of the subcontractor’s claims.
Accordingly, there would seem to be no substantial reason for regarding the suit against the contractor as inherently inadequate or ineffective for the protection of any rights of the appellant, including constitutional ones. In this respect the case stands identically with Coffman v. Breeze Corporations, supra. If any such inadequacy exists, it must be by virtue of factors extraneous to the nature of the suit itself and not present in the Coffman case.
These appellant seeks to establish in its showing relating to multiplicity of suits and irreparable injury. Apart from multiplicity, the showing concerning injury certainly would not be sufficient to justify eliminating the Tax Court proceeding. Boiled down, the allegations come to appellant’s assuming, for the period necessary to secure either the Tax Court’s decision or final judgment in suits against its customers directed to withhold, the continued risk of their solvency, without specific allegation that any of them is seriously so threatened or facts to support such a claim; and to deprivation, for the same period, of the use of $270,000 directed to be withheld. We do not think this showing alone, without regard to multiplicity, approaches what would be required to sustain the intervention of a court of equity, particularly in order to avoid or anticipate the congressionally authorized proceeding.
Nor, in the facts of this case, is the showing made concerning multiplicity of suits sufficient for that purpose. Appellant’s case as made in this feature is that it would be forced to sue some sixteen “or more” customers, in various and scattered jurisdictions, with consequent expense of litigation and “resultant ill-feeling and irreparable injury” to good will and appellant’s business. On the other hand stands the affidavit of appellee Hirsch that direction for withholding and payment into the Treasury will not be needed or given in more than two or three instances, and in case any balance should remain it will be collected through suit instituted by the Government.
Whether the District Court accepted one version of the facts or the other, it found there was no sufficient basis in the claim of multiplicity to sustain equity’s assumption of jurisdiction. We would not be disposed to override that judgment of the trial court, turning as much as it may upon questions of fact.
Moreover, it is not apparent, at any rate from the allegations, why it would be necessary for appellant to sue all of the sixteen customers or indeed perhaps more than one of them in order to secure a determination of its constitutional rights or preserve its rights. A single test suit would serve the former purpose fully, and there are no allegations of fact sufficient to show that appellant’s rights of recourse against others probably would be lost by awaiting the outcome of such a suit, either legally through the operation of statutes of limitations or practically, as we have said, through any probable incidence of insolvency.
In the absence of either kind of showing, the injury appellant seeks to avoid by the argument of multiplicity actually comes down, as we have said, to deprivation of the use of the amount withheld for the period required for completion of the Tax Court proceedings or a test suit against a customer. Whether or not there will be any injury in this limited respect depends of course, first, on the outcome of the Tax Court proceedings, particularly in relation to the matters of coverage; second, on whether, upon the assumption that those proceedings sustain the Government’s claim as to all or part of the $270,000, the amount thus found due is finally held, in authorized litigation, to be due and owing to the appellant or to the Government. And, as we have also said, if that result should favor the appellant, the Government’s obligation to indemnify the contractor would be, in effect, indirectly available to appellant to indemnify it for any loss of the use of the moneys withheld.
Whatever might be true in other circumstances, this showing as to the necessity for suing many customers is hardly sufficient to justify the substitution of equity’s extraordinary relief for what in all the conditions of this case appears to be a full, adequate and completely available remedy at law. Coffman v. Breeze Corporations, supra; Macauley v. Waterman S. S. Corp., supra.
Indeed the argument of multiplicity, with others, was expressly advanced and rejected in the Waterman case, as ground for not applying the Myers rule and for sustaining declaratory and equitable intervention to circumvent it. After noting the company’s claim, with others, that “it would be subjected to a multiplicity of suits in order to recover the money due on the contracts,” we there said: “Even if one or all of these things might possibly occur in the future, that possibility does not affect the application of the rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. The District Court had no power to determine in this proceeding and at this time issues that might arise because of these future contingencies.” 327 U. S. at 545.
This case is perhaps even stronger than the Waterman case for application of the Myers rule. For here the appellant is a subcontractor retaining what the contractor complainant did not have in the Waterman case, namely, a completely adequate remedy at law against its customers, buttressed by the Government’s guaranty of indemnity to the contractor for all liability incurred by him on account of withholding funds allegedly due the appellant.
In view of that fact the further one that constitutional issues are included among those tendered in this case but were not presented in the Waterman case, becomes wholly immaterial. To countenance short-circuiting of the Tax Court proceedings here would be, under all the circumstances but more especially in view of Congress’ policy and command with respect to those proceedings, a long overreaching of equity’s strong arm.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Jackson concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
The First Renegotiation Act was contained in § 403 of the Sixth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 56 Stat. 226, as amended 56 Stat. 798, 982, 57 Stat. 347, 57 Stat. 564. The Second Renegotiation Act appears in the 1943 Revenue Act. 58 Stat. 21, 78, as amended 59 Stat. 294.
Of October 31, 1942, 56 Stat. 1013, 35 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1946)
See note 1.
The War Contracts Price Adjustment Board is created by § 403 (d) (1) of the Second Renegotiation Act, 50 U. S. C. App. (Supp. V, 1946) § 1191 (d) (1). The present appellees were substituted by an order of the District Court as successors in office of the original defendants.
62 F. Supp. 520.
See note 9. The Tax Court proceedings remain pending and undetermined at the date of this decision.
On appellant’s application the District Court enjoined the defendants, pending determination of the appeal, from taking further action to enforce the statutes, particularly by notifying or requiring appellant’s customers to pay into the Treasury of the United States moneys alleged to be due Aircraft under contract provisions, but claimed by appellees to be payable to the Government as excessive profits pursuant to the Acts’ terms.. Cf. notes 10,13 infra.
The amended complaint alleges that appellant supplied materials to the Department of the Navy under one contract made directly between it and the Government. But it is also alleged that appellant has been paid in full for these supplies. Apparently, therefore, the contract and the relation which it created between appellant and the Government have no bearing upon the issues in this cause.
The First Renegotiation Act did not provide for redetermination by the Tax Court as originally enacted; nor did it specifically provide for review, by any body, of the determination of excessive profits. See Steadman, A Further Legal Inquiry Into Renegotiation: I (1944) 43 Mich. L. Rev. 1,12. But Tax Court redetermination was afforded by the Second Renegotiation Act and was made retroactive. 50 U. S. C. App. (Supp. V, 1946) § 1191 (e) (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the 30-day time limit to file a notice of appeal in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) or the 60-day time limit in Rule 4(a)(1)(B) applies when the United States declines to formally intervene in a qui tarn action brought under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U. S. C. § 3729. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the 30-day limit applies. We affirm.
I
Petitioner Irwin Eisenstein and four New York City (City) employees filed this lawsuit against the City to challenge a fee charged by the City to nonresident workers. They contended, inter alia, that the City deprived the United States of tax revenue that it otherwise would have received if the fee had not been deducted as an expense from the workers’ taxable income. In their view, this violated the FCA, which creates civil liability for “[a]ny person who . . . knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” § 3729(a)(1). Although the United States is a “real party in interest” in a case brought under the FCA, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 17(a), an FCA action does not need to be brought by the United States. The FCA also allows “[a] person [to] bring a civil action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government.” § 3730(b)(1). In a case brought by a person rather than the United States, the FCA grants the United States 60 days to review the claim and decide whether it will “elect to intervene and proceed with the action.” § 3730(b)(2). After reviewing the complaint in this case, the United States declined to intervene but requested continued service of the pleadings. The United States took no other action with respect to the litigation. The District Court subsequently granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint and entered final judgment in their favor.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal 54 days later. While the appeal was pending, the Court of Appeals sua sponte ordered the parties to brief the issue whether the notice of appeal had been timely filed. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(l)(A)-(B) and 28 U. S. C. §§ 2107(a)-(b) generally require that a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment but extend the period to 60 days when “the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party,” § 2107(b). Petitioner argued that his appeal was timely filed under the 60-day limit because the United States is a “party” to every FCA suit. Respondents countered that the appeal was untimely under the 30-day limit because the United States is not a party to an FCA action absent formal intervention or other meaningful participation.
The Court of Appeals agreed with respondents that the 30-day limit applied and dismissed the appeal as untimely. See 540 F. 3d 94 (CA2 2008). We granted certiorari, 555 U. S. 1131 (2009), to resolve division in the Courts of Appeals on the question, and now affirm.
II
A party has 60 days to file a notice of appeal if “the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party” to the action. See § 2107(b) (“In any such [civil] action, suit or proceeding in which the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the time as to all parties shall be sixty days from such entry [of judgment]”); Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(1)(B) (“When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered”). Although the United States is aware of and minimally involved in every FCA action, we hold that it is not a “party” to an FCA action for purposes of the appellate filing deadline unless it has exercised its right to intervene in the case.
A
The FCA establishes a scheme that permits either the Attorney General, § 3730(a), or a private party, § 3730(b), to initiate a civil action alleging fraud on the Government. A private enforcement action under the FCA is called a qui tam action, with the private party referred to as the “relator.” Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U. S. 765, 769 (2000). When a relator initiates such an action, the United States is given 60 days to review the claim and decide whether it will “elect to intervene and proceed with the action,” §§ 3730(b)(2), (b)(4); see also § 3730(c)(3) (permitting the United States to intervene even after the expiration of the 60-day period “upon a showing of good cause”).
If the United States intervenes, the relator has “the right to continue as a party to the action,” but the United States acquires the “primary responsibility for prosecuting the action.” § 3730(c)(1). If the United States declines to intervene, the relator retains “the right to conduct the action.” § 3730(e)(3). The United States is thereafter limited to exercising only specific rights during the proceeding. These rights include requesting service of pleadings and deposition transcripts, § 3730(c)(3), seeking to stay discovery that “would interfere with the Government’s investigation or prosecution of a criminal or civil matter arising out of the same facts,” § 3730(c)(4), and vetoing a relator’s decision to voluntarily dismiss the action, § 3730(b)(1).
Petitioner nonetheless asserts that the Government is a “party” to the action even when it has not exercised its right to intervene. We disagree. A “party” to litigation is “[o]ne by or against whom a lawsuit is brought.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1154 (8th ed. 2004). An individual may also become a “party” to a lawsuit by intervening in the action. See id., at 840 (defining “intervention” as “[t]he legal procedure by which ... a third party is allowed to become a party to the litigation”). As the Court long ago explained, “[w]hen the term [to intervene] is used in reference to legal proceedings, it covers the right of one to interpose in, or become a party to, a proceeding already instituted.” Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U. S. 317, 330 (1912) (emphasis added). The Court has further indicated that intervention is the requisite method for a nonparty to become a party to a lawsuit. See Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U. S. 301, 304 (1988) (per curiam) (holding that “when [a] nonparty has an interest that is affected by the trial court’s judgment. . . the better practice is for such a nonparty to seek intervention for purposes of appeal” because “only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added)). The United States, therefore, is a “party” to a privately filed FCA action only if it intervenes in accordance with the procedures established by federal law.
To hold otherwise would render the intervention provisions of the FCA superfluous, as there would be no reason for the United States to intervene in an action in which it is already a party. Such a holding would contradict well-established principles of statutory interpretation that require statutes to be construed in a manner that gives effect to all of their provisions. See, e. g., Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 166 (2004); Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U. S. 468, 476-477 (2003). Congress expressly gave the United States discretion to intervene in FCA actions — a decision that requires consideration of the costs and benefits of party status. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26(a) (requiring a party to disclose certain information without awaiting any discovery request); Rule 34 (imposing obligations on parties served with requests for production of information); Rule 37 (providing for sanctions for noncompliance with certain party obligations). The Court cannot disregard that congressional assignment of discretion by designating the United States a “party” even after it has declined to assume the rights and burdens attendant to full party status.
B
Petitioner's arguments that the United States should be designated a party in all FCA actions irrespective of its decision to intervene are unconvincing. First, petitioner points to the United States’ status as a “real party in interest” in an FCA action and its right to a share of any resulting damages. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 17(a); Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, supra, at 772; see also 6A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1545, pp. 351-353 (2d ed. 1990) (“[W]hen there has been ... a partial assignment the assignor and the assignee each retain an interest in the claim and are both real parties in interest”). But the United States’ status as a “real party in interest” in a qui tarn action does not automatically convert it into a “party.”
The phrase, “real party in interest,” is a term of art utilized in federal law to refer to an actor with a substantive right whose interests may be represented in litigation by another. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 17(a); see also Cts. Crim. App. Rule Prac. & Proc. 20(b), 44 M. J. LXXII (1996) (“When an accused has not been named as a party, the accused ... shall be designated as the real party in interest”); Black’s Law Dictionary, supra, at 1154 (defining a “real party in interest” as “[a] person entitled under the substantive law to enforce the right sued upon and who generally ... benefits from the action’s final outcome”). Congress’ choice of the term “party” in Rule 4(a)(1)(B) and § 2107(b), and not the distinctive phrase, “real party in interest,” indicates that the 60-day time limit applies only when the United States is an actual “party” in qui tam actions — and not when the United States holds the status of “real party in interest.” Cf. Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U. S. 438, 452 (2002) (“[W]hen Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Consequently, when, as here, a real party in interest has declined to bring the action or intervene, there is no basis for deeming it a “party” for purposes of Rule 4(a)(1)(B).
We likewise reject petitioner’s related claim that the United States’ party status for purposes of Rule 4(a)(1)(B) is controlled by the statutory requirement that an FCA action be “brought in the name of the Government.” 31 U. S. C. § 3730(b)(1). A person or entity can be named in the caption of a complaint without necessarily becoming a party to the action. See 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1321, p. 388 (3d ed. 2004) (“[T]he caption is not determinative as to the identity of the parties to the action”). And here, it would make little sense to interpret the naming requirement of § 3730(b)(1) to dispense with the specific procedures for intervention provided elsewhere in the statute.
Second, petitioner relies on the Government’s right to receive pleadings and deposition transcripts in cases where it declines to intervene, see § 3730(c)(3). But the existence of this right, if anything, weighs against petitioner’s argument. If the United States were a party to every FCA suit, it would already be entitled to such materials under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, thus leaving no need for a separate provision preserving this basic right of litigation for the Government.
Third, petitioner relies on the fact that the United States is bound by the judgment in all FCA actions regardless of its participation in the case. But this fact is not determinative; nonparties may be bound by a judgment for a host of different reasons. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U. S. 880, 893-895 (2008) (describing “six established categories” in which a nonparty may be bound by a judgment); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 41(l)(d), p. 393 (1980) (noting that a nonparty may be bound by a judgment obtained by a party who, inter alia, is “[a]n official or agency invested by law with authority to represent the person’s interests”). If the United States believes that its rights are jeopardized by an ongoing qui tam action, the FCA provides for intervention — including “for good cause shown” after the expiration of the 60-day review period. The fact that the Government is bound by the judgment is not a legitimate basis for disregarding this statutory scheme.
Finally, petitioner contends that the underlying purpose of the 60-day time limit would be best served by applying Rule 4(a)(1)(B) in every FCA case. The purpose of the extended 60-day limit in cases where the United States is a party, he claims, is to provide the Government with sufficient time to review a case and decide whether to appeal. Petitioner contends that, even in cases where the Government did not intervene before the district court issued its decision, the Government may want to intervene for purposes of appeal, and should have the full 60 days to decide. But regardless of the purpose of Rule 4(a)(1)(B) and the convenience that additional time may provide to the Government, this Court cannot ignore the Rule’s text, which hinges the applicability of the 60-day period on the requirement that the United States be a “party” to the action.
Ill
We hold that when the United States has declined to intervene in a privately initiated FCA action, it is not a “party” to the litigation for purposes of either §2107 or Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. Because petitioner’s time for filing a notice of appeal in this case was therefore BO days, his appeal was untimely. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Compare Rodriguez v. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, 552 F. 3d 297, 302 (CA3 2008); United States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F 3d 773, 775 (CA7 2004); United States ex rel. Russell v. Epic Healthcare Mgmt. Group, 193 F. 3d 304, 308 (CA5 1999); United States ex rel. Haycock v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 98 F. 3d 1100, 1102 (CA9 1996), with United States ex rel. Petrofsky v. Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall, McCarthy, 588 F. 2d 1327, 1329 (CA10 1978) (per curiam).
This does not mean that the United States must intervene before it can appeal any order of the court in an FCA action. Under the collateral-order doctrine recognized by this Court in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546-547 (1949), the United States may appeal, for example, the dismissal of an FCA action over its objection. See 31 U. S. C. § 3730(b)(1); see also § 3730(c)(3); Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U. S. 301, 304 (1988) (per curiam) (noting that “denials of [motions to intervene) are, of course, appealable”). In such a case, the Government is a party for purposes of appealing the specific order at issue even though it is not a party for purposes of the final judgment and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B).
This Court’s decision in Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U. S. 1 (2002), is not to the contrary. There, the Court held that in a class-action suit, a class member who was not a named party in the litigation could appeal the approval of a settlement without formally intervening. See id., at 6-14. But the Court’s ruling was premised on the class-action nature of the suit, see id., at 10-11, and specifically noted that party status depends on “the applicability of various procedural rules that may differ based on context,” id., at 10. For the reasons explained above, we conclude that in the specific context of the FCA, intervention is necessary for the United States to obtain status as a “party” for purposes of Rule 4(a)(1)(B).
Petitioner contends that the uncertainty regarding Rule 4(a)(1)(B) has created a “tra[p] for the unwary,” and that our decision will unfairly punish those who relied on the holdings of courts adopting the 60-day limit in cases in which the United States was not a party. See Brief for Petitioner 25-27 (internal quotation marks omitted). As an initial matter, it is unclear how many pending cases are implicated by petitioner’s concern as such cases would have to involve parties who waited more than 30 days to appeal from the judgment in an FCA case in which the United States declined to intervene. But to the extent that there are such cases, the Court must nonetheless decide the jurisdictional question before it irrespective of the possibility of harsh consequences. See Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U. S. 312, 318 (1988) (“We recognize that construing Rule 3(c) [of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure] as a jurisdictional prerequisite leads to a harsh result in this case, but we are convinced that the harshness of our construction is ‘imposed by the legislature and not by the judicial process’ ” (quoting Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U. S. 21, 31 (1986))).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
The federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 88 Stat. 74, 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a), provides (with just a few exceptions) that "personnel actions" affecting individuals aged 40 and older "shall be made free from any discrimination based on age." We are asked to decide whether this provision imposes liability only when age is a "but-for cause" of the personnel action in question.
We hold that § 633a(a) goes further than that. The plain meaning of the critical statutory language ("made free from any discrimination based on age") demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age. This does not mean that a plaintiff may obtain all forms of relief that are generally available for a violation of § 633a(a), including hiring, reinstatement, backpay, and compensatory damages, without showing that a personnel action would have been different if age had not been taken into account. To obtain such relief, a plaintiff must show that age was a but-for cause of the challenged employment decision. But if age discrimination played a lesser part in the decision, other remedies may be appropriate.
I
Noris Babb, who was born in 1960, is a clinical pharmacist at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida. Babb brought suit in 2014 against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA), claiming that she had been subjected to age and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation for engaging in activities protected by federal anti-discrimination law. Only her age-discrimination claims are now before us.
Those claims center on the following personnel actions. First, in 2013, the VA took away Babb's "advanced scope" designation, which had made her eligible for promotion on the Federal Government's General Scale from a GS-12 to a GS-13. Second, during this same time period, she was denied training opportunities and was passed over for positions in the hospital's anticoagulation clinic. Third, in 2014, she was placed in a new position, and while her grade was raised to GS-13, her holiday pay was reduced. All these actions, she maintains, involved age discrimination, and in support of her claims, she alleges, among other things, that supervisors made a variety of age-related comments.
The VA moved for summary judgment and offered non-discriminatory reasons for the challenged actions, and the District Court granted that motion. Evaluating each of Babb's claims under the burden-shifting framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), the court found that Babb had established a prima facie case, that the Secretary had proffered legitimate reasons for the challenged actions, and that no jury could reasonably conclude that those reasons were pretextual.
Babb appealed, contending that the District Court should not have used the McDonnell Douglas framework because it is not suited for "mixed motives" claims. She argued that under the terms of the ADEA's federal-sector provision, a personnel action is unlawful if age is a factor in the challenged decision. As a result, she explained that even if the VA's proffered reasons were not pretextual, it would not necessarily follow that age discrimination played no part.
The Eleventh Circuit panel that heard Babb's appeal found that her argument was "foreclosed" by Circuit precedent but added that it might have agreed with her if it were "writing on a clean slate." Babb v. Secretary, Dept. of Veterans Affairs , 743 Fed.Appx. 280, 287 (2018) (citing Trask v. Secretary, Dept. of Veterans Affairs , 822 F.3d 1179 (CA11 2016) ).
We granted certiorari, 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2775, 204 L.Ed.2d 1156 (2019), to resolve a Circuit split over the interpretation of § 633a(a).
II
That provision of the ADEA states in relevant part: "All personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment who are at least 40 years of age ... shall be made free from any discrimination based on age." 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a).
The Government interprets this provision to impose liability only when age is a but-for cause of an employment decision. According to the Government, even if age played a part in such a decision, an employee or applicant for employment cannot obtain any relief unless it is shown that the decision would have been favorable if age had not been taken into account. This interpretation, the Government contends, follows both from the meaning of the statutory text and from the "default rule" that we have recognized in other employment discrimination cases, namely, that recovery for wrongful conduct is generally permitted only if the injury would not have occurred but for that conduct. See, e.g. , University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar , 570 U.S. 338, 346-347, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013).
Babb interprets the provision differently. She maintains that its language prohibits any adverse consideration of age in the decision-making process. Accordingly, she argues proof that age was a but-for cause of a challenged employment decision is not needed.
A
Which interpretation is correct? To decide, we start with the text of the statute, see Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. , 557 U.S. 167, 175, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009), and as it turns out, it is not necessary to go any further. The plain meaning of the statutory text shows that age need not be a but-for cause of an employment decision in order for there to be a violation of § 633a(a). To explain the basis for our interpretation, we will first define the important terms in the statute and then consider how they relate to each other.
1
Section 633a(a) concerns "personnel actions," and while the ADEA does not define this term, its meaning is easy to understand. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which governs federal employment, broadly defines a "personnel action" to include most employment-related decisions, such as appointment, promotion, work assignment, compensation, and performance reviews. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A). That interpretation is consistent with the term's meaning in general usage, and we assume that it has the same meaning under the ADEA.
Under § 633a(a), personnel actions must be made "free from" discrimination. The phrase "free from" means "untainted" or "[c]lear of (something which is regarded as objectionable)." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 905 (def. 4(a)(2)) (1976); 4 Oxford English Dictionary 521 (def. 12) (1933); see also American Heritage Dictionary 524 (def. 5(a)) (1969) (defining "free" "used with from" as "[n]ot affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance"); Random House Dictionary of the English Language 565 (def. 12) (1966) (defining "free" as "exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, burdens, etc."). Thus, under § 633a(a), a personnel action must be made "untainted" by discrimination based on age, and the addition of the term "any" ("free from any discrimination based on age") drives the point home. And as for "discrimination," we assume that it carries its " 'normal definition,' " which is " 'differential treatment.' " Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed. , 544 U.S. 167, 174, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361 (2005).
Under § 633a(a), the type of discrimination forbidden is "discrimination based on age," and "[i]n common talk, the phrase 'based on' indicates a but-for causal relationship." Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr , 551 U.S. 47, 63, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007) ; cf. Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African American-Owned Media , 140 S.Ct. 1009. Therefore, § 633a(a) requires that age be a but-for cause of the discrimination alleged.
What remains is the phrase "shall be made." "[S]hall be made" is a form of the verb "to make," which means "to bring into existence," "to produce," "to render," and "to cause to be or become." Random House Dictionary of the English Language, at 866. Thus, "shall be made" means "shall be produced," etc. And the imperative mood, denoting a duty, see Black's Law Dictionary 1233 (5th ed. 1979), emphasizes the importance of avoiding the taint.
2
So much for the individual terms used in § 633a(a). What really matters for present purposes is the way these terms relate to each other. Two matters of syntax are critical. First, "based on age" is an adjectival phrase that modifies the noun "discrimination." It does not modify "personnel actions." The statute does not say that "it is unlawful to take personnel actions that are based on age"; it says that "personnel actions ... shall be made free from any discrimination based on age." § 633a(a). As a result, age must be a but-for cause of discrimination-that is, of differential treatment-but not necessarily a but-for cause of a personnel action itself.
Second, "free from any discrimination" is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb "made." Ibid . Thus, "free from any discrimination" describes how a personnel action must be "made," namely, in a way that is not tainted by differential treatment based on age. If age discrimination plays any part in the way a decision is made, then the decision is not made in a way that is untainted by such discrimination.
This is the straightforward meaning of the terms of § 633a(a), and it indicates that the statute does not require proof that an employment decision would have turned out differently if age had not been taken into account.
To see what this entails in practice, consider a simple example. Suppose that a decision-maker is trying to decide whether to promote employee A, who is 35 years old, or employee B, who is 55. Under the employer's policy, candidates for promotion are first given numerical scores based on non-discriminatory factors. Candidates over the age of 40 are then docked five points, and the employee with the highest score is promoted. Based on the non-discriminatory factors, employee A (the 35-year-old) is given a score of 90, and employee B (the 55-year-old) gets a score of 85. But employee B is then docked 5 points because of age and thus ends up with a final score of 80. The decision-maker looks at the candidates' final scores and, seeing that employee A has the higher score, promotes employee A.
This decision is not "made" "free from any discrimination" because employee B was treated differently (and less favorably) than employee A (because she was docked five points and A was not). And this discrimination was "based on age" because the five points would not have been taken away were it not for employee B's age.
It is true that this difference in treatment did not affect the outcome, and therefore age was not a but-for cause of the decision to promote employee A. Employee A would have won out even if age had not been considered and employee B had not lost five points, since A's score of 90 was higher than B's initial, legitimate score of 85. But under the language of § 633a(a), this does not preclude liability.
The Government has no answer to this parsing of the statutory text. It makes two correct points: first, that " 'discrimination based on age' " "requires but-for causation," and, second, that " 'discrimination' " means " ' "differential treatment." ' " Brief for Respondent 16-17. But based on these two points, the Government draws the unwarranted conclusion that "[i]t is thus not enough for a federal employer merely to consider age ... if that consideration does not actually cause the employer to make a less favorable personnel action than it would have made for a similarly situated person who is younger." Id. , at 17. That conclusion does not follow from the two correct points on which it claims to be based. What follows instead is that, under § 633a(a), age must be the but-for cause of differential treatment , not that age must be a but-for cause of the ultimate decision .
B
The Government's primary argument rests not on the text of § 633a(a) but on prior cases interpreting different statutes. But contrary to the Government's argument, nothing in these past decisions undermines our interpretation of § 633a(a).
1. In Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr , 551 U.S. at 63, 127 S.Ct. 2201, we interpreted a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requiring that notice be provided "[i]f any person takes any adverse action with respect to any consumer that is based in whole or in part on any information contained in a consumer [credit] report. " 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(a) (emphasis added). This language is quite different from that of 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a).
In § 1681m(a), the phrase "based ... on any information contained in a consumer [credit] report" modifies "adverse action," and thus the information in question must be a but-for cause of the adverse action. By contrast, in § 633a(a), "based on" does not modify "personnel actions"; it modifies "discrimination," i.e. , differential treatment based on age.
The Government tries to find support in Safeco 's discussion of FCRA's reference to an adverse action that is "based ... in part " on a credit report. 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(a) (emphasis added). The Safeco Court observed that the phrase "in part" could be read to mean that notice had to be given "whenever the report was considered in the rate-setting process," but it rejected this reading. 551 U.S. at 63, 127 S.Ct. 2201. The Government suggests that the Court reached this conclusion because it thought that Congress would have "said so expressly" if it had meant to require notice in situations where consideration of a credit report was inconsequential. Brief for Respondent 19. Accordingly, the Government argues, because § 633a(a) does not say expressly that consideration of age is unlawful, we should conclude that mere consideration is insufficient to trigger liability. See id ., at 19-20.
This argument fails for two reasons. First, as explained above, the language of § 633a(a) does expressly impose liability if age discrimination plays a part in a federal employment decision. Second, Safeco did not invoke the sort of super-plain-statement rule that the Government now attributes to it. Instead, the Safeco Court rejected the argument on other grounds, including its assessment of the particular statutory scheme at issue. See 551 U.S. at 63-64, 127 S.Ct. 2201. That reasoning obviously has no application here.
2. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. , 557 U.S. 167, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119, we interpreted the private-sector provision of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), and held that it requires a plaintiff to prove that "age was the 'but-for' cause of the employer's adverse action." 557 U.S. at 177, 129 S.Ct. 2343. But as we previously recognized, the ADEA's private- and public-sector provisions are "couched in very different terms." Gómez-Pérez v. Potter , 553 U.S. 474, 488, 128 S.Ct. 1931, 170 L.Ed.2d 887 (2008).
Section 623(a)(1) makes it "unlawful for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." Thus, the but-for causal language in § 623(a)(1)--"because of such individual's age"--is an adverbial phrase modifying the verbs ("to fail or refuse to hire," etc.) that specify the conduct that the provision regulates. For this reason, the syntax of § 623(a)(1) is critically different from that of § 633a(a), where, as noted, the but-for language modifies the noun "discrimination." This is important because all the verbs in § 623(a)(1) -failing or refusing to hire, discharging, or otherwise discriminating with respect to "compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment"-refer to end results. By contrast, the provision in our case, § 633a(a), prohibits any age discrimination in the "mak[ing]" of a personnel decision, not just with respect to end results.
3. Finally, in University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar , 570 U.S. 338, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 186 L.Ed.2d 503, we interpreted Title VII's anti-retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), as requiring retaliation to be a but-for cause of the end result of the employment decision. The Court saw no "meaningful textual difference between the text [of that provision] and the one in Gross ," 570 U.S. at 352, 133 S.Ct. 2517, and the Court found support for its interpretation in the rule that recovery for an intentional tort generally requires proof " 'that the harm would not have occurred' in the absence of-that is, but for-the defendant's conduct." 570 U.S. at 346-347, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (quoting Restatement of Torts § 431, Comment a , pp. 1159-1160 (1934)).
That reasoning has no application in the present case. The wording of § 633a(a) --which refers expressly to the "mak[ing]" of personnel actions in a way that is "free from any discrimination based on age"--is markedly different from the language of the statutes at issue in Gross and Nassar , and the traditional rule favoring but-for causation does not dictate a contrary result. Section 633a(a) requires proof of but-for causation, but the object of that causation is "discrimination," i.e. , differential treatment, not the personnel action itself.
For these reasons, Safeco , Gross , and Nassar are entirely consistent with our holding in this case.
C
We are not persuaded by the argument that it is anomalous to hold the Federal Government to a stricter standard than private employers or state and local governments. That is what the statutory language dictates, and if Congress had wanted to impose the same standard on all employers, it could have easily done so.
As first enacted, the ADEA "applied only to actions against private employers." Lehman v. Nakshian , 453 U.S. 156, 166, 101 S.Ct. 2698, 69 L.Ed.2d 548 (1981). In 1974, "Congress expanded the scope of the ADEA" to reach both state and local governments and the Federal Government. Ibid. To cover state and local governments, Congress simply added them to the definition of an "employer" in the ADEA's private-sector provision, see 29 U.S.C. § 630(b), and Congress could have easily done the same for the Federal Government. Indeed, the first proposal for expansion of the ADEA to government entities did precisely that. Lehman , 453 U.S. at 166, n. 14, 101 S.Ct. 2698.
But Congress did not choose this route. Instead, it "deliberately prescribed a distinct statutory scheme applicable only to the federal sector," id. , at 166, 101 S.Ct. 2698, and in doing so, it eschewed the language used in the private-sector provision, § 623(a). See Gómez-Pérez , 553 U.S. at 488, 128 S.Ct. 1931. We generally ascribe significance to such a decision. See Russello v. United States , 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) (" '[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion' ").
That Congress would want to hold the Federal Government to a higher standard than state and private employers is not unusual. See Supp. Letter Brief for Respondent 1 ("The federal government has long adhered to antidiscrimination policies that are more expansive than those required by ... the ADEA"); e.g. , Exec. Order No. 11478, § 1, 3 CFR 446 (1969) ("It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment ... and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program"); Exec. Order No. 12106, § 1-102, 3 CFR 263 (1978) (amending Exec. Order No. 11478 to cover discrimination on the basis of age). And several years after adding § 633a(a) to the ADEA, Congress amended the civil service laws to prescribe similar standards. See 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(2) ("Federal personnel management should be implemented consistent with the ... merit system principl[e that a]ll employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to ... age").
In any event, "where, as here, the words of [a] statute are unambiguous, the ' "judicial inquiry is complete." ' " Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa , 539 U.S. 90, 98, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003) (quoting Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain , 503 U.S. 249, 254, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) ).
D
While Babb can establish that the VA violated § 633a(a) without proving that age was a but-for cause of the VA's personnel actions, she acknowledges-and we agree-that but-for causation is important in determining the appropriate remedy. It is bedrock law that "requested relief " must "redress the alleged injury." Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment , 523 U.S. 83, 103, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). Thus, § 633a(a) plaintiffs who demonstrate only that they were subjected to unequal consideration cannot obtain reinstatement, backpay, compensatory damages, or other forms of relief related to the end result of an employment decision. To obtain such remedies, these plaintiffs must show that age discrimination was a but-for cause of the employment outcome.
We have long employed these basic principles. In Texas v. Lesage , 528 U.S. 18, 21-22, 120 S.Ct. 467, 145 L.Ed.2d 347 (1999) (per curiam ), we applied this rule to a plaintiff who sought recovery under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for an alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause. We explained: "[W]here a plaintiff challenges a discrete governmental decision as being based on an impermissible criterion and it is undisputed that the government would have made the same decision regardless, there is no cognizable injury warranting [damages] relief." 528 U.S. at 21, 120 S.Ct. 467. Cf. Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle , 429 U.S. 274, 285, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) (rejecting rule that "would require reinstatement ... even if the same decision would have been reached had the incident not occurred").
Our conclusion is also supported by traditional principles of tort and remedies law. "Remedies generally seek to place the victim of a legal wrong ... in the position that person would have occupied if the wrong had not occurred." R. Weaver, E. Shoben, & M. Kelly, Principles of Remedies Law 5 (3d ed. 2017). Thus, "[a]n actor's liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor's conduct tortious." Restatement (Third) of Torts § 29, p. 493 (2005). Remedies should not put a plaintiff in a more favorable position than he or she would have enjoyed absent discrimination. But this is precisely what would happen if individuals who cannot show that discrimination was a but-for cause of the end result of a personnel action could receive relief that alters or compensates for the end result.
Although unable to obtain such relief, plaintiffs are not without a remedy if they show that age was a but-for cause of differential treatment in an employment decision but not a but-for cause of the decision itself. In that situation, plaintiffs can seek injunctive or other forward-looking relief. Determining what relief, if any, is appropriate in the present case is a matter for the District Court to decide in the first instance if Babb succeeds in showing that § 633a(a) was violated.
* * *
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins, concurring.
I join the majority opinion because I agree that 29 U.S.C. § 633a imposes liability even when age is not a " 'but-for cause' " of a personnel action. Ante , at 1171. I write separately to make two observations.
First, the Court does not foreclose § 633a claims arising from discriminatory processes. Cf. Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African American-Owned Media , 140 S.Ct. 1009 (GINSBURG, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). If, for example, an employer hires a 50-year-old person who passed a computer-aptitude test administered only to applicants above 40, clearly a question could arise as to whether the hiring decision was "made free from" differential treatment.
Second, this same example may suggest that § 633a permits damages remedies, even when the Government engages in nondispositive "age discrimination in the 'ma[king]' of a personnel decision." Ante , at 1176. If an applicant incurs costs to prepare for the discriminatorily administered aptitude test, a damages award compensating for such out-of-pocket expenses could restore the applicant to the "position tha[t] he or she would have enjoyed absent discrimination." Ante , at 1178.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. , 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
The General Schedule (GS) is a federal pay scale that is divided into 15 numbered grades. See 5 U.S.C. § 5104. "[A]s the number of the grade increases, so do pay and responsibilities." United States v. Clark , 454 U.S. 555, 557, 102 S.Ct. 805, 70 L.Ed.2d 768 (1982).
We have repeatedly explained that " 'the word "any" has an expansive meaning.' " Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 552 U.S. 214, 219, 128 S.Ct. 831, 169 L.Ed.2d 680 (2008) (quoting United States v. Gonzales , 520 U.S. 1, 5, 117 S.Ct. 1032, 137 L.Ed.2d 132 (1997) ). The standard dictionary definition of "any" is "[s]ome, regardless of quantity or number." American Heritage Dictionary 59 (def. 2) (1969).
Beyond this, the Government's only other textual argument is that the term "made" refers to a particular moment in time, i.e. , the moment when the final employment decision is made. We agree, but this does not mean that age must be a but-for cause of the ultimate outcome. If, at the time when the decision is actually made, age plays a part, then the decision is not made "free from" age discrimination.
It is not clear that Babb actually disagrees with the Government on this point, although the many references in her brief to the decisionmaking process could be read to mean that § 633a(a) can be violated even if age played no part whatsoever when the actual decision was made. If that is what Babb wants to suggest, however, we must disagree. It is entirely natural to regard an employment decision as being "made" at the time when the outcome is actually determined and not during events leading up to that decision. See American Heritage Dictionary, at 788 (def. 10) (defining "make" as "[t]o arrive at" a particular conclusion, i.e. , to "make a decision "). And holding that § 633a(a) is violated when the consideration of age plays no role in the final decision would have startling implications.
Consider this example: A decision-maker must decide whether to promote employee A, who is under 40, or employee B, who is over 40. A subordinate recommends employee A and says that the recommendation is based in part on employee B's age. The decision-maker rebukes this subordinate for taking age into account, disregards the recommendation, and makes the decision independently. Under an interpretation that read "made" expansively to encompass a broader personnel process, § 633a(a) would be violated even though age played no role whatsoever in the ultimate decision. Indeed, there might be a violation even if the decision-maker decided to promote employee B. We are aware of no other anti-discrimination statute that imposes liability under such circumstances, and we do not think that § 633a(a) should be understood as the first.
Moreover, even if "discriminating with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" could be read more broadly to encompass things that occur before a final decision is made, the ejusdem generis canon would counsel a court to read that final phrase to refer--like the prior terms--to the final decision. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. , 567 U.S. 142, 163, and n. 19, 132 S.Ct. 2156, 183 L.Ed.2d 153 (2012).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Douglas,
announced by Mr. Chief Justice Burger.
Appellant, a manufacturer of industrial and aerospace fasteners (nuts and bolts generally), has its home office in Pennsylvania, one manufacturing plant there and another in California. Its principal customer in the State of Washington is the Boeing Company, in Seattle. In the years relevant here it had one employee, one Martinson, in Washington who was paid a salary and who operated out of his home near Seattle. He was an engineer whose primary duty was to consult with Boeing regarding its anticipated needs and requirements for aerospace fasteners and to follow up any difficulties in the use of appellant’s product after delivery. Martinson was assisted by a group of engineers of appellant who visited Boeing about three days every six weeks, their meetings being arranged by Martinson. Martinson did not take orders from Boeing; they were sent directly to appellant. Orders accepted would be filled and shipment made by common carrier to Boeing direct, all payments being made directly to appellant. Martinson had no office except in his home; he had no secretary; but appellant maintained an answering service in the Seattle area which received calls for Martinson, bills for that service being sent direct to appellant.
The State Board of Tax Appeals found that the activities of Martinson were necessary to appellant in making it aware of which products Boeing might use, in obtaining the engineering design of those products, in securing the testing of sample products to qualify them for sale to Boeing, in resolving problems of their use after receipt by Boeing, in obtaining and retaining good will and rapport with Boeing personnel, and in keeping the invoicing personnel of appellant up to date on Boeing’s lists of purchasing specialists or control buyers. The Board sustained the assessment of the Washington business and occupation tax, Wash. Rev. Code § 82.04.270 (1972), levied on the unapportioned gross receipts of appellant resulting from its sale of fasteners to Boeing. The Superior Court affirmed the Board, and the Court of Appeals in turn affirmed, 10 Wash. App. 45, 516 P. 2d 1043 (1973). The Supreme Court denied review. The constitutionality, as applied, of the Washington statute being challenged, we noted probable jurisdiction, 417 U. S. 966 (1974).
Appellant argues that imposition of the tax violates due process because the in-state activities were so thin and inconsequential as to make the tax on activities occurring beyond the borders of the State one which has no reasonable relation to the protection and benefits conferred by the taxing State, Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435 (1940). In other words the question is “whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return,” id., at 444. We think the question in the context of the present case verges on the frivolous. For appellant’s employee, Martinson, with a full-time job within the State, made possible the realization and continuance of valuable contractual relations between appellant and Boeing.
The case is argued on the interstate commerce aspect as if Washington were taxing the privilege of doing an interstate business with only orders being sent from within the State and filled outside the State, McLeod v. Dilworth Co., 322 U. S. 327 (1944). Much reliance is placed on Norton Co. v. Department of Revenue, 340 U. S. 534 (1951), where a Massachusetts corporation qualified to do business in Illinois and maintained an office there from which it made local sales at retail. It was accordingly subjected to the Illinois gross receipts tax on retailers. There were, however, orders sent by Illinois buyers directly to Massachusetts, filled there, and shipped directly to the customer. As to these a divided Court held that the income from those sales was not taxable by Illinois by reason of the Commerce Clause. The disagreement in the Court was not over the governing principle; it concerned the burden of showing a nexus between the local office and interstate sales — whether a nexus could be assumed and whether the taxpayer had carried the burden of establishing its immunity.
General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U. S. 436 (1964), is almost precisely in point so far as the present controversy goes. While the zone manager for sales of the Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile divisions was in Portland, Ore., district managers lived and operated within Washington. Each operated from his home, having no separate office. Each had from 12 to 30 dealers under supervision. He called on each of these dealers, kept tabs on the sales forces, and advised as to promotional and training plans. He also advised on used car inventory control. He worked out with the dealer estimated needs over a 30-, 60-, and 90-day projection of orders. General Motors also had in Washington service representatives who called on dealers regularly, assisted in any troubles experienced, and checked the adequacy of the service department’s inventory. They conducted service clinics, teaching dealers and employees efficient service techniques. We held that these activities served General Motors as effectively when administered from “homes” as from “offices” and that those services were substantial “with relation to the establishment and maintenance of sales, upon which the tax was measured,” id., at 447.
We noted in General Motors that a vice in a tax on gross' receipts of a corporation doing an interstate business is the risk of multiple taxation; but that the burden is on the taxpayer to demonstrate it, id., at 449. The corporation made no such showing there. Nor is any effort made to establish it here. This very tax was involved in Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U. S. 434 (1939). The taxpayer was a Washington corporation, doing business there and shipping fruit from Washington to places of sale in the various States and in foreign countries. The Court held the tax, as applied, unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
“Here the tax, measured by the entire volume of the interstate commerce in which appellant participates, is not apportioned to its activities within the state. If Washington is free to exact such a tax, other states to which the commerce extends may, with equal right, lay a tax similarly measured for the privilege of conducting within their respective territorial limits the activities there which contribute to the service. The present tax, though nominally local, thus in its practical operation discriminates against interstate commerce, since it imposes upon it, merely because interstate commerce is being done, the risk of a multiple burden to which local commerce is not exposed.” Id., at 439.
In the instant case, as in Ficklen v. Shelby County Taxing District, 145 U. S. 1 (1892), the tax is on the gross receipts from sales made to a local consumer, which may have some impact on commerce. Yet as we said in Gwin, White & Prince, supra, at 440, in describing the tax in Ficklen, it is “apportioned exactly to the activities taxed,” all of which are intrastate.
Affirmed.
Appellant paid the taxes under protest, and it is stipulated that should appellant prevail it would be entitled to a refund of $33,444.91.
In that case the taxpayers did business as brokers in Tennessee. They solicited local customers and sent their orders to out-of-state vendors who shipped directly to the purchaser. Tennessee levied a tax on their gross commissions. The Court, in distinguishing the “drummer” cases illustrated by Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489 (1887), stated that in Ficklen Tennessee did not tax more than its own internal commerce.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 motion to dispense with printing the jurisdictional statement is granted. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises the issue whether the venue provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U. S. C. §§9-11, are restrictive, allowing a motion to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award to be brought only in the district in which the award was made, or are permissive, permitting such a motion either where the award was made or in any district proper under the general venue statute. We hold the FAA provisions permissive.
I
Petitioner Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc., and respondent Bill Harbert Construction Company agreed that Harbert would build a wood chip mill for Cortez Byrd in Brookhaven, Mississippi. One of the terms was that “[ajll claims or disputes between the Contractor and the Owner arising out [of] or relating to the Contract, or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association currently in effect unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.” App. 52. The agreement went on to provide that “[t]he award rendered by the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final, and judgement may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof,” ibid.; that the agreement to arbitrate “shall be specifically enforceable under applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof,” ibid.; and that the law of the place where the project was located, Mississippi, governed, id., at 60; 169 F. 3d 693, 694 (CA11 1999).
After a dispute arose, Harbert invoked the agreement by a filing with the Atlanta office of the American Arbitration Association, which conducted arbitration in November 1997 in Birmingham, Alabama. The next month, the arbitration panel issued an award in favor of Harbert. Ibid.
In January 1998, Cortez Byrd filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi seeking to vacate or modify the arbitration award, which Harbert then sought to confirm by filing this action seven days later in the Northern District of Alabama. When Cortez Byrd moved to dismiss, transfer, or stay the Alabama action, the Alabama District Court denied the motion, concluding that venue was proper only in the Northern District of Alabama, and entering judgment for Harbert for $274,256.90 plus interest and costs. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held itself bound by pre-1981 Fifth Circuit precedent, cf. Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (CA11 1981), to the effect that under the Act’s venue provisions, 9 U. S. C. §§9-11, venue for motions to confirm, vacate, or modify awards was exclusively in the district in which the arbitration award was made. 169 F. 3d, at 694; Naples v. Prepakt Concrete Co., 490 F. 2d 182, 184 (CA5), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 843 (1974). The arbitration here having been held in Birmingham, the rule as so construed limited venue to the Northern District of Alabama.
We granted certiorari, 527 U. S. 1062 (1999), to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals over the permissive or mandatory character of the FAA’s venue provisions. Compare In re VMS Securities Litigation, 21 F. 3d 139, 144-145 (CA7 1994) (§§ 9 and 10 permissive); Smiga v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 766 F. 2d 698, 706 (CA2 1985), cert. denied, 475 U. S. 1067 (1986) (§ 9 permissive); Sutter Corp. v. P & P Indus., Inc., 125 F. 3d 914, 918-920 (CA5 1997) (§§9 and 10 permissive); P & P Indus., Inc. v. Sutter Corp., 179 F. 3d 861, 869-870 (CA10 1999) (§§9 and 10 permissive); Apex Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. U S. Supply Co., 142 F. 3d 188, 192 (CA4 1998) (§9 permissive); Nordin v. Nutri/System, Inc., 897 F. 2d 339, 344 (CA8 1990) (§ 9 permissive), with Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46 v. McClatchy Newspapers, 762 F. 2d 741, 744 (CA9 1985) (§ 10 mandatory); Island Creek Coal Sales Co. v. Gainesville, 729 F. 2d 1046, 1049-1050 (CA6 1984) (§ 9 mandatory); Sunshine Beauty Supplies, Inc. v. United States District Court, Central Dist. of Cal., 872 F. 2d 310, 312 (CA9 1989) (§§ 9 and 10 mandatory); United States ex rel. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Ets-Hokin Corp., 397 F. 2d 935, 939 (CA9 1968) (§ 10 mandatory). We reverse.
HH H-<
Section 9 of the FAA governs venue for the confirmation of arbitration awards:
“If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. If no court is specified in the agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States court in and for the district within which such award was made.” 9 U. S. C. §9.
Section 10(a), governing motions to vacate arbitration awards, provides that
“the United States court in and for the district wherein the [arbitration] award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration [in any of five enumerated situations].”
And under § 11, on modification or correction,
“the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order modifying or correcting the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration.”
The precise issue raised in the District Court was whether venue for Cortez Byrd’s motion under §§ 10 and 11 was properly laid in the southern district of Mississippi, within which the contract was performed. It was dearly proper under the general venue statute, which provides, among other things, for venue in a diversity action in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U. S. C. § 1391(a)(2). If §§ 10 and 11 are permissive and thus supplement, but do not supplant, the general provision, Cortez Byrd’s motion to vacate or modify was properly filed in Mississippi, and under principles of deference to the court of first filing, the Alabama court should have considered staying its hand. Cf. Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U. S. 180, 185 (1952); Landis v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248, 254 (1936); 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1360 (1990). But if §§10 and 11 are restrictive, there was no Mississippi venue for Cortez Byrd’s action, and the Northern District of Alabama correctly proceeded with the litigation to confirm. Although §9 is not directly implicated in this action, since venue for Harbert’s motion to confirm was proper in the northern district of Alabama under either a restrictive or a permissive reading of § 9, the three venue sections of the FA A are best analyzed together, owing to their contemporaneous enactment and the similarity of their pertinent language.
Enlightenment will not come merely from parsing the language, which is less clear than either party contends. Although "may” could be read as permissive in each section, as Cortez Byrd argues, the mere use of “may” is not necessarily conclusive of congressional intent to provide for a permissive or discretionary authority. United States v. Rodgers, 461 U. S. 677, 706 (1983) (“The word ‘may,’ when used in a statute, usually implies some degree of discretion^ but] [t]his common-sense principle of statutory construction ... can be defeated by indications of legislative intent to the contrary or by obvious inferences from the structure and purpose of the statute” (footnote and citations omitted)); Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Bougas, 484 U. S. 35, 38 (1977). Certainly the warning flag is up in this instance. While Cortez Byrd points to clearly mandatory language in other parts of the Act as some indication that “may” was used in a permissive sense, cf. 9 U. S. C. §§2, 12, Harbert calls attention to a contrary clue in even more obviously permissive language elsewhere in the Act. See §4 (“A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28 . . ,”). Each party has a point, but neither point is conclusive. The answer is not to be had from comparing phrases.
Statutory history provides a better lesson, though, which is confirmed by following out the practical consequences of Harbert’s position. When the FAA was enacted in 1925, it appeared against the backdrop of a considerably more restrictive general venue statute than the one current today. At the time, the practical effect of 28 U. S. C. § 112(a) was that a civil suit could usually be brought only in the district in which the defendant resided. See. 28 U. S. C. § 112(a) (1926 ed.). The statute’s restrictive application was all the more pronounced due to the courts’ general inhospitality to forum selection clauses, see The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1, 9-10 (1972). Hence, even if an arbitration agreement expressly permitted action to be brought in the district in which arbitration had been conducted, the agreement would probably prove to be vain. The enactment of the special venue provisions in the FAA thus had an obviously liberalizing effect, undiminished by any suggestion, textual or otherwise, that Congress meant simultaneously to foreclose a suit where the defendant resided. Such a consequence would have been as inexplicable in 1925 as it would be passing strange 75 years later. The most convenient forum for a defendant is normally the forum of residence, and it would take a very powerful reason ever to suggest that Congress would have meant to eliminate that venue for postarbitration disputes.
The virtue of the liberalizing nonrestrictive view of the provisions for venue in the district of arbitration is confirmed by another obviously liberalizing venue provision of the Act, which in §9 authorizes a binding agreement selecting a forum for confirming an arbitration award. Since any forum selection agreement must coexist with §§10 and 11, one needs to ask how they would work together if §§ 10 and 11 meant that an order vacating or modifying an arbitration award could be obtained only in the district where the award was made. The consequence would be that a proceeding to confirm the award begun in a forum previously selected by agreement of the parties (but outside the district of the arbitration) would need to be held in abeyance if the responding party objected. The objecting party would then have to return to the district of the arbitration to begin a separate proceeding to modify or vacate the arbitration award, and if the award withstood attack, the parties would move back to the previously selected forum for the confirming order originally sought. Harbert, naturally, is far from endorsing anything of the sort and contends that a court with venue to confirm under a § 9 forum selection clause would also have venue under a later filed motion under § 10. But the contention boils down to denying the logic of Harbert’s own position. The regime we have described would follow from adopting that position, and the Congress simply cannot be tagged with such a taste for the bizarre.
Nothing, indeed, would be more clearly at odds with both the FAA’s “statutory policy of rapid and unobstructed enforcement of arbitration agreements,” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 23 (1983), or with the desired flexibility of parties in choosing a site for arbitration. Although the location of the arbitration may well be the residence of one of the parties, or have some other connection to a contract at issue, in many cases the site will have no relation whatsoever to the parties or the dispute. The parties may be willing to arbitrate in an inconvenient forum, say, for the convenience of the arbitrators, or to get a panel with special knowledge or experience, or as part of some compromise, but they might well be less willing to pick such a location if any future court proceedings had to be held there. Flexibility to make such practical choices, then, could well be inhibited by a venue rule mandating the same inconvenient venue if someone later sought to vacate or modify the award.
A restrictive interpretation would also place §3 and §§ 9-11 of the FAA in needless tension, which could be resolved only by disrupting existing precedent of this Court. Section 3 provides that any court in which an action “referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing” is pending “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accord-anee with the terms of the agreement.” 9 U. S. C. § 3. If an arbitration were then held outside the district of that litigation, under a restrictive reading of §§9-11 a subsequent proceeding to confirm, modify, or set aside the arbitration award could not be brought in the district of the original litigation (unless that also happened to be the chosen venue in a forum selection agreement). We have, however, previously held that the court with the power to stay the action under § 3 has the further power to confirm any ensuing arbitration award. Marine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U. S. 263, 275-276 (1932) (“We do not conceive it to be open to question that, where the court has authority under the statute ... to make an order for arbitration, the court also has authority to confirm the award or to set it aside for irregularity, fraud, ultra vires or other defect”). Harbert in effect concedes this point, acknowledging that “the court entering a stay order under §3 retains jurisdiction over the proceeding and does not ‘lose venue.’” Brief for Respondent 29. But that concession saving our precedent still fails to explain why Congress would have wanted to allow venue liberally where motions to confirm, vacate, or modify were brought as subsequent stages of actions antedating the arbitration, but would have wanted a different rule when arbitration was not preceded by a suit between the parties.
Finally, Harbert’s interpretation would create anomalous results in the aftermath of arbitrations held abroad. Sections 204, 207, and 302 of the FAA together provide for liberal choice of venue for actions to confirm awards subject to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration. 9 U. S. C. §§ 204, 207, 302. But reading §§ 9-11 to restrict venue to the site of the arbitration would preclude any action under the FAA in courts of the United States to confirm, modify, or vacate awards rendered in foreign arbitrations not covered by either convention. Cf. 4 I. MacNeil, R. Speidel, & T. Stipanowich, Federal Arbitration Law §44.9.1.8 (1995) (discussing difficulties in enforcing foreign arbitrations held in nonsignatory states). Although such actions would not necessarily be barred for lack of jurisdiction, they would be defeated by restrictions on venue, and anomalies like that are to be avoided when they can be. True, "[t]here have been, and perhaps there still are, occasional gaps in the venue laws, [but] Congress does not in general intend to create venue gaps, which take away with one hand what Congress has given by way of jurisdictional grant with the other. Thus, in construing venue statutes it is reasonable to prefer the construction that avoids leaving such a gap,” Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U. S. 706, 710, n. 8 (1972); cf. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U. S. 506, 516-517 (1974) (noting that “[a] contractual provision specifying in advance the forum in which disputes shall be litigated and the law to be applied is ... an almost indispensable precondition to achievement of the orderliness and predictability essential to any international business transaction,” and that “[a] parochial refusal by the courts of one country to enforce an international arbitration agreement would not only frustrate these purposes, but would invite unseemly and mutually destructive jockeying by the parties to secure tactical litigation advantages”).
Attention to practical consequences thus points away from the restrictive reading of §§9-11 and confirms the view that the liberalizing effect of the provisions in the day of their enactment was meant to endure through treating them as permitting, not limiting, venue choice today. As against this reasoning, specific to the history and function of a statute addressing venue where arbitration is concerned, Harbert’s citations of cases construing other special venue provisions are beside the point. We found, for example, that Congress had a restrictive intent as to venue in patent cases, see Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 227-228 (1957); Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U. S. 561, 565-566 (1942), a restrictive intent for the sake of protecting national banks when dealing with venue for litigation against them, see Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Bougas, 434 U. S., at 44, and a restrictive intent as to the geographic reach of Title VII, as evidenced by the lack of extraterritorial venue and other enforcement mechanisms in the statute, see EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244, 256 (1991). But the authority of these cases is not that special venue statutes are deemed to be restrictive; they simply show that analysis of special venue provisions must be specific to the statute. With that we agree in holding the permissive view of FAA venue provisions entitled to prevail.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The original version of § 4 referred to “the judicial code at law,” rather than Title 28. See United States Arbitration Act, 43 Stat. 883.
“[E]xcept as provided in sections 113 to 118 of this title, no civil suit shall be brought in any district court against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.” 28 U. S. C. § 112(a) (1926 ed.). The provision allowing suits in a diversity action in the district in which the plaintiff resided was of limited effect, as restrictive views of personal jurisdiction meant that it was often difficult to sue a defendant outside the district of his residence. Cf. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945) (requiring that a defendant have minimum contacts with a forum to be subject to its judgment).
Section 204 provides for venue in actions under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards “in any such court in which save for the arbitration agreement an action or proceeding with respect to the controversy . . . could be brought, or in such court for the district and division which embraces the place designated in the agreement as the place of arbitration. ” Section 207 states that “any party to the arbitration may apply to any court having jurisdiction under this chapter for an order confirming the award.” Section 302 applies these provisions to actions brought under the Inter-American Convention. Sections 204 and 207 were added to the FAA in 1970; §302 was added in 1990.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Ginsbubg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns 28 U. S. C. § 1441, which authorizes the removal of civil actions from state court to federal court when the action initiated in state court is one that could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court. § 1441(a). When federal-court jurisdiction is predicated on the parties’ diversity of citizenship, see §1332, removal is permissible “only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which [the] action [was] brought.” § 1441(b).
Christophe and Juanita Roche, plaintiffs below, respondents here, are citizens of Virginia. They commenced suit in state court against diverse defendants, including Lincoln Property Company (Lincoln), a corporation chartered and having its principal place of business in Texas. The defendants removed the litigation to a Federal District Court where, after discovery proceedings, they successfully moved for summary judgment. Holding the removal improper, the Court of Appeals instructed remand of the action, to state court. 373 F. 3d 610, 620-622 (CA4 2004). The appellate court so ruled on the ground that the Texas defendant failed to show the nonexistence of an affiliated Virginia entity that was the “real party in interest.” Id., at 622.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Defendants may remove an action on the basis of diversity of citizenship if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a citizen of the forum State. It is not incumbent on the named defendants to negate the existence of a potential defendant whose presence in the action would destroy diversity.
I
Christophe and Juanita Roche leased an apartment in the Westfield Village complex in Fairfax County, Virginia. About a year after moving in, they discovered evidence of toxic mold in their apartment. Expert inspection confirmed the presence of mold, which the inspection report linked to hair loss, headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract, fatigue, and dermatitis. App. 184-190. The report stated that spores from toxigenic mold species were airborne in the apartment and had likely contaminated the carpeting and fabric surfaces throughout the dwelling. Id., at 188. The Roches moved out of their apartment for the remediation process, leaving their personal belongings in the care of Lincoln, the designated property manager of Westfield Village, and the mold treatment firm. 373 F. 3d, at 612.
Some months later, the Roches commenced suit, filing two substantially similar complaints in the Circuit Court for Fair-fax County, Virginia. App. 27-50, 53-75. Both complaints asserted serious medical ailments from the Roches’ year-long exposure to toxic mold, and sought damages under multiple headings, including negligence, breach of contract, actual fraud, constructive fraud, and violations of Virginia housing regulations. Id., at 38-48, 64-74. In addition, the Roches alleged loss, theft, or destruction of their personal property (including irreplaceable family keepsakes) during the remediation process. Regarding these losses, they sought damages for conversion and infliction of emotional distress. Id., at 49-50, 74-75.
In state court, the Roches’ complaints named three defendants: Lincoln; INVESCO Institutional, an investment management group; and State of Wisconsin Investment Board, the alleged owner of Westfield Village. Id., at 26-28,52-54. The complaints described Lincoln as “a developer and manager of residential communities, including . .. Westfield Village.” Id., at 27,53. “[A]cting by and through [its] agents,” the Roches alleged, Lincoln caused the personal injuries of which they complained. Id., at 30, 56.
Defendants timely removed the twin cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, invoking that court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1332(a)(1), 1441(a). The notice of removal described Lincoln as a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, INVESCO as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia, and State of Wisconsin Investment Board as an independent agency of Wisconsin. App. 81. In their consolidated federal-court complaint, the Roches identified themselves as citizens of Virginia and Lincoln as a corporation headquartered in Texas, just as they did in their state-court complaints. Id,., at 27, 53, 114-115. Further, they stated affirmatively that the federal court “has jurisdiction of this matter.” Id., at 114. Lincoln, in its answer to the complaint, admitted that, through its regional offices, “it manages Westfield Village.” Id., at 137, 138. Lincoln did not seek to avoid liability by asserting that some other entity was responsible for managing the property.
In both their state- and federal-court complaints, the Roches stated that, “[u]pon further discovery in this case,” they would “determine if additional defendant or defendants will be named.” Id., at 28, 54, 116. Although they engaged in some discovery concerning Lincoln’s affiliates, their efforts in this regard were not extensive, Tr. of Oral Arg. 9, 14, 38-39, 48-49, 53, and at no point did they seek to join any additional defendant.
After discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion, noting that it would set forth its reasons in a forthcoming memorandum order. App. to Pet. for Cert. 20a-21a. The promised memorandum order issued a few months later, id., at 22a-40a, and the District Court entered final judgment for the defendants the same day, id., at 41a.
Six days after the District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but before final judgment was entered, the Roches moved to remand the case to the state court, alleging for the first time the absence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Roches alleged that Lincoln “is not a Texas Corporation, but a Partnership with one of its partners residing in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” App. 226. The District Court denied the remand motion, concluding that Lincoln is a Texas corporation and that removal was proper because the requisite complete diversity existed between all plaintiffs and all defendants. App. to Pet. for Cert. 84a-93a.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and instructed the District Court to remand the case to the state court. 373 F. 3d, at 622. Although recognizing that Lincoln is a Texas citizen and a proper party to the action, id., at 620-621, the Court of Appeals observed that “Lincoln operates under many different structures,” id., at 617. Describing Lincoln as “the nominal party and ultimate parent company,” the appellate court suspected that an unidentified “Virginia subsidiary, be it a partnership, corporation or otherwise, rather than the Texas parent” was “the real and substantial party in interest.” Id., at 620-621. Lincoln, the party invoking federal-court jurisdiction, had not demonstrated the nonexistence of “the Virginia sub-‘partnership,’ ” the Court of Appeals reasoned, id., at 621, and therefore had not met its burden of establishing diversity, id., at 621-622.
We granted certiorari, 543 U. S. 1186 (2005), to resolve a division among the Circuits on the question whether an entity not named or joined as a defendant can nonetheless be deemed a real party in interest whose presence would destroy diversity. Compare 373 F. 3d, at 620-622, with Plains Growers, Inc. v. Ickes-Braun Glasshouses, Inc., 474 F. 2d 250, 252 (CA5 1973) (“The citizenship of one who has an interest in the lawsuit but who has not been made a party ... by plaintiff cannot be used by plaintiff on a motion to remand to defeat diversity jurisdiction.”), and Simpson v. Providence Washington Ins. Group, 608 F. 2d 1171, 1173-1175 (CA9 1979) (Kennedy, J.) (upholding removal where Alaska plaintiff sued Rhode Island parent company without joining as well potentially liable Alaska subsidiary, and the parties did not act collusively to create diversity jurisdiction).
The Court of Appeals correctly identified Lincoln as a proper party to the action, but it erred in insisting that some other entity affiliated with Lincoln should have been joined as a codefendant, and that it was Lincoln's obligation to name that entity and show that its joinder would not destroy diversity.
We stress, first, that, at this stage of the case, the existence of complete diversity between the Roches and Lincoln is not in doubt. The Roches, both citizens of Virginia, acknowledge that Lincoln is indeed a corporation, not a partnership, and that Lincoln is chartered in and has its principal place of business in Texas. Tr. of Oral Arg. 40-41; see App. 114 (“Upon information and belief, Lincoln Property Company is a corporation with corporate headquarters [in] Texas.”); 373 F. 3d, at 620. Accordingly, for jurisdictional purposes, Lincoln is a citizen of Texas and of no other State. 28 U. S. C. § 1332(c)(1) (“a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business”).
We turn now to the reasons why the Fourth Circuit erred in determining that diversity jurisdiction was not proved by the removing parties. 373 F. 3d, at 612 (concluding that “[defendants failed to carry their burden of proof with respect to their allegedly diverse citizenship”). The principal federal statute governing diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1332, gives federal district courts original jurisdiction of all civil actions “between ... citizens of different States” where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. § 1332(a)(1). Since Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806), we have read the statutory formulation “between . . . citizens of different States” to require complete diversity between all (plaintiffs and all defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 68 (1996); cf. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U. S. 523, 530-531 (1967) (explaining that complete diversity is not constitutionally required and upholding interpleader under § 1335 based on minimal diversity, i. e., diversity between two or more adverse parties).
While § 1332 allows plaintiffs to invoke the federal courts’ diversity jurisdiction, § 1441 gives defendants a corresponding opportunity. Section 1441(a) states: “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” The scales are not evenly balanced, however. An in-state plaintiff may invoke diversity jurisdiction, but § 1441(b) bars removal on the basis of diversity if any “part[y] in interest properly joined and served as [a] defendan[t] is a citizen of the State in which [the] action is brought.” In the instant case, Virginia plaintiffs Christophe and Juanita Roche joined and served no Virginian as a party defendant. Hence the action qualified for the removal defendants effected.
Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), captioned “Real Party in Interest,” nor Rule 19, captioned “Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication,” requires plaintiffs or defendants to name and join any additional parties to this action. Both Rules, we note, address party joinder, not federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction. See Rule 82 (“[The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the United States district courts . . . .”); Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19,28 U. S. C. App., pp. 696-698. Rule 17(a) directs that “[e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” (Emphasis added.) That Rule, as its text displays, speaks to joinder of plaintiffs, not defendants.
Rule 19 provides for the joinder of parties who should or must take part in the litigation to achieve a “[j]ust [adjudication.” See Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U. S. 102, 118-123 (1968).. The Roches place no reliance on Rule 19 and maintain that the Rule “played no part, explicitly or implicitly, in the Court of Appeals’ conclusion.” Brief for Respondents 36. Given Lincoln’s admission that it managed Westfield Village when mold contaminated the Roches’ apartment, see supra, at 86, it does indeed appear that no absent person, formally or practically, was “[n]eeded for [j]ust [adjudication.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19; cf. Simpson, 608 F. 2d, at 1174 (diverse corporate defendant accepted full liability for any eventual adverse judgment; nondiverse subsidiary need not be joined as a defendant, although arguably it had joint liability with its parent); 16 J. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.14[2][c], p. 107-67 (3d ed. 2005) (hereinafter Moore) (“In general, the plaintiff is the master of the complaint and has the option of naming only those parties the plaintiff chooses to sue, subject only to the rules of joinder [of] necessary parties.”).
While Rule 17(a) applies only to joinder of parties who assert claims, the Court of Appeals and the Roches draw from decisions of this Court a jurisdictional “real parties to the controversy” rule applicable in diversity cases to complaining and defending parties alike. See Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee, 446 U. S. 458, 462, n. 9 (1980) (citing Note, Diversity Jurisdiction over Unincorporated Business Entities: The Real Party in Interest as a Jurisdictional Rule, 56 Texas L. Rev. 243, 247-250 (1978)). But no decision called to our attention supports the burden the Court of Appeals placed on a properly joined defendant to negate the existence of a potential codefendant whose presence in the action would destroy diversity.
III
Our decisions employing “real party to the controversy” terminology in describing or explaining who counts and who can be discounted for diversity purposes bear scant resemblance to the action the Roches have commenced. No party here has been “improperly or collusively” named solely to create federal jurisdiction, see 28 U. S. C. § 1359 (“A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.”); Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U. S. 823, 830 (1969) (assignment for collection only, motivated by desire to make diversity jurisdiction available, falls within the “very core” of § 1359); Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 596, 600-607 (1886) (where land was purportedly sold to out-of-state farmer but no money or deed changed hands, quiet title action could not be maintained based on farmer’s diverse citizenship), nor to defeat it, see Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U. S. 146, 152 (1914) (diverse defendants, upon showing that join-der of nondiverse party was “without right and made in bad faith,” may successfully remove the action to federal court).
Nor are the Roches aided by cases in which actions against a state agency have been regarded as suits against the State itself. See, e. g., State Highway Comm’n of Wyo. v. Utah Constr. Co., 278 U. S. 194, 199-200 (1929) (“[State] Commission was but the arm or alter ego of the State with no funds or ability to respond in damages.”). Decisions of this genre are bottomed on this Court’s recognition of a State’s asserted Eleventh Amendment right not to be haled into federal court. See, e. g., Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U. S. 743, 769 (2002). They are not pertinent to suits between private parties.
Unlike cases in which a party was named to satisfy state pleading rules, e. g., McNutt ex rel. Leggett, Smith, & Lawrence v. Bland, 2 How. 9, 14 (1844), or was joined only as designated performer of a ministerial act, e. g., Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577, 589 (1880), or otherwise had no control of, impact on, or stake in the controversy, e. g., Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 467, 469-470 (1856), Lincoln has a vital interest in this case. Indeed, Lincoln accepted responsibility, in the event that the Roches prevailed on the merits of their claims, by admitting that, “[since 1996,] it has managed West-field Village Apartments.” App. 137. A named defendant who admits involvement in the controversy and would be liable to pay a resulting judgment is not “nominal” in any sense except that it is named in the complaint. Cf. Knapp v. Railroad Co., 20 Wall. 117, 122 (1874).
In any event, we emphasize, the Fourth Circuit had no warrant in this case to inquire whether some other person might have been joined as an additional or substitute defendant. See ibid, (federal courts should not “inquir[e] outside of the case in order to ascertain whether some other person may not have an equitable interest in the cause of action”); Little, 118 U. S., at 603 (if named party’s interest is real, the fact that other interested parties are not joined “will not affect the jurisdiction of the [federal courts]”); 16 Moore § 107.14[2][c], p. 107-67 (“Ordinarily, a court will not interfere with the consequences of a plaintiff’s selection in naming parties, unless the plaintiff has impermissibly manufactured diversity or used an unacceptable device to defeat diversity.”).
Congress, empowered to prescribe the jurisdiction of the federal courts, sometimes has specified that a named party’s own citizenship does not determine its diverse status. Thus, as a procedural matter, executors, administrators, and guardians “may sue in [their] own name[s] without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought.” Rule 17(a). As to diversity jurisdiction, however, § 1332(c)(2) directs that “the legal representative of [a decedent’s] estate . . . shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal representative of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the infant or incompetent.” Congress has also provided that in direct action suits against insurers to which the insured is not made a party, the “insurer shall be deemed a citizen of the State of which the insured is a citizen, as well as of any State by which the insurer has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” § 1332(c)(1).
But Congress surely has not directed that a corporation, for diversity-of-citizenship purposes, shall be deemed to have acquired the citizenship of all or any of its affiliates. For cases of the kind the Roches have instituted, Congress has provided simply and only this instruction: “[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” Ibid. The jurisdictional rule governing here is unambiguous and it is not amenable to judicial enlargement. Under § 1332(c)(1), Lincoln is a citizen of Texas alone, and under § 1441(a) and (b), this case was properly removed.
* * *
The Roches sued the entity they thought responsible for managing their apartment. Lincoln affirmed that it was so responsible. Complete diversity existed. The potential liability of other parties was a matter plaintiffs’ counsel might have assiduously explored through discovery devices. It was not incumbent on Lincoln to propose as additional defendants persons the Roches, as masters of their complaint, permissively might have joined.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Defendants below, petitioners here, presented a second question in their petition for certiorari: Can a limited partnership be deemed a citizen of a State on the sole ground that the partnership’s business activities bear a “very close nexus” with the State? Because no partnership is or need be a party to this action, that question is not live for adjudication. We note, however, that our prior decisions do not regard as relevant to subject-matter jurisdiction the locations at which partnerships conduct business. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U. S. 185, 189, 192-197 (1990) (for diversity purposes, a partnership entity, unlike a corporation, does not rank as a citizen; to meet the complete diversity requirement, all partners, limited as well as general, must be diverse from all parties on the opposing side).
Some weeks after the removal, the District Court dismissed INVESCO as a defendant. App. 112. Nothing turns on the presence or absence of INVESCO as a defending party. State of Wisconsin Investment Board, alleged owner of Westfield Village, remains a defendant-petitioner. Its status as a Wisconsin citizen for diversity purposes is not currently contested.
The Roches state that they preferred to litigate in state court for two principal reasons: Virginia does not permit summary judgment based on affidavits or deposition testimony, and Virginia has not adopted the rule of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993), to assess expert evidence. Brief for Respondents 3, and n. 1.
Confusion about Lincoln’s structure is understandable. Real estate businesses typically operate through a web of affiliated entities, see Brief for Real Estate Roundtable et al. as Amici Curiae 6-13, and certain Lincoln-affiliated responders to the Roches’ discovery inquiries stated that Lincoln was a partnership, e. g., App. 175, 176, 179. In response to the Roches’ motion to remand, Lincoln proffered its 1979 Texas incorporation papers and an affidavit attesting to its status as a Texas corporation. Id., at 238-246. That matter is no longer debated; at oral argument, counsel for the Roches acknowledged that Lincoln is a Texas corporation. Tr. of Oral Arg. 40-41.
The Roches sought damages well in excess of the jurisdictional minimum. App. 40-50, 66-75, 131-134.
Although we have not addressed the issue, several lower courts have held that the presence of a diverse but in-state defendant in a removed action is a “procedural” defect, not a “jurisdictional” bar, and that the defect is waived if not timely raised by the plaintiff See 14C C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3739, pp. 451-457, and nn. 32-37 (3d ed. 1998).
Similarly inapposite are cases invoking our original jurisdiction in which we have inquired into the capacity in which a sovereign party appears. See, e. g., Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson v. Cook, 304 U. S. 387, 395-396 (1938) (original jurisdiction improper where State was acting as trustee for its citizens); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States ex rel. Kenyon, 204 U. S. 349, 358 (1907) (original jurisdiction upheld where United States was “a real and not a mere nominal plaintiff”).
The Roches’ complaints cast Lincoln as the primary tortfeasor, alleging that Lincoln engaged in “a conscious and predetermined plan” to conceal the hazards of mold from apartment residents. App. 34,60. Further, the Roches alleged that Lincoln ignored numerous mold-related maintenance requests they “personally” made to Lincoln, id., at 29, 55, inquiries that, if followed up, might have prevented or lessened their injuries.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In 1934, petitioner was indicted for murdering a policeman in Burlington, Jowa. Petitioner claimed that he was innocent and that he had not been present at the scene of the crime. At the trial, several witnesses testified that petitioner had been in Des Moines, 165 miles away from Burlington, on the day that the crime was committed. The trial judge instructed the jury that for the petitioner to be entitled to an acquittal on the ground that he was not present at the scene of the crime, the petitioner must have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not present. The jury found petitioner guilty of second-degree murder, and petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court. State v. Johnson, 221 Iowa 8, 264 N. W. 596 (1936).
In this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner argued, among other points, that the State had denied him due process of law by placing on him the burden of proving the alibi defense. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa rejected this argument and denied the petition. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 386 F. 2d 677 (1967). We granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the alibi instruction, along with other issues. 390 U. S. 1002 (1968). After we granted certiorari, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, held in another case that the Iowa rule shifting to the defendant the burden of proving an alibi defense violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stump v. Bennett, 398 F. 2d 111 (1968). In view of that holding, we vacate the decision in this case and remand to that court for reconsideration.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
The instruction was as follows:
“The burden is upon the defendant to prove [the] defense [of alibi] by a preponderance of the evidence, that is, by the greater weight or superior evidence. The defense of alibi to be entitled to be considered as established must show that at the very time of the commission of the crime the accused was at another place so far away, or under such circumstances that he could not with ordinary exertion have reached the place where the crime was committed so as to have committed the same. If by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant has so shown, the defense must be considered established and the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal. But if the proof of alibi has failed so to show, you will not consider it established or proved. The evidence upon that point is to be considered by the jury, and if upon the whole case including the evidence of an alibi, there is a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt, you should acquit him.”
See also State v. Johnson, 221 Iowa 8, 21, 267 N. W. 91 (1936), in which the Iowa Supreme Court corrected certain errors made in its original opinion.
The other issues were whether the State had suppressed evidence favorable to petitioner and intentionally used false evidence at petitioner’s trial, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The instruction in Stump was similar to the one in the present ease. The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s contention that any error was harmless because the jury was also instructed that the State had the burden of proving "the crime as a whole” beyond a reasonable doubt. The court pointed out that, in view of the instruction’s inconsistency, reasonable minds could infer that the defendant retained the burden of proving nonpresence. 398 F. 2d, at 116, 121-122.
In Stump, the Court of Appeals said:
“[W]e are not directly faced with issues of retroactivity. We recognize that a panel of this court in Johnson v. Bennett, also a habeas corpus proceeding by an Iowa state prisoner, refused relief as to a number of matters, including the alibi instruction. The Johnson case concededly has some factual distinctions from the present one. Also significant is the fact that in the Stump case, unlike Johnson, counsel has carefully preserved by objections throughout the trial and appellate procedures his argument as to the unconstitutionality of the instruction.” (Citations omitted.) 398 F. 2d, at 122-123.
We express no opinion as to the validity of the distinctions suggested by the Court of Appeals. Instead, we deem it appropriate to remand to that court for a definite ruling on the issue.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to accelerate the appeal is denied. The application for a stay, addressed to Mr. Justice Harlan as Circuit Justice and referred by him to the Court for consideration under Rule 50 (6), is 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: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the Sixth Amendment guarantee that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial.” Michael Brillon, defendant below, respondent here, was arrested in July 2001 on felony domestic assault and habitual offender charges. Nearly three years later, in June 2004, he was tried by jury, found guilty as charged, and sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison. The Vermont Supreme Court vacated Brillon’s conviction and held that the charges against him must be dismissed because he had been denied his right to a speedy trial.
During the time between Brillon’s arrest and his trial, at least six different attorneys were appointed to represent him. Brillon “fired” the first, who served from July 2001 to February 2002. His third lawyer, who served from March 2002 until June 2002, was allowed to withdraw when he reported that Brillon had threatened his life. The Vermont Supreme Court charged against Brillon the delays associated with those periods, but charged against the State periods in which assigned counsel failed “to move his case forward.” 183 Vt. 475, 494-495, 955 A. 2d 1108, 1121, 1122 (2008).
We hold that the Vermont Supreme Court erred in ranking assigned counsel essentially as state actors in the criminal justice system. Assigned counsel, just as retained counsel, act on behalf of their clients, and delays sought by counsel are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent. For a total of some six months of the time that elapsed between Brillon’s arrest and his trial, Brillon lacked an attorney. The State may be charged with those months if the gaps resulted from the trial court’s failure to appoint replacement counsel with dispatch. Similarly, the State may bear responsibility if there is “a breakdown in the public defender system.” Id., at 479-480, 955 A. 2d, at 1111. But, as the Vermont Supreme Court acknowledged, id., at 500, 955 A. 2d, at 1126, the record does not establish any such institutional breakdown.
I
On July 27, 2001, Michael Brillon was arrested after striking his girlfriend. Three days later he was arraigned in state court in Bennington County, Vermont, and charged with felony domestic assault. His alleged status as a habitual offender exposed him to a potential life sentence. The court ordered him held without bail.
Richard Ammons, from the county public defender’s office, was assigned on the day of arraignment as Brillon’s first counsel. In October, Ammons filed a motion to recuse the trial judge. It was denied the next month and trial was scheduled for February 2002. In mid-January, Ammons moved for a continuance, but the State objected, and the trial court denied the motion.
On February 22, four days before the jury draw, Ammons again moved for a continuance, citing his heavy workload and the need for further investigation. Ammons acknowledged that any delay would not count (presumably against the State) for speedy-trial purposes. The State opposed the motion, and at the conclusion of a hearing, the trial court denied it. Brillon, participating in the proceedings through interactive television, then announced: “You’re fired, Rick.” App. 187. Three days later, the trial court — over the State’s objection — granted Ammons’ motion to withdraw as counsel, citing Brillon’s termination of Ammons and Ammons’ statement that he could no longer zealously represent Brillon. The trial court warned Brillon that further delay would occur while a new attorney became familiar with the case. The same day, the trial court appointed a second attorney, but he immediately withdrew based on a conflict.
On March 1,2002, Gerard Altieri was assigned as Brillon’s third counsel. On May 20, Brillon filed a motion to dismiss Altieri for, among other reasons, failure to file motions, “[virtually no communication whatsoever,” and his lack of diligence “because of heavy case load.” Id., ¶¶ 2, 5, at 113— 114. At a June 11 hearing, Altieri denied several of Brillon’s allegations, noted his disagreement with Brillon’s trial strategy, and insisted he had plenty of time to prepare. The State opposed Brillon’s motion as well. Near the end of the hearing, however, Altieri moved to withdraw on the ground that Brillon had threatened his life during a break in the proceedings. The trial court granted Brillon’s motion to dismiss Altieri, but warned Brillon that “this is somewhat of a dubious victory in your case because it simply prolongs the time that you will remain in jail until we can bring this matter to trial.” Id., at 226.
That same day, the trial court appointed Paul Donaldson as Brillon’s fourth counsel. At an August 5 status conference, Donaldson requested additional time to conduct discovery in light of his caseload. A few weeks later, Brillon sent a letter to the court complaining about Donaldson’s unresponsiveness and lack of competence. Two months later, Brillon filed a motion to dismiss Donaldson — similar to his motion to dismiss Altieri — for failure to file motions and “virtually no communication whatsoever.” Id., ¶¶ 1, 2, at 115— 116. At a November 26 hearing, Donaldson reported that his contract with the Defender General’s office had expired in June and that he had been in discussions to have Brillon’s case reassigned. The trial court released Donaldson from the case “[without making any findings regarding the adequacy of [Donaldson]’s representation.” 183 Vt., at 490, 955 A. 2d, at 1119. Cf. post, at 95-96.
Brillon’s fifth counsel, David Sleigh, was not assigned until January 15, 2003; Brillon was without counsel during the intervening two months. On February 25, Sleigh sought extensions of various discovery deadlines, noting that he had been in trial out of town. App. 117. On April 10, however, Sleigh withdrew from the case, based on “modifications to [his] firm’s contract with the Defender General.” Id., at 158.
Brillon was then without counsel for the next four months. On June 20, the Defender General’s office notified the court that it had received “funding from the legislature” and would hire a new special felony unit defender for Brillon. Id., at 159. On August 1, Kathleen Moore was appointed as Brillon’s sixth counsel. The trial court set November 7 as the deadline for motions, but granted several extensions in accord with the parties’ stipulation. On February 28, 2004, Moore filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion on April 19.
The case finally went to trial on June 14, 2004. Brillon was found guilty and sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison. The trial court denied a post-trial motion to dismiss for want of a speedy trial, concluding that the delay in Brillon’s trial was “in large part the result of his own actions” and that Brillon had “failed to demonstrate prejudice as a result of [the] pre-trial delay.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 72.
On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court held 3 to 2 that Brillon’s conviction must be vacated and the charges dismissed for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Citing the balancing test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514 (1972), the majority concluded that all four of the factors described in Barker — “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant” — weighed against the State. Id., at 530.
The court first found that the three-year delay in bringing Brillon to trial was “extreme” and weighed heavily in his favor. See 183 Vt., at 486, 955 A. 2d, at 1116. In assessing the reasons for that delay, the Vermont Supreme Court separately considered the period of each counsel’s representation. It acknowledged that the first year, when Brillon was represented by Ammons and Altieri, should not count against the State. Id., at 492, 955 A. 2d, at 1120. But the court counted much of the remaining two years against the State for delays “caused, for the most part, by the failure of several of defendant’s assigned counsel, over an inordinate period of time, to move his case forward.” Id., at 495, 955 A. 2d, at 1122. As for the third and fourth factors, the court found that Brillon “repeatedly and adamantly demanded to be tried,” ibid., and that his “lengthy pretrial incarceration” was prejudicial, despite his insubstantial assertions of evidentiary prejudice, id., at 500, 955 A. 2d, at 1125.
The dissent strongly disputed the majority’s characterization of the periods of delay. It concluded that “the lion’s share of delay in this case is attributable to defendant, and not to the state.” Id., at 502, 955 A. 2d, at 1127. But for Brillon’s “repeated maneuvers to dismiss his lawyers and avoid trial through the first eleven months following arraignment,” the dissent explained, “the difficulty in finding additional counsel would not have arisen.” Id., at 504, 955 A. 2d, at 1128.
We granted certiorari, 554 U. S. 945 (2008), and now reverse the judgment of the Vermont Supreme Court.
II
The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial.” The speedy-trial right is “amorphous,” “slippery,” and “necessarily relative.” Barker, 407 U. S., at 522 (quoting Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 77, 87 (1905)). It is “consistent with delays and dependent] upon circumstances.” 407 U. S., at 522 (internal quotation marks omitted). In Barker, the Court refused to “quantify]” the right “into a specified number of days or months” or to hinge the right on a defendant’s explicit request for a speedy trial. Id., at 522-525. Rejecting such “inflexible approaches,” Barker established a “balancing test, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed.” Id., at 529, 530. “[S]ome of the factors” that courts should weigh include “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” Ibid.
Primarily at issue here is the reason for the delay in Brillon’s trial. Barker instructs that “different weights should be assigned to different reasons,” id., at 531, and in applying Barker, we have asked “whether the government or the criminal defendant is more to blame for th[e] delay,” Doggett v. United States, 505 U. S. 647, 651 (1992). Deliberate delay “to hamper the defense” weighs heavily against the prosecution. Barker, 407 U. S., at 531. “[M]ore neutral reason[s] such as negligence or overcrowded courts” weigh less heavily “but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant.” Ibid.
In contrast, delay caused by the defense weighs against the defendant: “[I]f delay is attributable to the defendant, then his waiver may be given effect under standard waiver doctrine.” Id., at 529. Cf. United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U. S. 302, 316 (1986) (noting that a defendant whose trial was delayed by his interlocutory appeal “normally should not be able ... to reap the reward of dismissal for failure to receive a speedy trial”). That rule accords with the reality that defendants may have incentives to employ delay as a “defense tactic”: delay may “work to the accused’s advantage” because “witnesses may become unavailable or their memories may fade” over time. Barker, 407 U. S., at 521.
Because “the attorney is the [defendant’s] agent when acting, or failing to act, in furtherance of the litigation,” delay caused by the defendant’s counsel is also charged against the defendant. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 753 (1991). The same principle applies whether counsel is privately retained or publicly assigned, for “[o]nce a lawyer has undertaken the representation of an accused, the duties and obligations are the same whether the lawyer is privately retained, appointed, or serving in a legal aid or defender program.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U. S. 312, 318 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Except for the source of payment,” the relationship between a defendant and the public defender representing him is “identical to that existing between any other lawyer and client.” Ibid. Unlike a prosecutor or the court, assigned counsel ordinarily is not considered a state actor.
Ill
Barker’s formulation “necessarily compels courts to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis,” 407 U. S., at 530, and the balance arrived at in close eases ordinarily would not prompt this Court’s review. But the Vermont Supreme Court made a fundamental error in its application of Barker that calls for this Court's correction. The Vermont Supreme Court erred in attributing to the State delays caused by “the failure of several assigned counsel ... to move his case forward,” 183 Vt., at 494, 955 A. 2d, at 1122, and in failing adequately to take into account the role of Brillon’s disruptive behavior in the overall balance.
A
The Vermont Supreme Court’s opinion is driven by the notion that delay caused by assigned counsel’s “inaction” or failure “to move [the] case forward” is chargeable to the State, not the defendant. Id., at 479, 494, 955 A. 2d, at 1111, 1122. In this case, that court concluded, “a significant portion of the delay in bringing defendant to trial must be attributed to the state, even though most of the delay was caused by the inability or unwillingness of assigned counsel to move the case forward.” Id., at 494, 955 A. 2d, at 1121.
We disagree. An assigned counsel’s failure “to move the case forward” does not warrant attribution of delay to the State. Contrary to the Vermont Supreme Court’s analysis, assigned counsel generally are not state actors for purposes of a speedy-trial claim. While the Vermont Defender General’s office is indeed “part of the criminal justice system,” ibid., the individual counsel here acted only on behalf of Brillon, not the State. See Polk County, 454 U. S., at 820-322 (rejecting the view that public defenders act under color of state law because, they are paid by the State). See also supra, at 90-91.
Most of the delay that the Vermont Supreme Court attributed to the State must therefore be attributed to Brillon as delays caused by his counsel. During those periods, Brillon was represented by Donaldson, Sleigh, and Moore, all of whom requested extensions and continuances. Their “inability or unwillingness ... to move the case forward,” 183 Vt., at 494, 955 A. 2d, at 1121, may not be attributed to the State simply because they are assigned counsel.
A contrary conclusion could encourage appointed counsel to delay proceedings by seeking unreasonable continuances, hoping thereby to obtain a dismissal of the indictment on speedy-trial grounds. Trial courts might well respond by viewing continuance requests made by appointed counsel with skepticism, concerned that even an apparently genuine need for more time is in reality a delay tactic. Yet the same considerations would not attend a privately retained counsel’s requests for time extensions. We see no justification for treating defendants’ speedy-trial claims differently based on whether their counsel is privately retained or publicly assigned.
B
In addition to making assigned counsel’s “failure ... to move [the] case forward” the touchstone of its speedy-trial inquiry, the Vermont Supreme Court further erred by treating the period of each counsel’s representation discretely. The factors identified in Barker “have no talismanic qualities; courts must still engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process.” 407 U. S., at 533. Yet the Vermont Supreme Court failed appropriately to take into account Brillon’s role during the first year of delay in “the chain of events that started all this.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 46.
Brillon sought to dismiss Ammons on the eve of trial. His strident, aggressive behavior with regard to Altieri, whom he threatened, further impeded prompt trial and likely made it more difficult for the Defender General’s office to find replacement counsel. Even after the trial court’s warning regarding delay, Brillon sought dismissal of yet another attorney, Donaldson. Just as a State’s “deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the [State],” Barker, 407 U. S., at 531, so too should a defendant’s deliberate attempt to disrupt proceedings be weighted heavily against the defendant. Absent Brillon’s deliberate efforts to force the withdrawal of Ammons and Altieri, no speedy-trial issue would have arisen. The effect of these earlier events should have been factored into the court’s analysis of subsequent delay.
C
The general rule attributing to the defendant delay caused by assigned counsel is not absolute. Delay resulting from a systemic “breakdown in the public defender system,” 183 Vt., at 479-480, 955 A. 2d, at 1111, could be charged to the State. Cf. Polk County, 454 U. S., at 324-325. But the Vermont Supreme Court made no determination, and nothing in the record suggests, that institutional problems caused any part of the delay in Brillon’s case.
In sum, delays caused by defense counsel are properly attributed to the defendant, even where counsel is assigned. “[A]ny inquiry into a speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the particular context of the case,” Barker, 407 U. S., at 522, and the record in this case does not show that Brillon was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Vermont Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.
We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether delays caused “solely” by a public defender can be “charged against the State pursuant to the test in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514 (1972).” Pet. for Cert, i, ¶ 1. The case, in my view, does not squarely present that question, for the Vermont Supreme Court, when it found Michael Brillon’s trial unconstitutionally delayed, did not count such delays against the State. The court’s opinion for the most part makes that fact clear; at worst some passages are ambiguous. Given these circumstances, I would dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
I
The relevant time period consists of slightly less than three years, stretching from July 2001, when Brillon was indicted, until mid-June 2004, when he was convicted and sentenced. In light of Brillon’s improper behavior, see ante, at 85-87, the Vermont Supreme Court did not count months 1 through 12 (mid-July 2001 through mid-June 2002) against the State. Noting the objection that Brillon had sought to “intentionally sabotag[e] the criminal proceedings against him,” the Vermont Supreme Court was explicit that this time period “do[es] not count.. . against the [S]tate.” 183 Vt. 475, 492, 955 A. 2d 1108, 1120 (2008).
The Vermont Supreme Court did count months 13 through 17 (mid-June 2002 through November 2002) against the State. It did so under circumstances where (1) Brillon’s counsel, Paul Donaldson, revealed that his contract with the defender general’s office had expired in June 2002 — shortly after (perhaps before!) he took over as Brillon’s counsel, App. 232-233, (2) he stated that this case was “basically the beginning of [his] departure from the contract,” ibid., and (3) he made no filings, missed several deadlines, did “little or nothing” to “move his case forward,” and made only one brief appearance at a status conference in mid-August, 183 Vt., at 493, 494, 955 A. 2d, at 1121. I believe it fairer to characterize this period, not as a period in which “assigned counsel” failed to move the case forward, ante, at 85, but as a period in which Brillon, in practice, had no assigned counsel. And, given that the State conceded its responsibility for delays caused by another defender who resigned for “contractual reasons,” see infra this page, it is hardly unreasonable that the Vermont Supreme Court counted this period of delay against the State.
The Vermont Supreme Court also counted months 18 through 25 (the end of November 2002 through July 2003) against the State. It did so because the State conceded in its brief that this period of delay “cannot be attributed to the defendant.” App. 78 (emphasis added). This concession is not surprising in light of the fact that during much of this period, Brillon was represented by David Sleigh, a contract attorney, who during the course of his representation filed nothing on Brillon’s behalf except a single motion seeking to extend discovery. The record reflects no other actions by Sleigh other than a letter sent to Brillon informing him that “[a]s a result of modifications to our firm’s contract with the Defender General, we will not be representing you in your pending ease.” Id., at 158. Brillon was left without counsel for a period of nearly six months. The State explained in conceding its responsibility for this delay that Sleigh had been forced to withdraw “for contractual reasons,” and that the defender general’s office had been unable to replace him “for funding reasons.” Id., at 78.
Finally, the Vermont Supreme Court counted against the State the last 11 months — from August 2003 to mid-June 2004. But it is impossible to conclude from the opinion whether it did so because it held the State responsible for the defender’s failure to “move the case forward,” or for other reasons having nothing to do with counsel, namely, the judge’s unavailability, see id., at 138, or the fact that “the [case] files were incomplete” and “additional documents were needed from the State,” 183 Vt., at 491, 955 A. 2d, at 1120-1121. Treating the opinion as charging the State on the basis of the defender’s conduct is made more difficult by the fact that Brillon did not argue below that Kathleen Moore, his defender during this period, caused any delays. Appellant’s Reply Brief in No. 2005-167 (Vt.), 2007 WL 990004, *7.
II
In sum, I can find no convincing reason to believe the Vermont Supreme Court made the error of constitutional law that the majority attributes to it. Rather than read ambiguities in its opinion against it, thereby assuming the presence of the error the Court finds, I would dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. As a majority nonetheless wishes to decide the case, I would note that the Vermont Supreme Court has considerable authority to supervise the appointment of public defenders. See Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 13, §§5204, 5272 (1998); see also Vt. Rule Crim. Proc. 44 (2003). It consequently warrants leeway when it decides whether a particular failing is properly attributed to assigned counsel or instead to the failure of the defender general’s office properly to assign counsel. Ante, at 94. I do not believe the Vermont Supreme Court exceeded that leeway here. And I would affirm its decision.
With respect, I dissent.
Vermont’s Defender General has “the primary responsibility for providing needy persons with legal services.” Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 13, § 5253(a) (1998). These services may be provided “personally, through public defenders,” or through contract attorneys. Ibid.
The State expressed its concern that the continuance request was “just part and parcel of an effort by the defense to have the Court not hear this matter.” App. 180. Under Vermont procedures, the judge presiding over the trial was scheduled to “rotate” out of the county where Brillon’s case was pending in March 2002. See id., ¶ 6, at 109. Thus, a continuance past March would have caused a different judge to preside over Brillon’s trial, despite the denial of his motion to recuse the initial judge. Ammons requested a continuance until April.
Ammons also cited as cause to withdraw, “certain irreconcilable differences in preferred approach between Mr. Brillon and counsel as to trial strategy, as well as other legitimate legal decisions.” Id., ¶ 2, at 104.
Specifically, Altieri appeared reluctant to follow Brillon’s tactic that he “bring in a lot of people” at trial, “some of them young kids and relatives ... in an attempt by Mr. Brillon — this is his theory — I don’t want to use the words trash, [to] impeach [the victim].” Id., at 216-217.
Vermont’s Constitution contains a speedy-trial clause which reads: “[I]n all prosecutions for criminal offenses, a person hath a right to ... a speedy public trial by an impartial jury . ...” Vt. Const., Ch. I, Art. 10. Notably, the Vermont Supreme Court made no ruling under the State’s own prescription, but instead relied solely on the Federal Constitution. Because it did so, our review authority was properly invoked and exercised. See Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 719-720 (1975); Ginsburg, Book Review, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 340, 343-344 (1978). But see post, p. 95.
Several States’ speedy-trial statutes expressly exclude from computation of the time limit continuances and delays caused by the defendant or defense counsel. See, e. g., Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1381 (West 2000); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/103-5(f) (West 2006); N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law Ann. §30.30(4) (West Supp. 2009); Alaska Rule Crim. Proc. 45(d) (1994); Ark. Rule Crim. Proc. 28.3 (2006); Ind. Rule Crim. Proc. 4(A) (2009). See also Brief for National Governors Association et al. as Amici Curiae 17-18, and n. 12.
A public defender may act for the State, however, “when making hiring and firing decisions on behalf of the State,” and “while performing certain administrative and possibly investigative functions.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U. S. 312, 325 (1981).
The State conceded before the Vermont Supreme Court that the period of Sleigh’s representation — along with a six-month period of no representation — was properly attributed to the State. 183 Vt. 475, 493, 955 A. 2d 1108, 1120-1121 (2008). The State sought to avoid its concession at oral argument before this Court, but in the alternative, noted that the period of Sleigh’s representation “is really inconsequential.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-6. We agree that in light of the three-year delay caused mostly by Brillon, the attribution of Sleigh’s three-month representation does not tip the balance for either side.
Brillon lacked counsel for some six months. In light of his own role in the initial periods of delay, however, this six-month period, even if attributed to the State, does not establish a speedy-trial violation.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In this case, petitioners challenge their convictions under the Travel Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1952, which prohibits interstate travel in furtherance of certain criminal activity. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit narrowed an expansive interpretation of the Act, the Court of Appeals affirmed petitioners’ convictions. For the reasons stated below, we reverse.
Petitioners, James Rewis and Mary Lee Williams, were convicted along with two other defendants in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Their convictions arose from a lottery, or numbers operation, which petitioners admittedly ran in Yulee, Florida, a small community located a few miles south of the Georgia-Florida state line. Petitioners are Florida residents, and there is no evidence that they at any time crossed state lines in connection with the operation of their lottery. The other two convicted defendants are Georgia residents who traveled from their Georgia homes to place bets at petitioners’ establishment in Yulee.
The District Court instructed the jury that mere bettors in a lottery violated Florida law, and that if the bettors traveled interstate for the purpose of gambling, they also violated the Travel Act. Presumably referring to petitioners, the District Court further charged that a defendant could be found guilty under the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U. S. C. § 2, without proof that he personally performed every act constituting the charged offense. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that § 1952 did not make it a federal crime merely to cross a state line for the purpose of placing a bet and reversed the convictions of the two Georgia residents because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show that they were anything other than customers of the gambling operation. However, the Court of Appeals upheld petitioners’ convictions on the ground that operators of gambling establishments are responsible for the interstate travel of their customers. 418 F. 2d 1218, 1222.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that it cannot be said, with certainty sufficient to justify a criminal conviction, that Congress intended that interstate travel by mere customers of a gambling establishment should violate the Travel Act. But we are unable to conclude that conducting a gambling operation frequented by out-of-state bettors, by itself, violates the Act. Section 1952 prohibits interstate travel with the intent to “promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate” certain kinds of illegal activity; and the ordinary meaning of this language suggests that the traveler’s purpose must involve more than the desire to patronize the illegal activity. Legislative history of the Act is limited, but does reveal that § 1952 was aimed primarily at organized crime and, more specifically, at persons who reside in one State while operating or managing illegal activities located in another. In addition, we are struck by what Congress did not say. Given the ease with which citizens of our Nation are able to travel and the existence of many multi-state metropolitan areas, substantial amounts of criminal activity, traditionally subject to state regulation, are patronized by out-of-state customers. In such a context, Congress would certainly recognize that an expansive Travel Act would alter sensitive federal-state relationships, could overextend limited federal police resources, and might well produce situations in which the geographic origin of customers, a matter of happenstance, would transform relatively minor state offenses into federal felonies. It is not for us to weigh the merits of these factors, but the fact that they are not even discussed in the legislative history of § 1952 strongly suggests that Congress did not intend that the Travel Act should apply to criminal activity solely because that activity is at times patronized by persons from another State. In short, neither statutory language nor legislative history supports such a broad-ranging interpretation of § 1952. And even if this lack of support were less apparent, ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity, Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81, 83 (1955).
The Government concedes as much, but offers an alternative construction of the Travel Act — that the Act is violated whenever the operator of an illegal establishment can reasonably foresee that customers will cross state lines for the purpose of patronizing the illegal operation or whenever the operator actively seeks to attract business from another State. The first half of this proposed interpretation — reasonable foreseeability of interstate patronage — does not merit acceptance. Whenever individuals actually cross state fines for the purpose of patronizing a criminal establishment, it will almost always be reasonable to say that the operators of the establishment could have foreseen that some of their customers would come from out of State. So, for practical purposes, this alternative construction is almost as expansive as interpretations that we have already rejected. In addition, there is little, if any, evidence that Congress intended that foreseeability should govern criminal liability under § 1952.
There may, however, be greater support for the second half of the Government’s proposed interpretation — that active encouragement of interstate patronage violates the Act. Of course, the conduct deemed to constitute active encouragement must be more than merely conducting the illegal operation; otherwise, this interpretation would only restate other constructions which we have rejected. Still, there are cases in which federal courts have correctly applied § 1952 to those individuals whose agents or employees cross state fines in furtherance of illegal activity, see, e. g., United States v. Chambers, 382 F. 2d 910, 913-914 (CA6 1967); United States v. Barrow, 363 F. 2d 62, 64-65 (CA3 1966), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 1001 (1967); United States v. Zizzo, 338 F. 2d 577, 580 (CA7 1964), cert. denied, 381 U. S. 915 (1965), and the Government argues that the principles of those decisions should be extended to cover persons who actively seek interstate patronage. Although we are cited to no cases that have gone so far and although much of what we have said casts substantial doubt on the Government’s broad argument, there may be occasional situations in which the conduct encouraging interstate patronage so closely approximates the conduct of a principal in a criminal agency relationship that the Travel Act is violated. But we need not rule on this part of the Government’s theory because it is not the interpretation of § 1952 under which petitioners were convicted. The jury was not charged that it must find that petitioners actively sought interstate patronage. And we are not informed of any action by petitioners, other than actually conducting their lottery, that was designed to attract out-of-state customers. As a result, the Government’s proposed interpretation. of the Travel Act cannot be employed to uphold these convictions.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the decision of this case.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1952 (1964 ed. and Supp. V) provides:
“(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, including the mail, with intent to—
“(1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or
“(2) commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or
“(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity,
“and thereafter performs or attempts to perform any of the acts specified in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3), shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
“(b) As used in this section ‘unlawful activity’ means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on which the Federal ■excise tax has not been paid, narcotics, or prostitution offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States, or (2) extortion, bribery, or arson in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States.”
Petitioners were convicted of eight substantive -violations under § 1952 and of conspiracy to violate the section. Petitioner Rewis was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. Petitioner Williams was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, subject to parole under 18 U. S. C. §4208 (a) (2). Petitioner Rewis was also convicted of two counts of having failed to purchase a wagering tax stamp. These latter two convictions were reversed by the Court of Appeals under the intervening decisions of this Court in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), and Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62 (1968).
18 U. S. C. § 2 provides:
“(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
“(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.”
418 F. 2d 1218. The Government has not sought review of that part of the Court of Appeals decision reversing the conviction of the two Georgia residents.
Both parties correctly concede that the questions in this case are solely statutory. No issue of constitutional dimension is presented.
Incorporated in the Senate report (S. Rep. No. 644, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-3, dated July 27, 1961) the following appears:
“The bill, S. 1653, was introduced by the chairman of the committee, Senator James O. Eastland, on April 18, 1961, on the recommendation of the Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, as a part of the Attorney General’s legislative program to combat organized crime and racketeering.
“The Attorney General testified before the committee in support of the bill, S. 1653, on June 6, 1961, and commented:
“ 'We are seeking to take effective action against the racketeer who conducts an unlawful business but lives far from the scene in comfort and safety, as well as against other hoodlums.
“ ‘Let me say from the outset that we do not seek or intend to impede the travel of anyone except persons engaged in illegal businesses as spelled out in the bill. . . .
“ ‘The target clearly is organized crime. The travel that would be banned is travel “in furtherance of a business enterprise” which involves gambling, liquor, narcotics, and prostitution offenses or extortion or bribery. Obviously, we are not trying to curtail the sporadic, casual involvement in these offenses, but rather a continuous course of conduct sufficient for it to be termed a business enterprise.’
“ ‘Our investigations also have made it quite clear that only the Federal Government can shut off the funds which permit the top men of organized crime to live far from the scene and, therefore, remain immune from the local officials.’ ”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shields foreign states and their agencies from suit in United States courts unless the suit falls within one of the Act's specifically enumerated exceptions. This case concerns the scope of the commercial activity exception, which withdraws sovereign immunity in any case "in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by [a] foreign state." 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2).
Respondent Carol Sachs is a resident of California who purchased in the United States a Eurail pass for rail travel in Europe. She suffered traumatic personal injuries when she fell onto the tracks at the Innsbruck, Austria, train station while attempting to board a train operated by the Austrian state-owned railway. She sued the railway in Federal District Court, arguing that her suit was not barred by sovereign immunity because it is "based upon" the railway's sale of the pass to her in the United States. We disagree and conclude that her action is instead "based upon" the railway's conduct in Innsbruck. We therefore hold that her suit falls outside the commercial activity exception and is barred by sovereign immunity.
I
A
Petitioner OBB Personenverkehr AG (OBB) operates a railway that carries nearly 235 million passengers each year on routes within Austria and to and from points beyond Austria's frontiers. OBB is wholly owned by OBB Holding Group, a joint-stock company created by the Republic of Austria. OBB Holding Group in turn is wholly owned by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation, and Technology. Sachs v. Republic of Austria, 737 F.3d 584, 587 (C.A.9 2013).
OBB-along with 29 other railways throughout Europe-is a member of the Eurail Group, an association responsible for the marketing and management of the Eurail pass program. Brief for International Rail Transport Committee as Amicus Curiae 12; 737 F.3d, at 587. Eurail passes allow their holders unlimited passage for a set period of time on participating Eurail Group railways. They are available only to non-Europeans, who may purchase them both directly from the Eurail Group and indirectly through a worldwide network of travel agents. Brief for International Rail Transport Committee as Amicus Curiae 12-13, and n. 3; Brief for Respondent 4-5.
Carol Sachs is a resident of Berkeley, California. In March 2007, she purchased a Eurail pass over the Internet from The Rail Pass Experts, a Massachusetts-based travel agent. The following month, Sachs arrived at the Innsbruck train station, planning to use her Eurail pass to ride an OBB train to Prague. As she attempted to board the train, Sachs fell from the platform onto the tracks. OBB's moving train crushed her legs, both of which had to be amputated above the knee. 737 F.3d, at 587-588.
Sachs sued OBB in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting five causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability for design defects in the train and platform; (3) strict liability for failure to warn of those design defects; (4) breach of an implied warranty of merchantability for providing a train and platform unsafe for their intended uses; and (5) breach of an implied warranty of fitness for providing a train and platform unfit for their intended uses. App. 14-18. OBB claimed sovereign immunity and moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 737 F.3d, at 588.
B
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act "provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country." Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 443, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989). The Act defines "foreign state" to include a state "agency or instrumentality,"
28 U.S.C. § 1603(a), and both parties agree that OBB qualifies as a "foreign state" for purposes of the Act. OBB is therefore "presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts" unless one of the Act's express exceptions to sovereign immunity applies. Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355, 113 S.Ct. 1471, 123 L.Ed.2d 47 (1993). Sachs argues that her suit falls within the Act's commercial activity exception, which provides in part that a foreign state does not enjoy immunity when "the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state." § 1605(a)(2).
The District Court concluded that Sachs's suit did not fall within § 1605(a)(2) and therefore granted OBB's motion to dismiss. 2011 WL 816854, *1, *4 (N.D.Cal., Jan. 28, 2011). A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 695 F.3d 1021 (2012). The full court ordered rehearing en banc and, with three judges dissenting, reversed the panel decision. 737 F.3d 584.
The en banc majority first observed that, "based on the agreement of the parties," "the only relevant commercial activity within the United States was [Sachs's] March 2007 purchase of a Eurail pass from the Rail Pass Experts," a Massachusetts company. Id., at 591, n. 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that The Rail Pass Experts had acted as OBB's agent and, using common law principles of agency, attributed that Eurail pass sale to OBB. Id., at 591-598.
The court next asked whether Sachs's claims were "based upon" the sale of the Eurail pass within the meaning of § 1605(a)(2). The "based upon" determination, the court explained, requires that the commercial activity within the United States be "connected with the conduct that gives rise to the plaintiff's cause of action." Id ., at 590. But, the court continued, "it is not necessary that the entire claim be based upon the commercial activity of OBB." Id., at 599. Rather, in the court's view, Sachs would satisfy the "based upon" requirement for a particular claim "if an element of [that] claim consists in conduct that occurred in commercial activity carried on in the United States." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Applying California law, see id., at 600, n. 14, the court analyzed Sachs's causes of action individually and concluded that the sale of the Eurail pass established a necessary element of each of her claims. Turning first to the negligence claim, the court found that Sachs was required to show that OBB owed her a duty of care as a passenger as one element of that claim. The court concluded that such a duty arose from the sale of the Eurail pass. Id., at 600-602. Turning next to the other claims, the court determined that the existence of a "transaction between a seller and a consumer" was a necessary element of Sachs's strict liability and breach of implied warranty claims. Id., at 602. The sale of the Eurail pass, the court noted, provided proof of such a transaction. Ibid. Having found that "the sale of the Eurail pass in the United States forms an essential element of each of Sachs's claims," the court concluded that each claim was "based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States" by OBB. Ibid.
We granted certiorari. 574 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1172, 190 L.Ed.2d 929 (2015).
II
OBB contends that the sale of the Eurail pass is not attributable to the railway, reasoning that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not allow attribution through principles found in the common law of agency. OBB also argues that even if such attribution were allowed under the Act, Sachs's suit is not "based upon" the sale of the Eurail pass for purposes of § 1605(a)(2). We agree with OBB on the second point and therefore do not reach the first.
A
The Act itself does not elaborate on the phrase "based upon." Our decision in Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 113 S.Ct. 1471, 123 L.Ed.2d 47 (1993), however, provides sufficient guidance to resolve this case. In Nelson, a husband and wife brought suit against Saudi Arabia and its state-owned hospital, seeking damages for intentional and negligent torts stemming from the husband's allegedly wrongful arrest, imprisonment, and torture by Saudi police while he was employed at a hospital in Saudi Arabia. Id., at 351, 353-354, 113 S.Ct. 1471. The Saudi defendants claimed sovereign immunity under the Act, arguing, inter alia, that § 1605(a)(2) was inapplicable because the suit was "based upon" sovereign acts-the exercise of Saudi police authority-and not upon commercial activity. See Brief for Petitioners in Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, O.T. 1992, No. 91-552, pp. 12-14. The Nelsons countered that their suit was "based upon" the defendants' commercial activities in "recruit[ing] Scott Nelson for work at the hospital, sign[ing] an employment contract with him, and subsequently employ[ing] him." 507 U.S., at 358, 113 S.Ct. 1471. We rejected the Nelsons' arguments.
The Act's "based upon" inquiry, we reasoned, first requires a court to "identify[ ] the particular conduct on which the [plaintiff's] action is 'based.' " Id., at 356, 113 S.Ct. 1471. Considering dictionary definitions and lower court decisions, we explained that a court should identify that "particular conduct" by looking to the "basis" or "foundation" for a claim, id., at 357, 113 S.Ct. 1471 (citing dictionary definitions), "those elements ... that, if proven, would entitle a plaintiff to relief," ibid., and "the 'gravamen of the complaint,' " ibid. (quoting Callejo v. Bancomer, S. A., 764 F.2d 1101, 1109 (C.A.5 1985) ). Under that analysis, we found that the commercial activities, while they "led to the conduct that eventually injured the Nelsons," were not the particular conduct upon which their suit was based. The suit was instead based upon the Saudi sovereign acts that actually injured them. 507 U.S., at 358, 113 S.Ct. 1471. The Nelsons' suit therefore did not fit within § 1605(a)(2). Id., at 361-362, 113 S.Ct. 1471.
B
The Ninth Circuit held that Sachs's claims were "based upon" the sale of the Eurail pass because the sale of the pass provided "an element " of each of her claims. 737 F.3d, at 599. Under Nelson, however, the mere fact that the sale of the Eurail pass would establish a single element of a claim is insufficient to demonstrate that the claim is "based upon" that sale for purposes of § 1605(a)(2).
The Ninth Circuit apparently derived its one-element test from an overreading of one part of one sentence in Nelson, in which we observed that "the phrase ['based upon'] is read most naturally to mean those elements of a claim that, if proven, would entitle a plaintiff to relief under his theory of the case." 507 U.S., at 357, 113 S.Ct. 1471. We do not see how that mention of elements-plural-could be considered an endorsement of a one -element test, nor how the particular element the Ninth Circuit singled out for each of Sachs's claims could be construed to entitle her to relief.
Be that as it may, our analysis in Nelson is flatly incompatible with a one-element approach. A one-element test necessarily requires a court to identify all the elements of each claim in a complaint before that court may reject those claims for falling outside § 1605(a)(2). But we did not undertake such an exhaustive claim-by-claim, element-by-element analysis of the Nelsons' 16 causes of action, nor did we engage in the choice-of-law analysis that would have been a necessary prelude to such an undertaking. Compare id., at 356-358, 113 S.Ct. 1471 with 737 F.3d, at 600, n. 14 (noting disagreement over whether state or federal common law principles govern suits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act).
Nelson instead teaches that an action is "based upon" the "particular conduct" that constitutes the "gravamen" of the suit. Rather than individually analyzing each of the Nelsons' causes of action, we zeroed in on the core of their suit: the Saudi sovereign acts that actually injured them. As the Court explained:
"Even taking each of the Nelsons' allegations about Scott Nelson's recruitment and employment as true, those facts alone entitle the Nelsons to nothing under their theory of the case. The Nelsons have ... alleged ... personal injuries caused by [the defendants'] intentional wrongs and by [the defendants'] negligent failure to warn Scott Nelson that they might commit those wrongs. Those torts, and not the arguably commercial activities that preceded their commission, form the basis for the Nelsons' suit." 507 U.S., at 358, 113 S.Ct. 1471.
Under this analysis, the conduct constituting the gravamen of Sachs's suit plainly occurred abroad. All of her claims turn on the same tragic episode in Austria, allegedly caused by wrongful conduct and dangerous conditions in Austria, which led to injuries suffered in Austria.
Sachs maintains that some of those claims are not limited to negligent conduct or unsafe conditions in Austria, but rather involve at least some wrongful action in the United States. Her strict liability claim for failure to warn, for example, alleges that OBB should have alerted her to the dangerous conditions at the Innsbruck train station when OBB sold the Eurail pass to her in the United States . Under any theory of the case that Sachs presents, however, there is nothing wrongful about the sale of the Eurail pass standing alone. Without the existence of the unsafe boarding conditions in Innsbruck, there would have been nothing to warn Sachs about when she bought the Eurail pass. However Sachs frames her suit, the incident in Innsbruck remains at its foundation.
As we explained in Nelson, any other approach would allow plaintiffs to evade the Act's restrictions through artful pleading. For example, any plaintiff "could recast virtually any claim of intentional tort ... as a claim of failure to warn, simply by charging the defendant with an obligation to announce its own tortious propensity before indulging it." Id., at 363, 113 S.Ct. 1471. To allow such "recast[ing]" of a complaint, we reasoned, would "give jurisdictional significance to [a] feint of language,"
thereby "effectively thwart[ing] the Act's manifest purpose." Ibid.
A century ago, in a letter to then-Professor Frankfurter, Justice Holmes wrote that the "essentials" of a personal injury narrative will be found at the "point of contact"-"the place where the boy got his fingers pinched." Letter (Dec. 19, 1915), in Holmes and Frankfurter: Their Correspondence, 1912-1934, p. 40 (R. Mennel & C. Compston eds. 1996). At least in this case, that insight holds true. Regardless of whether Sachs seeks relief under claims for negligence, strict liability for failure to warn, or breach of implied warranty, the "essentials" of her suit for purposes of § 1605(a)(2) are found in Austria.
III
Sachs raises a new argument in this Court in an attempt to fit her claims within § 1605(a)(2). In addition to arguing that her claims are "based upon" the sale of the Eurail pass, she now contends that her suit is "based upon" "OBB's overall commercial railway enterprise." Brief for Respondent 24; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 38.
"[C]ommercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state," as used in § 1605(a)(2), is defined to mean "commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States." § 1603(e). Sachs's new theory is that OBB's entire railway enterprise constitutes the "commercial activity" that has the requisite "substantial contact with the United States," because OBB reaches out to American customers by marketing and selling Eurail passes in the United States.
That argument was never presented to any lower court and is therefore forfeited. Sachs argued in the courts below only that her claims were "based upon" the sale of the Eurail pass, and the lower courts resolved the case on that understanding. See, e.g., 737 F.3d, at 591, n. 4 ("The district court concluded, based on the agreement of the parties, that 'the only relevant commercial activity within the United States was plaintiff's March 2007 purchase of a Eurail Pass from the Rail Pass Experts.' We consider only the relevant conduct as defined by the district court."). Indeed, when we granted certiorari, the relevant question presented for our review was whether Sachs's claims were "based upon" the "sale of the ticket in the United States." Pet. for Cert. i; accord, Brief for Respondent i. We have answered that question in the negative.
Absent unusual circumstances-none of which is present here-we will not entertain arguments not made below. Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638, 645-646, 112 S.Ct. 1644, 118 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992).
We therefore conclude that Sachs has failed to demonstrate that her suit falls within the commercial activity exception in § 1605(a)(2). OBB has sovereign immunity under the Act, and accordingly the courts of the United States lack jurisdiction over the suit.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Section 1605(a)(2) contains three separate clauses. In full, the section provides:
"A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case ... in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States."
As Sachs relies only on the first clause to establish jurisdiction over her suit, we limit our inquiry to that clause.
We cautioned in Nelson that the reach of our decision was limited, see Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 358, n. 4, 113 S.Ct. 1471, 123 L.Ed.2d 47 (1993), and similar caution is warranted here. Domestic conduct with respect to different types of commercial activity may play a more significant role in other suits under the first clause of § 1605(a)(2). In addition, we consider here only a case in which the gravamen of each claim is found in the same place.
See also Points and Authorities in Opposition to OBB Personenverkehr AG's Motion to Dismiss in No. 08-01840 (ND Cal.), p. 8 ("The claims herein are based on the purchase of the Eurail pass."); Appellant's Opening Brief in No. 11-15458 (CA9), p. 10 ("[T]he claims are 'based upon' the purchase of the ticket which occurred in the United States."); Appellant's Reply Brief in No. 11-15458 (CA9), p. 8 ("[H]er claim was based on the purchase/sale of the ticket."). The District Court decided the case on that understanding of Sachs's argument. See 2011 WL 816854, *2 (N.D.Cal., Jan. 28, 2011) ; see also 2010 WL 4916394, *1 (N.D.Cal., Nov. 22, 2010). As did the Ninth Circuit panel, see 695 F.3d 1021, 1024 (2012), and, as noted, the Ninth Circuit en banc. When OBB petitioned this Court for writ of certiorari, Sachs's brief in opposition repeated her earlier arguments. See Brief in Opposition 2; see also this Court's Rule 15.2.
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: | 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.
Petitioner brought this action in Colorado state court to recover employment compensation allegedly due. Respondent removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on the basis of diversity of citizenship. 28 U. S. C. §§ 1332, 1441. A jury awarded petitioner a verdict of $5,000 (considerably less than had been sought), and judgment was entered on March 26, 1984. Petitioner timely filed new-trial motions, challenging various rulings by the District Court, and a motion for attorney’s fees. (Colorado law provides that in a suit to collect compensation due from employment “the judgment. . . shall include a reasonable attorney fee in favor of the winning party, to be taxed as part of the costs of the action.” Colo. Rev. Stat. 8-4-114 (1986).) On May 14, 1984, the District Court denied the new-trial motions, found that petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees, and requested further briefing and documentation before determining their amount. The District Court issued its final order concerning the attorney’s fees on August 1, 1984. On August 29, petitioner filed notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, covering all the District Court’s post-trial orders.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the judgment was final and immediately appealable when the order denying the new-trial motions was entered May 14, 1984, and that the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of that order as required by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) and (4). The Court of Appeals granted the motion to dismiss as to all issues except the award of attorney’s fees, which it affirmed. We granted certiorari, 484 U. S. 895 (1987), to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals. Compare, e. g., Holmes v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 682 F. 2d 1143, 1146 (CA5 1982), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 1107 (1983), with, e. g., International Assn. of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Ironworkers’ Local Union 75 v. Madison Industries, Inc., 733 F. 2d 656, 658 (CA9 1984).
It is common ground in this case that if the District Court’s decision on the merits was appealable before its determination of attorney’s fees, then the merits appeal was untimely. See Fed. Rules App. Proc. 4(a)(1), (4), (6); Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 54(a), 58. Petitioner contends that Colorado law governs this question and that “[u]nder Colorado law a claim is not final and appealable until attorneys fees are fully determined.” Brief for Petitioner 13. We do not agree that Colorado law governs.
Although state law generally supplies the rules of decision in federal diversity cases, see 28 U. S. C. § 1652; Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, 78 (1938), it does not control the resolution of issues governed by federal statute, see U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2 (Supremacy Clause); 28 U. S. C. § 1652; Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395, 404-405 (1967). Under 28 U. S. C. § 1291, “all final decisions of the district courts” are appealable to the courts of appeals. In using the phrase “final decisions” Congress obviously did not mean to borrow or incorporate state law. “Final decisions” is not a term like “property,” which naturally suggests a reference to state-law concepts, cf. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577 (1972); and the context of its use in § 1291 makes such a reference doubly implausible, since that provision applies to all federal litigation and not just diversity cases. Nor is it possible to accept petitioner’s contention that §1291 does not apply to diversity cases because that would violate the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. We have held that enactments “rationally capable of classification” as procedural rules are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the power to establish federal courts vested in Congress by Article III, § 1. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460, 472 (1965); see also Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U. S. 1, 5, and n. 3 (1987). A statute mandating when an appeal may be taken from one federal court to another certainly meets this test. Cf. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949) (treating appealability as an issue of federal law in a case brought under diversity jurisdiction).
The question before us, therefore, is whether a decision on the merits is a “final decision” as a matter of federal law under § 1291 when the recoverability or amount of attorney’s fees for the litigation remains to be determined. “A ‘final decision’ generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execúte the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 233 (1945). A question remaining to be decided after an order ending litigation on the merits does not prevent finality if its resolution will not alter.the order or moot or revise decisions embodied in the order. See, e. g., Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 308-309 (1962); Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U. S. 507, 513-516 (1950). We have all but held that an attorney’s fees determination fits this description. In White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U. S. 445 (1982), we held that a request for attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988 is not a motion “to alter or amend the judgment” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because it does not seek “reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.” 455 U. S., at 451. This holding was based on our conclusion that “a request for attorney’s fees under § 1988 raises legal issues collateral to” and “separate from” the decision on the merits. Id., at 451-452. We went so far as to observe in dicta that “[t]he collateral character of the fee issue establishes that an outstanding fee question does not bar recognition of a merits judgment as ‘final’ and ‘appealable.’” Id., at 452-453, n. 14. See also Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U. S. 161, 170 (1939) (observing that a petition for attorney’s fees in equity is “an independent proceeding supplemental to the original proceeding and not a request for a modification of the original decree”).
The foregoing discussion is ultimately question-begging, however, since it assumes that the order to which the fee issue was collateral was an order ending litigation on the merits. If one were to regard the demand for attorney’s fees as itself part of the merits, the analysis would not apply. The merits would then not have been concluded, and § 1291 finality would not exist. See Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U. S. 737, 740-742 (1976). As a general matter, at least, we think it indisputable that a claim for attorney’s fees is not part of the merits of the action to which the fees pertain. Such an award does not remedy the injury giving rise to the action, and indeed is often available to the party defending against the action. At common law, attorney’s fees were regarded as an element of “costs” awarded to the prevailing party, see 10 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §2665 (1983), which are not generally treated as part of the merits judgment, cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 58 (“Entry of the judgment shall not be delayed for the taxing of costs”). Many federal statutes providing for attorney’s fees continue to specify that they are to be taxed and collected as “costs,” see Marek v. Chesny, 473 U. S. 1, 43-48 (1985) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (citing 63 such statutes) — as does, in fact, the Colorado statute at issue here.
Petitioner contends, however, that the general status of attorney’s fees for § 1291 purposes must be altered when the statutory or decisional law authorizing them makes plain (as he asserts Colorado law does) that they are to be part of the merits judgment. This proposition is not without some support. Some Courts of Appeals have held that the statutes creating liability for attorney’s fees can cause them to be part of the merits relief for purposes of §1291. See, e. g., Holmes v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 682 F. 2d, at 1146; McQurter v. Atlanta, 724 F. 2d 881, 882 ,(CA11 1984) (per curiam). This Court itself implicitly acknowledged the possibility of such an approach in Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U. S. 472 (1980), where, in holding that a judgment on the merits was final and immediately appealable apart from the question of attorney’s fees, we expressly distinguished cases in which the plaintiff had specifically requested attorney’s fees as part of the prayer in his complaint. Id., at 479-480, n. 5. Now that we are squarely confronted with the question, however, we conclude that the § 1291 effect of an unresolved issue of attorney’s fees for the litigation at hand should not turn upon the characterization of those fees by the statute or decisional law that authorizes them.
We have said elsewhere that “[t]he considerations that determine finality are not abstractions but have reference to very real interests — not merely those of the immediate parties, but, more particularly, those that pertain to the smooth functioning of our judicial system.” Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U. S. 62, 69 (1948). Indeed, in the context of the finality provision governing appealability of matters from state courts to this Court, 28 U. S. C. § 1257, we have been willing in effect to split the “merits,” regarding a claim for an accounting to be sufficiently “dissociated” from a related claim for delivery of physical property that “[i]n effect, such a controversy is a multiple litigation allowing review of the adjudication which is concluded because it is independent of, and unaffected by, another litigation with which it happens to be entangled.” Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 126 (1945). This practical approach to the matter suggests that what is of importance here is not preservation of conceptual consistency in the status of a particular fee authorization as “merits” or “nonmerits,” but rather preservation of operational consistency and predictability in the overall application of § 1291. This requires, we think, a uniform rule that an unresolved issue of attorney’s fees for the litigation in. question does not prevent judgment on the merits from being final.
For all practical purposes an appeal of merits-without-attorney’s-fees when there is a statute deeming the attorney’s fees to be part of the merits is no more harmful to the trial process than an appeal of merits-without-attorney’s-fees when there is no such statute. That “deeming” does not render the appeal more disruptive of ongoing proceedings, more likely to eliminate a trial judge’s opportunity for reconsideration, more susceptible to being mooted by settlement, or in any way (except nominally) a more piecemeal enterprise. In short, no interest pertinent to § 1291 is served by according different treatment to attorney’s fees deemed part of the merits recovery; and a significant interest is disserved. The time of appealability, having jurisdictional consequences, should above all be clear. We are not inclined to adopt a disposition that requires the merits or nonmerits status of each attorney’s fee provision to be clearly established before the time to appeal can be clearly known. Courts and litigants are best served by the bright-line rule, which accords with traditional understanding, that a decision on the merits is a “final decision” for purposes of §1291 whether or not there remains for adjudication a request for attorney’s fees attributable to the case.
Finally, petitioner argues that even if the Court of Appeals properly decided the question of appealability, the decision constitutes a significant change in the law and therefore should only be applied prospectively.. Regardless of whether today’s decision works a change, our cases hold that “[a] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction, and thus, by definition, a jurisdictional ruling may never be made prospective only.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S. 368, 379-380 (1981). Since the Court of Appeals properly held petitioner’s notice of appeal from the decision on the merits to be untimely, and since the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional, see Fed. Rules App. Proc. 2, 3(a), 4(a)(1), 26(b); United States v. Robinson, 361 U. S. 220, 229 (1960); Farley Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 778 F. 2d 1365, 1368-1370 (CA9 1985), the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to review the decision on the merits.
* * *
The Tenth Circuit correctly concluded that federal law governed the question of appealability and that petitioner’s judgment on the merits was final and appealable when entered. Accordingly, its judgment is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), we held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect’s statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence. In the wake of that decision, Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. § 8501, which in essence laid down a rule that the admissibility of such statements should turn only on whether or not they were voluntarily made. We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves. We therefore hold that Miranda and its progeny in this Court govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts.
Petitioner Dickerson was indicted for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and using a firearm in the course of committing a crime of violence, all in violation of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code. Before trial, Dickerson moved to suppress a statement he had made at a Federal Bureau of Investigation field office, on the grounds that he had not received “Miranda warnings” before being interrogated. The District Court granted his motion to suppress, and the Government took an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That court, by a divided vote, reversed the District Court’s suppression order. It agreed with the District Court’s conclusion that petitioner had not received Miranda warnings before making his statement. But it went on to hold that § 8501, which in effect makes the admissibility of statements such as Dickerson’s turn solely on whether they were made voluntarily, was satisfied in this ease. It then concluded that our decision in Miranda was not a constitutional holding, and that, therefore, Congress could by statute have the final say on the question of admissibility. 166 F. 3d 667 (1999).
Because of the importance of the questions raised by the Court of Appeals’ decision, we granted certiorari, 528 U. S. 1045 (1999), and now reverse.
We begin with a brief historical account of the law governing the admission of confessions. Prior to Miranda, we evaluated the admissibility of a suspect’s confession under a voluntariness test. The roots of this test developed in the common law, as the courts of England and then the United States recognized that coerced confessions are inherently untrustworthy. See, e. g., King v. Rudd, 1 Leach 115, 117-118, 122-123, 168 Eng. Rep. 160, 161, 164 (K. B. 1783) (Lord Mansfield, C. J.) (stating that the English courts excluded confessions obtained by threats and promises); King v. Warickshall, 1 Leach 262, 263-264, 168 Eng. Rep. 234, 235 (K. B. 1783) (“A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the strongest sense of guilt... but a confession forced from the mind by the flattery of hope, or by the torture of fear, comes in so questionable a shape ... that no credit ought to be given to it; and therefore it is rejected”); King v. Parratt, 4 Car. & R 570, 172 Eng. Rep. 829 (N. P. 1831); Queen v. Garner, 1 Den. 329, 169 Eng. Rep. 267 (Ct. Crim. App. 1848); Queen v. Baldry, 2 Den. 430, 169 Eng. Rep. 568 (Ct. Crim. App. 1852); Hopt v. Territory of Utah, 110 U. S. 574 (1884); Pierce v. United States, 160 U. S. 355, 357 (1896). Over time, our eases recognized two constitutional bases for the requirement that a confession be voluntary to be admitted into evidence: the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, 542 (1897) (stating that the voluntariness test “is controlled by that portion of the Fifth Amendment . . . commanding that no person ‘shall be compelled in any criminal ease to be a witness against himself’ ”); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936) (reversing a criminal conviction under the Due Process Clause because it was based on a confession obtained by physical coercion).
While Bram was decided before Brown and its progeny, for the middle third of the 20th century our eases based the rule against admitting coerced confessions primarily, if not exclusively, on notions of due process. We applied the due process voluntariness test in “some 80 different cases decided during the era that intervened between Brown and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 [(1964)].” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 223 (1973). See, e. g., Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503 (1963); Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143 (1944); Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 (1940). Those eases refined the test into an inquiry that examines “whether a defendant’s will was overborne” by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession. Schneckloth, 412 U. S., at 226. The due process test takes into consideration “the totality of all the surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.” Ibid. See also Haynes, supra, at 513; Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U. S. 49, 55 (1962); Reck v. Pate, 367 U. S. 433, 440 (1961) (“[A]ll the circumstances attendant upon the confession must be taken into account”); Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 404 (1945) (“If all the attendant circumstances indicate that the confession was coerced or compelled, it may not be used to convict a defendant”). The determination “depend[s] upon a weighing of the circumstances of pressure against the power of resistance of the person confessing.” Stein v. New York, 346 U. S. 156, 185 (1953).
We have never abandoned this due process jurisprudence, and thus continue to exclude confessions that were obtained involuntarily. But our decisions in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964), and Miranda changed the focus of much of the inquiry in determining the admissibility of suspects’ incriminating statements. In Malloy, we held that the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause is incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the States. 378 U. S., at 6-11. We decided Miranda on the heels of Malloy.
In Miranda, we noted that the advent of modern custodial police interrogation brought with it an increased concern about confessions obtained by coercion. 384 U. S., at 445-458. Because custodial police interrogation, by its very nature, isolates and pressures the individual, we stated that “[e]ven without employing brutality, the ‘third degree’ or [other] specific stratagems, . . . custodial interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty and trades on the weakness of individuals.” Id., at 455. We concluded that the coercion inherent in custodial interrogation blurs the line between voluntary and involuntary statements, and thus heightens the risk that an individual will not be “accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment... not to be compelled to incriminate himself.” Id., at 439. Accordingly, we laid down “concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow.” Id., at 442. Those guidelines established that the admissibility in evidence of any statement given during custodial interrogation of a suspect would depend on whether the police provided the suspect with four warnings. These warnings (which have come to be known colloquially as “Miranda rights”) are: a suspect “has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” Id., at 479.
Two years after Miranda was decided, Congress enacted § 3501. That section provides, in relevant part:
“(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States or by the District of Columbia, a confession .. . shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given. Before such confession is received in evidence, the trial judge shall, out of the presence of the jury, determine any issue as to voluntariness. If the trial judge determines that the confession was voluntarily made it shall be admitted in evidence and the trial judge shall permit the jury to hear relevant evidence on the issue of volun-tariness and shall instruct the jury to give such weight to the confession as the jury feels it deserves under all the circumstances.
“(b) The trial judge in determining the issue of vol-untariness shall take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession, including (1) the time elapsingbetween arrest and arraignment of the defendant making the confession, if it was made after arrest and before arraignment, (2) whether such defendant knew the nature of the offense with which he was charged or of which he was suspected at the time of making the confession, (3) whether or not such defendant was advised or knew that he was not required to make any statement and that any such statement could be used against him, (4) whether or not such defendant had been advised prior to questioning of his right to the assistance of counsel; and (5) whether or not such defendant was without the assistance of counsel when questioned and when giving such confession.
“The presence or absence of any of the above-mentioned factors to be taken into consideration by the judge need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness of the confession.”
Given § 3501’s express designation of voluntariness as the touchstone of admissibility, its omission of any warning requirement, and the instruction for trial courts to consider a nonexclusive list of factors relevant to the circumstances of a confession, we agree with the Court of Appeals that Congress intended by its enactment to overrule Miranda. See also Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452, 464 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring) (stating that, prior to Miranda, “voluntariness vel non was the touchstone of admissibility of confessions”). Because of the obvious conflict between our decision in Miranda and §3501, we must address whether Congress has constitutional authority to thus supersede Miranda. If Congress has such authority, § 3501’s totality-of-the-eireumstances approach must prevail over Miranda!s requirement of warnings; if not, that section must yield to Miranda’s more specific requirements.
The law in this area is clear. This Court has supervisory authority over the federal courts, and we may use that authority to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure that are binding in those tribunals. Carlisle v. United States, 517 U. S. 416, 426 (1996). However, the power to judicially create and enforce nonconstitutional “rules of procedure and evidence for the federal courts exists only in the absence of a relevant Act of Congress.” Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S. 343, 353, n. 11 (1959) (citing Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371, 382 (1933), and Gordon v. United States, 344 U. S. 414, 418 (1953)). Congress retains the ultimate authority to modify or set aside any judicially created rules of evidence and procedure that are not required by the Constitution. Palermo, supra, at 345-348; Carlisle, supra, at 426; Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252, 265 (1980).
But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 517-521 (1997). This ease therefore turns on whether the Miranda Court announced a constitutional rule or merely exercised its supervisory authority to regulate evidence in the absence of congressional direction. Recognizing this point, the Court of Appeals surveyed Miranda and its progeny to determine the constitutional status of the Miranda decision. 166 F. 3d, at 687-692. Relying on the fact that we have created several exceptions to Miranda’s warnings requirement and that we have repeatedly referred to the Miranda warnings as “prophylactic,” New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 653 (1984), and “not themselves rights protected by the Constitution,” Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 438, 444 (1974), the Court of Appeals concluded that the protections announced in Miranda are not constitutionally required. 166 F. 3d, at 687-690.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, although we concede that there is language in some of our opinions that supports the view taken by that court. But first and foremost of the factors on the other side — that Miranda is a constitutional decision — is that both Miranda and two of its companion cases applied the rule to proceedings in state courts — to wit, Arizona, California, and New York. See 384 U. S., at 491-494, 497-499. Since that time, we have consistently applied Miranda’s rule to prosecutions arising in state courts. See, e. g., Stansbury v. California, 511 U. S. 318 (1994) (per curiam); Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 146 (1990); Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U. S. 675 (1988); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 481-482 (1981). It is beyond dispute that we do not hold a supervisory power over the courts of the several States. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U. S. 209, 221 (1982) (“Federal courts hold no supervisory authority over state judicial proceedings and may intervene only to correct wrongs of constitutional dimension”); Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U. S. 504, 508-509 (1958). With respect to proceedings in state courts, our “authority is limited to enforcing the commands of the United States Constitution.” Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U. S. 415, 422 (1991). See also Harris v. Rivera, 454 U. S. 339, 344-345 (1981) (per curiam) (stating that “[fjederal judges . . . may not require the observance of any special procedures” in state courts “except when necessary to assure compliance with the dictates of the Federal Constitution”).
The Miranda opinion itself begins by stating that the Court granted certiorari “to explore some facets of the problems ... of applying the privilege against self-incrimination to in-custody interrogation, and to give concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow” 384 U. S., at 441-442 (emphasis added). In fact, the majority opinion is replete with statements indicating that the majority thought it was announcing a constitutional rule. Indeed, the Court’s ultimate conclusion was that the unwarned confessions obtained in the four cases before the Court in Miranda “were obtained from the defendant under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege.” Id., at 491.
Additional support for our conclusion that Miranda is constitutionally based is found in the Miranda Court’s invitation for legislative action to protect the constitutional right against coerced self-incrimination. After discussing the “compelling pressures” inherent in custodial police interrogation, the Miranda Court concluded that, “[i]n order to combat these pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored.” Id., at 467. However, the Court emphasized that it could not foresee “the potential alternatives for protecting the privilege which might be devised by Congress or the States,” and it accordingly opined that the Constitution would not preclude legislative solutions that differed from the prescribed Miranda warnings but which were “at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals also relied on the fact that we have, after our Miranda decision, made exceptions from its rule in cases such as New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649 (1984), and Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). See 166 F. 3d, at 672, 689-691. But we have also broadened the application of the Miranda doctrine in cases such as Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610 (1976), and Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U. S. 675 (1988). These decisions illustrate the principle — not that Miranda is not a constitutional rule — but that no constitutional rule is immutable. No court laying down a general rule can possibly foresee the various circumstances in which counsel will seek to apply it, and the sort of modifications represented by these cases are as much a normal part of constitutional law as the original decision.
The Court of Appeals also noted that in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985), we stated that “ ‘[t]he Miranda exclusionary rule ... serves the Fifth Amendment and sweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself.’ ” 166 F. 3d, at 690 (quoting Elstad, supra, at 306). Our decision in that case — refusing to apply the traditional “fruits” doctrine developed in Fourth Amendment eases — does not prove that Miranda is a nonconstitutional decision, but simply recognizes the fact that unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment are different from unwarned interrogation under the Fifth Amendment.
As an alternative argument for sustaining the Court of Appeals’ decision, the court-invited amicus curiae contends that the section complies with the requirement that a legislative alternative to Miranda be equally as effective in preventing coerced confessions. See Brief for Paul G. Cassell as Amicus Curiae 28-39. We agree with the amicus' contention that there are more remedies available for abusive police conduct than there were at the time Miranda was decided, see, e. g., Wilkins v. May, 872 F. 2d 190, 194 (CA71989) (applying Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), to hold that a suspect may bring a federal cause of action under the Due Process Clause for police misconduct during custodial interrogation). But we do not agree that these additional measures supplement § 3501’s protections sufficiently to meet the constitutional minimum. Miranda requires procedures that will warn a suspect in custody of his right to remain silent and which will assure the suspect that the exercise of that right will be honored. See, e. g., 384 U. S., at 467. As discussed above, §3501 explicitly eschews a requirement of preinterrogation warnings in favor of an approach that looks to the administration of such warnings as only one factor in determining the volun-tariness of a suspect’s confession. The additional remedies cited by amicus do not, in our view, render them, together with §3501, an adequate substitute for the warnings required by Miranda.
The dissent argues that it is judicial overreaching for this Court to hold §3501 unconstitutional unless we hold that the Miranda warnings are required by the Constitution, in the sense that nothing else will suffice to satisfy constitutional requirements. Post, at 453-454, 465 (opinion of Scalia, J.). But we need not go further than Miranda to decide this ease. In Miranda, the Court noted that reliance on the traditional totality-of-the-circumstances test raised a risk of overlooking an involuntary custodial confession, 384 U. S, at 457, a risk that the Court found, unacceptably great when the confession is offered in the case in chief to prove guilt. The Court therefore concluded that something more than the totality test was necessary. See ibid.; see also id., at 467, 490-491. As discussed above, §3501 reinstates the totality test as sufficient. Section 3501 therefore cannot he sustained if Miranda is to remain the law.
Whether or not we would agree with Miranda’s reasoning and its resulting rule, were we addressing the issue in the first instance, the principles of stare decisis weigh heavily against overruling it now. See, e. g., Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 304 (1980) (Burger, C. J., concurring in judgment) (“The meaning of Miranda has become reasonably clear and law enforcement practices have adjusted to its strictures; I would neither overrule Miranda, disparage it, nor extend it at this late date”). While ‘“stare decisis is not an inexorable command,’” State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 20 (1997) (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828 (1991)), particularly when we are interpreting the Constitution, Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235 (1997), “even in constitutional eases, the doctrine carries such persuasive force that we have always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some ‘special justification.’ ” United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U. S. 843, 856 (1996) (quoting Payne, supra, at 842 (Souter, J., concurring), in turn quoting Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U. S. 203, 212 (1984)).
We do not think there is such justification for overruling Miranda. Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture. See Mitchell v. United States, 526 U. S. 314, 331-332 (1999) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (stating that the fact that a rule has found “ ‘wide acceptance in the legal culture’ ” is “adequate reason not to overrule” it). While we have overruled our precedents when subsequent eases have undermined their doctrinal underpinnings, see, e. g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 173 (1989), we do not believe that this has happened to the Miranda decision. If anything, our subsequent cases have reduced the impact of the Miranda rule on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming the decision’s core ruling that unwarned statements may not be used as evidence in the prosecution's case in chief.
The disadvantage of the Miranda rule is that statements which may be by no means involuntary, made by a defendant who is aware of his “rights,” may nonetheless be excluded and a guilty defendant go free as a result. But experience suggests that the totality-of-the-eircumstances test which § 3501 seeks to revive is more difficult than Miranda for law enforcement officers to conform to, and for courts to apply in a consistent manner. See, e. g., Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S., at 515 (“The line between proper and permissible police conduct and techniques and methods offensive to due process is, at best, a difficult one to draw”). The requirement that Miranda warnings be given does not, of course, dispense with the voluntariness inquiry. But as we said in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420 (1984), “[c]ases in which a defendant can make a colorable argument that a self-incriminating statement was ‘compelled’ despite the fact that the law enforcement authorities adhered to the dictates of Miranda are rare.” Id., at 433, n. 20.
In sum, we conclude that Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively. Following the rule of stare decisis, we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
While our eases have long interpreted the Due Process and Self-Incrimination Clauses to require that a suspect be accorded a fair trial free from coerced testimony, our application of those Clauses to the context of custodial police interrogation is relatively recent because the routine practice of such interrogation is itself a relatively new development. See, e. g., Miranda, 384 U. S., at 445-458.
See also Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452, 457-458 (1994); Withrow v. Williams, 507 U. S. 680, 690-691 (1993) (“Miranda’s, safeguards are not constitutional in character”); Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U. S. 195, 203 (1989); Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U. S. 523, 528 (1987) (“|T]he Miranda Court adopted prophylactic rules designed to insulate the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights”); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 306 (1985); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 492 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring in result).
Our conclusion regarding Miranda’s constitutional basis is further buttressed by the fact that we have allowed prisoners to bring alleged Miranda violations before the federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings. See Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99 (1995); Withrow, supra, at 690-695. Habeas corpus proceedings are available only for claims that a person “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(a). Since the Miranda rule is clearly not based on federal laws or treaties, our decision allowing habeas review for Miranda claims obviously assumes that Miranda is of constitutional origin.
See 384 U. S., at 445 (“The constitutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody”), 457 (stating that the Miranda Court was concerned with “adequate safeguards to protect precious Fifth Amendment rights”), 458 (examining the “history and precedent underlying the Self-Incrimination Clause to determine its applicability in this situation”), 476 (“The requirement of warnings and waiver of rights is... fundamental with respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege and not simply a preliminary ritual to existing methods of interrogation”), 479 (“The whole thrust of our foregoing discussion demonstrates that the Constitution has prescribed the rights of the individual when confronted with the power of government when it provided in the Fifth Amendment that an individual cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself”), 481, n. 52 (stating that the Court dealt with “constitutional standards in relation to statements made”), 490 (“[T]he issues presented are of constitutional dimensions and must be determined by the courts”), 489 (stating that the Miranda Court was dealing “with rights grounded in a specific requirement of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution”).
Many of our subsequent cases have also referred to Miranda’s constitutional underpinnings. See, e.g., Withrow, supra, at 691 (“‘Prophylactic’ though it may be, in protecting a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Miranda safeguards a ‘fundamental trial right’”); Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U. S. 292, 296 (1990) (describing Miranda’s warning requirement as resting on “the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-inerimination”); Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407, 411 (1990) (“[T]he Fifth Amendment bars police-initiated interrogation following a suspect’s request for counsel in the context of a separate investigation”); Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625, 629 (1986) (“The Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination provides the right to counsel at custodial interrogations”); Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 427 (1986) (referring to Miranda as “our interpretation of the Federal Constitution”); Edwards, supra, at 481-482.
The Court of Appeals relied in part on our statement that the Miranda decision in no way “creates a ‘constitutional straightjacket.’” See 166 F. 3d 667, 672 (CA4 1999) (quoting Miranda, 384 U. S., at 467). However, a review of our opinion in Miranda clarifies that this disclaimer was intended to indicate that the Constitution does not require police to administer the particular Miranda warnings, not that the Constitution does not require a procedure that is effective in seeming Fifth Amendment rights.
Because no party to the underlying litigation argued in favor of § 3501’s constitutionality in this Court, we invited Professor Paul Cassell to assist our deliberations by arguing in support of the judgment below.
Various other contentions and suggestions have been pressed by the numerous amici, but because of the procedural posture of this case we do not think it appropriate to consider them. See United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U. S. 56, 60, n. 2 (1981); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 531-532, n. 13 (1979); Knetsch v. United States, 364 U. S. 361, 370 (1960).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Opinion of ■ the Court by
Me. Justice Rehnquist,
announced by Me. Justice Blackmun.
Respondent Chester J. Dombrowski, was convicted in a Wisconsin state court of first-degree murder of Herbert McKinney and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was upheld on appeal, State v. Dombrowski, 44 Wis. 2d 486, 171 N. W. 2d 349 (1969), the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejecting respondent's contention that certain evidence admitted at the trial had been unconstitutionally seized. Respondent then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, asserting the same constitutional claim. The District Court denied the petition but the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that one of the searches was unconstitutional under Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364 (1964), and the other unconstitutional for unrelated reasons. 471 F. 2d 280 (1972). We granted certiorari, 409 U. S. 1059 (1972).
I
On September 9, 1969, respondent was a member of the Chicago, Illinois, police force and either owned or possessed a 1960 Dodge automobile. That day he drove from Chicago to West Bend, Wisconsin, the county seat of Washington County, located some hundred-odd miles northwest of Chicago. He was identified as having been in two taverns in the small town of Kewaskum, Wisconsin, seven miles north of West Bend, during' the late evening of September 9 and the early morning of September 10. At some time before noon on the 10th, respondent’s automobile became disabled, and he had it towed to a farm owned by his brother in Fond du Lac County, which adjoins Washington County on the north. He then drove back to Chicago early that afternoon with his brother in the latter’s car.
Just before midnight of the same day, respondent rented a maroon 1967 Ford Thunderbird at O’Hare Field outside of Chicago, and apparently drove back to Wisconsin early the next morning. A tenant on his brother’s farm saw a car answering the description of the rented car pull alongside the disabled 1960 Dodge at approximately 4 a. m. At approximately 9:30 a. m. on September 11, respondent purchased two towels, one light brown and the other blue, from a department store in Kewaskum.
From 7 to 10:15 p. m. of the 11th, respondent was in a steak house or tavern in West Bend. He ate dinner and also drank, apparently quite heavily. He left the tavern and drove the 1967 Thunderbird in a direction away from West Bend toward his brother’s farm. On the way, respondent had an accident, with the Thunderbird breaking through a guard rail and crashing into a bridge abutment. A passing motorist drove him into Kewaskum, and, after being let off in Kewaskum, respondent telephoned the police. Two police officers picked him up at a tavern and drove to the scene of the accident. On the way, the officers noticed that respondent appeared to be drunk; he offered three conflicting versions of how the accident occurred.
At the scene, the police observed the 1967 Thunderbird and took various measurements relevant to the accident. Respondent was, in the opinion of the officers, drunk. He had informed them that he was a Chicago police officer. The Wisconsin policemen believed that Chicago police officers were required by regulation to carry their service revolvers at all times. After calling a towtruck to remove the disabled Thunderbird, and not finding the revolver on respondent’s person, one of the officers looked into the front seat and glove compartment of that car for respondent’s service revolver. No revolver was found. The wrecker arrived and the Thunderbird was towed to a privately owned garage in Kewaskum, approximately seven miles from the West Bend police station. It was left outside by the wrecker, and no police guard was posted. At 11:33 p. m. on the 11th respondent was taken directly to the West Bend police station from the accident scene, and, after being interviewed by an assistant district attorney, to whom respondent again stated he was a Chicago policeman, respondent was formally arrested for drunken driving. Respondent was 'fin a drunken condition” and “incoherent at times.” Because of his injuries sustained in the accident, the same two officers took respondent to a local hospital. He lapsed into an unexplained coma, and a doctor, fearing the possibility of complications, had respondent hospitalized overnight for observation. One of the policemen remained at the hospital as a guard, and the other, Officer Weiss, drove at some time after 2 a. m. on the 12th to the garage to which the 1967 Thunderbird had been towed after the accident.
The purpose of going to the Thunderbird, as developed on the motion to suppress, was to look for respondent’s service revolver. Weiss testified that respondent did not have a revolver when he was arrested, and that the West Bend authorities were under the impression that Chicago police officers were required to carry their service revolvers at all times. He stated that the effort to find the revolver was “standard procedure in our department.”
Weiss opened the door of the Thunderbird and found, on the floor of the car, a book of Chicago police regulations and, between the two front seats, a flashlight which appeared to have “a few spots of blood on it.” He then opened the trunk of the car, which had been locked, and saw various items covered with what was later determined to be type 0 blood. These included a pair of police uniform trousers, a pair of gray trousers, a nightstick with the name “Dombrowski” stamped on it, a raincoat, a portion of a car floor mat, and a towel. The blood on the car mat was moist. The officer removed these items to the police station.
When, later that day, respondent was confronted with the condition of the items discovered in the trunk, he requested the presence of counsel before making any statement. After conferring with respondent, a lawyer told the police that respondent “authorized me to state he believed there was a body lying near the family picnic area at the north end of his brother’s farm.”
Fond du Lac County police went to the farm and found, in a dump, the body of a male, later identified as the decedent McKinney, clad only in a sportshirt. The deceased’s head was bloody; a white sock was found near the body. In observing the area, one officer looked through the window of the disabled 1960 Dodge, located not far from where the body was found, and saw a pillowcase, backseat, and briefcase covered with blood. Police officials obtained, on the evening of the 12th, returnable within 48 hours, warrants to search the 1960 Dodge and the 1967 Thunderbird, as well as orders to impound both automobiles. The 1960 Dodge was examined at the farm on the 12th and then towed to the police garage where it was held as evidence. On the 13th, criminologists came from the Wisconsin Crime Laboratory in Madison and searched the Dodge; they seized the back and front seats, a white sock covered with blood, a part of a bloody rear floor mat, a briefcase, and a front floor mat. A return of the search warrant was filed in the county court on the 14th, but it did not recite that the sock and floor mat had been seized. At a hearing held on the 14th, the sheriff who executed the warrant did not specifically state that these two items had been seized.
At the trial, the State introduced testimony tending to establish that the deceased was first hit over the head and then shot with a .38-caliber gun, dying approximately an hour after the gunshot wound was inflicted; that death occurred at approximately 7 a. m. on the 11th, with a six-hour margin of error either way; that respondent owned two .38-caliber guns; that respondent had type A blood; that the deceased had type 0 blood and that the bloodstains found in the 1960 Dodge and on the items found in the two cars were type 0.
The prosecution introduced the nightstick discovered in the 1967 Thunderbird, and testimony that it had traces of type 0 blood on it; the portion of the floor mat found in the 1967 car, with testimony that it matched the portion of the floor mat found in the 1960 Dodge; the bloody towel found in the 1967 car, with testimony that it was identical to one of the towels purchased by respondent on the 11th; the police uniform trousers; and the sock found in the 1960 Dodge, with testimony that it was identical in composition and stitching to that found near the body of the deceased.
The State’s case was based wholly on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in reviewing the conviction on direct appeal, stated that “even though the evidence that led to his conviction was circumstantial, we have seldom seen a stronger collection of such evidence assembled and presented by the prosecution.” State v. Dombrowski, 44 Wis. 2d, at 507, 171 N. W. 2d, at 360.
II
The Fourth Amendment provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The ultimate standard set forth in the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. In construing this command, there has been general agreement that “except in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is ‘unreasonable’ unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant.” Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 528-529 (1967). See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 454-455 (1971). One class of cases which constitutes at least a partial exception to this general rule is automobile searches. Although vehicles are “effects” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, “for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars.” Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 52 (1970). See Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 153-154 (1925). In Cooper v. California, 386 U. S. 58, 59 (1967), the identical proposition was stated in different language:
“We made it clear in Preston [v. United States] that whether a search and seizure is unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and pointed out, in particular, that searches of cars that are constantly movable may make the search of a car without a warrant a reasonable one although the result might be the opposite in a search of a home, a store, or other fixed piece of property. 376 U. S., at 366-367.”
While these general principles are easily stated, the decisions of this Court dealing with the constitutionality of warrantless searches, especially when those searches are of vehicles, suggest that this branch of the law is something less than a seamless web.
Since this Court’s decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), which overruled Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 (1949), and held that the provisions of the Fourth Amendment were applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the application of Fourth Amendment standards, originally intended to restrict only the Federal Government, to the States presents some difficulty when searches of automobiles are involved. The contact with vehicles by federal law enforcement officers usually, if not always, involves the detection or investigation of crimes unrelated to the operation of a vehicle. Cases such as Carroll v. United States, supra, and Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160 (1949), illustrate the typical situations in which federal officials come into contact with and search vehicles. In both cases, members of a special federal unit charged with enforcing a particular federal criminal statute stopped and searched a vehicle when they had probable cause to believe that the operator was violating that statute.
As a result of our federal system of government, however, state and local police officers, unlike federal officers, have much more contact with vehicles for reasons related to the operation of vehicles themselves. All States require vehicles to be registered and operators to be licensed. States and localities have enacted extensive and detailed codes regulating the condition and manner in which motor vehicles may be operated on public streets and highways.
Because of the extensive regulation of motor vehicles and traffic, and also because of the frequency with which a vehicle can become disabled or involved in an accident on public highways, the extent of police-citizen contact involving automobiles will be substantially greater than police-citizen contact in a home or office. Some such contacts will occur because the officer may believe the operator has violated a criminal statute, but many more will not be of that nature. Local police officers, unlike federal officers, frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.
Although the original justification advanced for treating automobiles differently from houses, insofar as war-rantless searches of automobiles by federal officers was concerned, was the vagrant and mobile nature of the former, Carroll v. United States, supra; Brinegar v. United States, supra; cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra; Chambers v. Maroney, supra, warrantless searches of vehicles by state officers have been sustained in cases in which the possibilities of the vehicle’s being removed or evidence in it destroyed were remote, if not nonexistent. See Harris v. United States, 390 U. S. 234 (1968) (District of Columbia police); Cooper v. California, supra. The constitutional difference between searches of and seizures from houses and similar structures and from vehicles stems both from the ambulatory character of the latter and from the fact that extensive, and often noncriminal contact with automobiles will bring local officials in “plain view” of evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of a crime, or contraband. Cf. United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S. 311 (1972).
Here we must decide whether a “search” of the trunk of the 1967 Ford was unreasonable solely because the local officer had not previously obtained a warrant. And, if that be answered in the negative, we must then determine whether the warrantless search was unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In answering these questions, two factual considerations deserve emphasis. First, the police had exercised a form of custody or control over the 1967 Thunderbird. Respondent's vehicle was disabled as a result of the accident, and constituted a nuisance along the highway. Respondent, being intoxicated (and later comatose), could not make arrangements to have the vehicle towed and stored. At the direction of the police, and for elemental reasons of safety, the automobile was towed to a private garage. Second, both the state courts and the District Court found as a fact that the search of the trunk to retrieve the revolver was “standard procedure in [that police] department,” to protect the public from the possibility that a revolver would fall into untrained or perhaps malicious hands. Although the trunk was locked, the car was left outside, in a lot seven miles from the police station to which respondent had been taken, and no guard was posted over it. For reasons not apparent from the opinion of the Court of Appeals, that court concluded that as “no further evidence was needed to sustain” the drunk-driving charge, “[t]he search must therefore have been for incriminating evidence of other offenses.” 471 F. 2d, at 283. While that court was obligated to exercise its independent judgment on the underlying constitutional issue presented by the facts of this case, it was not free on this record to disregard these findings of fact. Particularly in non-metropolitan jurisdictions such as those involved here, enforcement of the traffic laws and supervision of vehicle traffic may be a large part of a police officer’s job. We believe that the Court of Appeals should have accepted, as did the state courts and the District Court, the findings with respect to Officer Weiss’ specific motivation and the fact that the procedure he followed was “standard.”
The Court of Appeals relied, and respondent now relies, primarily on Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364 (1964), to conclude that the warrantless search was unconstitutional and the seized items inadmissible. In that case, the police received a telephone call at 3 a. m. from a caller who stated that “three suspicious men acting suspiciously” had been in a car in the business district of Newport, Kentucky, for five hours; four policemen investigated and, after receiving evasive explanations and learning that the suspects were unemployed and apparently indigent, arrested the three for vagrancy. The automobile was cursorily searched, then towed to a police station and ultimately to a garage, where it was searched after the three men had been booked. That search revealed two revolvers in the glove compartment; a subsequent search of the trunk resulted in the seizure of various items later admitted in a prosecution for conspiracy to rob a federally insured bank. In that case the respondent attempted to justify the warrantless search of the trunk and seizure of the items therein “as incidental to a lawful arrest.” Id., at 367. The Court rejected the asserted “search incident” justification for the warrantless search in the following terms:
“But these justifications are absent where a search is remote in time or place from the 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.” Ibid.
It would be possible to interpret Preston broadly, and to argue that it stands for the proposition that on those facts there could have been no constitutional justification advanced for the search. But we take the opinion as written, and hold that it stands only for the proposition that the search challenged there could not be justified as one incident to an arrest. See Chambers v. Maroney, supra; Cooper v. California, supra. We believe that the instant case is controlled by principles that may be extrapolated from Harris v. United States, supra, and Cooper v. California, supra.
In Harris, petitioner was arrested for robbery. As petitioner’s ear had been identified leaving the site of the robbery, it was impounded as evidence. A regulation of the District of Columbia Police Department required that an impounded vehicle be searched, that all valuables be removed, and that a tag detailing certain information be placed on the vehicle. In compliance with this regulation, and without a warrant, an officer searched the car and, while opening one of the doors, spotted an automobile registration card, belonging to the victim, lying face up on the metal door stripping. This item was introduced into evidence at petitioner’s trial for robbery. In rejecting the contention that the evidence was inadmissible, the Court stated:
“The admissibility of evidence found as a result of a search under the police regulation is not presented by this case. The precise and detailed findings of the District Court, accepted by the Court of Appeals, were to the effect that the discovery of the card was not the result of a search of the car, but of a measure taken to protect the car while it was in police custody. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment requires the police to obtain a warrant in these narrow circumstances.
“Once the door had lawfully been opened, the registration card . . . was plainly visible. It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.” 390 U. S., at 236.
In Cooper, the petitioner was arrested for selling heroin, and his car impounded pending forfeiture proceedings. A week later, a police officer searched, the car and found, in the glove compartment, incriminating evidence subsequently admitted at petitioner’s trial. This Court upheld the validity of the warrantless search and seizure with the following language:
“This case is not Preston, nor is it controlled by it. Here the officers seized petitioner’s car because they were required to do so by state law. They seized it because of the crime for which they arrested petitioner. They seized it to impound it and they had to keep it until forfeiture proceedings were concluded. Their subsequent search of the car — whether the State had ‘legal title’ to it or not — was closely related to the reason petitioner was arrested, the reason his car had been impounded, and the reason it was being retained. The forfeiture of petitioner’s car did not take place until over four months after it was lawfully seized. It would be unreasonable to hold that the police, having to retain the car in their custody for such a length of time, had no right, even for their own protection, to search it.” 386 U. S., at 61-62.
These decisions, while not on all fours with the instant case, lead us to conclude that the intrusion into the trunk of the 1967 Thunderbird at the garage was not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments solely because a warrant had not been obtained by Officer Weiss after he left the hospital. The police did not have actual, physical custody of the vehicle as in Harris and Cooper, but the vehicle had been towed there at the officers’ directions. These officers in a rural area were simply reacting to the effect of an accident — one of the recurring practical situations that results from the operation of motor vehicles and with which local police officers must deal every day. The Thunderbird was not parked adjacent to the dwelling place of the owner as in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971), nor simply momentarily unoccupied on a street. Rather, like an obviously abandoned vehicle, it represented a nuisance, and there is no suggestion in the record that the officers’ action in exercising control over it by having it towed away was unwarranted either in terms of state law or sound police procedure.
In Harris the justification for the initial intrusion into the vehicle was to safeguard the owner’s property, and in Cooper it was to guarantee the safety of the custodians. Here the justification, while different, was as immediate and constitutionally reasonable as those in Harris and Cooper: concern for the safety of the general public who might be endangered if an intruder removed a revolver from the trunk of the vehicle. The record contains uncontradicted testimony to support the findings of the state courts and District Court. Furthermore, although there is no record basis for discrediting such testimony, it was corroborated by the circumstantial fact that at the time the search was conducted Officer Weiss was ignorant of the fact that a murder, or any other crime, had been committed. While perhaps in a metropolitan area the responsibility to the general public might have been discharged by the posting of a police guard during the night, what might be normal police procedure in such an area may be neither normal nor possible in Kewaskum, Wisconsin. The fact that the protection of the public might, in the abstract, have been accomplished by “less intrusive” means does not, by itself, render the search unreasonable. Cf. Chambers v. Maroney, supra.
The Court’s previous recognition of the distinction between motor vehicles and dwelling places leads us to conclude that the type of caretaking “search” conducted here of a vehicle that was neither in the custody nor on the premises of its owner, and that had been placed where it was by virtue of lawful police action, was not unreasonable solely because a warrant had not been obtained. The Framers of the Fourth Amendment have given us only the general standard of “unreasonableness” as a guide in determining whether searches and seizures meet the standard of that Amendment in those cases where a warrant is not required. Very little that has been said in our previous decisions, see Cooper v. California, supra, Harris v. United States, supra, Chambers v. Maroney, supra, and very little that we might say here can usefully refine the language of the Amendment itself in order to evolve some detailed formula for judging cases such as this. Where, as here, the trunk of an automobile, which the officer reasonably believed to contain a gun, was vulnerable to intrusion by vandals, we hold that the search was not “unreasonable” within the meaning of th.e Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Ill
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the sock and the portion of the floor mat were validly seized from the 1960 Dodge. The Fond du Lac county officer who looked through the window of the Dodge after McKinney’s body had been found saw the bloody seat and briefcase, but not the sock or floor mat. Consequently, these two items were not listed in the application for the warrant, but the Dodge was the item “particularly described” to be searched in the warrant. The warrant was validly issued and the police were authorized to search the car. The reasoning of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was that although these items were not listed to be seized in the warrant, the warrant was valid and in executing it the officers discovered the sock and mat in plain view and therefore could constitutionally seize them without a warrant.
The Court of Appeals held that the seizure of the two items on September 13 could not be justified under the plain-view doctrine. The reasoning of that court hinged on its understanding that the warrant to search the Dodge had been returned and was functus officio by the time Officer Mauer of the Crime Laboratory came upon the sock and the floor mat. The court stated:
“There was no continuing authority under the warrant issued the previous night [the 12th]. First, these items were not described in the warrant and presumably were not observed that night [the 12th]. Second, when the warrant was returned — before Mauer came on the scene — it was functus officio. A ‘new ball game,’ so to speak, began when Mauer made his ‘inspection.’ ” 471 F. 2d, at 286.
The record is so indisputably clear that the return of the warrant was filed on the 14th, not sometime prior to Mauer’s search on the 13th, that we are somewhat at a loss to understand how the Court of Appeals arrived at its factual conclusion. The warrant to search the Dodge was issued on the 12th, and, although a return of the warrant was prepared by a Fond du Lac County officer at some time on the 13th (whether before or after Mauer’s search is impossible to determine), it was not filed in the state court until the 14th, at which time a hearing was held. The seizures of the sock and the floor mat occurred while a valid warrant was outstanding, and thus could not be considered unconstitutional under the theory advanced below. As these items were constitutionally seized, we do not deem it constitutionally significant that they were not listed in the return of the warrant. The ramification of that “defect,” if such it was, is purely a question of state law.
We therefore need not reach the question of whether the seizure of the two items from the Dodge would have been valid because the entire car had been validly seized as evidence and impounded pursuant to a valid warrant, cf. Harris v. United States, supra; Cooper v. California, supra, or whether a search of the back seat of this car, located as it was in an open field, required a search warrant at all. See Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57, 59 (1924).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Petitioner argued before this Court that unlocking the trunk of the Ford did not constitute a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The thesis is that only an intrusion, into an area in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the specific intent of discovering evidence of a crime constitutes a search. Compare Haerr v. United States, 240 F. 2d 533 (CA5 1957), with District of Columbia v. Little, 85 U. S. App. D. C. 242, 178 F. 2d 13 (1949), aff’d on other grounds, 339 U. S. 1 (1950). But see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967). Arguing that the officer's conduct constituted an “inspection” rather than a “search,” petitioner relies on our decision in Harris v. United States, 390 U. S. 234 (1968), to validate the initial intrusion into the trunk, and then the plain-view doctrine to justify the warrantless seizure of the items.
We need not decide this issue. Petitioner conceded in the Court of Appeals that this intrusion was a search. Inasmuch as we believe that Harris and other decisions control this case even if the intrusion is characterized as a search, we need not deal with petitioner's belated contention.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Various Tennessee public officials (hereinafter Tennessee) appeal from a decision by a three-judge federal court holding that Tennessee’s durational residence requirements for voting violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The issue arises in a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by appellee James Blumstein. Blumstein moved to Tennessee on June 12, 1970, to begin employment as an assistant professor of law at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. With an eye toward voting in the upcoming August and November elections, he attempted to register to vote on July 1, 1970. The county registrar refused to register him, on the ground that Tennessee law author- / izes the registration of only those persons who, at the time of the next election, will have been residents of the State for a year and residents of the county for three months.
After exhausting state administrative remedies, Blum-stein brought this action challenging these residence requirements on federal constitutional grounds. A three-judge court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284, concluded that Tennessee’s durational residence requirements were unconstitutional (1) because they im-permissibly interfered with the right to vote and (2) because they created a “suspect” classification penalizing some Tennessee residents because of recent interstate movement. 337 F. Supp. 323 (MD Tenn. 1970). We noted probable jurisdiction, 401 U. S. 934 (1971). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision below.
I
The subject of this lawsuit is the durational residence requirement. Appellee does not challenge Tennessee’s power to restrict the vote to bona fide Tennessee residents. Nor has Tennessee ever disputed that appellee was a bona fide resident of the State and county when he attempted to register. But Tennessee insists that, in addition to being a resident, a would-be voter must have been a resident for a year in the State and three months in the county. It is this additional durational residence requirement that appellee challenges.
Durational residence laws penalize those persons who have traveled from one place to another to establish a new residence during the qualifying period. Such laws divide residents into two classes, old residents and new residents, and discriminate against the latter to the extent of totally denying them the opportunity to vote. The constitutional question presented is whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a State to discriminate in this way among its citizens.
To decide whether a law violates the Equal Protection Clause, we look, in essence, to three things: the character of the classification in question; the individual interests affected by the classification; and the governmental interests asserted in support of the classification. Cf. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 30 (1968). In considering laws challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, this Court has evolved more than one test, depending upon the interest affected or the classification involved. First, then, we must determine what standard of review is appropriate. In the present case, whether we look to the benefit withheld by the classification (the opportunity to vote) or the basis for the classification (recent interstate travel) we conclude that the State must x show a substantial and compelling reason for imposing durational residence requirements.
A
Durational residence requirements completely bar from voting all residents not meeting the fixed durational standards. By denying some citizens the right to vote, such laws deprive them of “ 'a fundamental political right,... preservative of all rights.' ” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 562 (1964). There is no need to repeat now the labors undertaken in earlier cases to analyze this right to vote and to explain in detail the Judicial role in reviewing state statutes that selectively distribute the franchise. In decision after decision, this Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction. See, e. g., Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S. 419, 421-422, 426 (1970); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S. 621, 626-628 (1969); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701, 706 (1969); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 667 (1966); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 93-94 (1965); Reynolds v. Sims, supra. This “equal right to vote,” Evans v. Cornman, supra, at 426, is not absolute; the States have the power to impose voter qualifications, and to regulate access to the franchise in other ways. See, e. g., Carrington v. Rash, supra, at 91; Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112, 144 (opinion of Douglas, J.), 241 (separate opinion of Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ.), 294 (opinion of Stewart, J., concurring and dissenting, with whom Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, J., joined). But, as a general matter, “before that right [to vote] can be restricted, the purpose of the restriction and the assertedly overriding interests served by it must meet close constitutional scrutiny.” Evans v. Cornman, supra, at 422; see Bullock v. Carter, ante, p. 134, at 143.
Tennessee urges that this case is controlled by Drueding v. Devlin, 380 U. S. 125 (1965). Drueding was a decision upholding Maryland’s durational residence requirements. The District Court tested those requirements by the equal protection standard applied to ordinary state regulations: whether the exclusions are reasonably related to a permissible state interest. 234 F. Supp. 721, 724-725 (Md. 1964). We summarily affirmed per curiam without the benefit of argument. But if it was not clear then, it is certainly clear now that a more exacting test is required for any statute that “place[s] a condition on the exercise of the right to vote.” Bullock v. Carter, supra, at 143. This development in the law culminated in Kramer v. Union Free School District, supra. There we canvassed in detail the reasons for strict review of statutes distributing the franchise, 395 U. S., at 626-630, noting inter alia that such statutes “constitute the foundation of our representative society.” We concluded that if a challenged statute grants the right to vote to some citizens and denies the franchise to others, “the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest.” Id., at 627 (emphasis added); Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra, at 704; City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U. S. 204, 205, 209 (1970). Cf. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, supra, at 670. This is the test we apply here.
B
This exacting test is appropriate for another reason, never considered in Drueding: Tennessee’s dura-tional residence laws classify bona fide residents on the basis of recent travel, penalizing those persons, and only those persons, who have gone from one jurisdiction to another during the qualifying period. Thus, the dura-tional residence requirement directly impinges on the exercise of a second fundamental personal right, the right to travel.
“[Fjreedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.” United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 758 (1966). See Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849) (Taney, C. J.); Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 43-44 (1868); Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1869); Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 (1941); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 126 (1958); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 629-631, 634 (1969); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S., at 237 (separate opinon of Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ.), 285-286 (Stewart, J., concurring and dissenting, with whom Burger, C. J., and Black-mun, J., joined). And it is clear that the freedom to travel includes the “freedom to enter and abide in any State in the Union,” id., at 285. Obviously, durational residence laws single out the class of bona fide state and county residents who have recently exercised this constitutionally protected right, and penalize such travelers directly. We considered such a durational residence requirement in Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, where the pertinent statutes imposed a one-year waiting period for interstate migrants as a condition to receiving welfare benefits. Although in Shapiro we specifically did not decide whether durational residence requirements could be used to determine voting eligibility, id., at 638 n. 21, we concluded that since the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right, “any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional.” Id., at 634. This compelling-state-interest test was also adopted in the separate concurrence of Mr. Justice Stewart. Preceded by a long line of cases recognizing the constitutional right to travel, and repeatedly reaffirmed in the face of attempts to disregard it, see Wyman v. Bowens, 397 U. S. 49 (1970), and Wyman v. Lopez, 404 U. S. 1055 (1972), Shapiro and the compelling-state-interest test it articulates control this case.
Tennessee attempts to distinguish Shapiro by urging that “the vice of the welfare statute in Shapiro... was its objective to deter interstate travel.” Brief for Appellants 13. In Tennessee’s view, the compelling-state-interest test is appropriate only where there is “some evidence to indicate a deterrence of or infringement on the right to travel....” Ibid. Thus, Tennessee seeks to avoid the clear command of Shapiro by arguing that durational residence requirements for voting neither seek to nor actually do deter such travel. In essence, Tennessee argues that the right to travel is not abridged here in any constitutionally relevant sense.
This view represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. It is irrelevant whether disenfranchisement or denial of welfare is the more potent deterrent to travel. Shapiro did not rest upon a finding that denial of welfare actually deterred travel. Nor have other “right to travel” cases in this Court always relied on the presence of actual deterrence. In Shapiro we explicitly stated that the compelling-state-interest test would be triggered by “any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right [to travel] Id., at 634 (emphasis added) ; see id., at 638 n. 21. While noting the frank legislative purpose to deter migration by the poor, and speculating that “[a]n indigent who desires to migrate... will doubtless hesitate if he knows that he must risk” the loss of benefits, id., at 629, the majority found no need to dispute the “evidence that few welfare recipients have in fact been deterred [from moving] by residence requirements.” Id., at 650 (Warren, C. J., dissenting); see also id., at 671-672 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Indeed, none of the litigants had themselves been deterred. Only last Term, it was specifically noted that because a durational residence requirement for voting “operates to penalize those persons, and only those persons, who have exercised their constitutional right of interstate migration..., [it] may withstand constitutional scrutiny only upon a clear showing that the burden imposed is necessary to protect a compelling and substantial governmental interest.” Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S., at 238 (separate opinion of Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ.) (emphasis added).
Of course, it is true that the two individual interests affected by Tennessee’s durational residence requirements are affected in different ways. Travel is permitted, but only at a price; voting is prohibited. The right to travel is merely penalized, while the right to vote is absolutely denied. But these differences are irrelevant for present purposes. Shapiro implicitly realized what this Court has made explicit elsewhere:
“It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.... 'Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be... indirectly denied’....” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528, 540 (1965).
See also Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967), and cases cited therein; Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S. 511, 515 (1967). The right to travel is an “unconditional personal right,” a right whose exercise may not be conditioned. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 643 (Stewart, J., concurring) (emphasis added); Oregon v. Mitchell, supra, at 292 (Stewart, J., concurring and dissenting, with whom Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, J., joined). Durational residence laws impermissibly condition and penalize the right to travel by imposing their prohibitions on only those persons who have recently exercised that right. In the present case, such laws force a person who wishes to travel and change residences to choose between travel and the basic right to vote. Cf. United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 582-583 (1968). Absent a compelling state interest, a State may not burden the right to travel in this way.
C
In sum, durational residence laws must be measured by a strict equal protection test: they are unconstitutional unless the State can demonstrate that such laws are “necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.” Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, at 634 (first emphasis added); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S., at 627. Thus phrased, the. constitutional question may sound like a mathematical formula. But legal “tests” do not have the precision of mathematical formulas. The key words emphasize a matter of degree: that a heavy burden of justification is on the State, and that the statute will be closely scrutinized in light of its asserted purposes.
It is not sufficient for the State to show that durational residence requirements further a very substantial state interest. In pursuing that important interest, the State cannot choose means that unnecessarily burden or restrict constitutionally protected activity. Statutes affecting constitutional rights must be drawn with “precision,” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963); United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 265 (1967), and must be “tailored” to serve their legitimate objectives. Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, at 631. And if there are other, reasonable ways to achieve those goals with a lesser burden on constitutionally protected activity, a State may not choose the way of greater interference. If it acts at all, it must choose “less drastic means.” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488 (1960).
II
We turn, then, to the question of whether the State has shown that durational residence requirements are needed to further a sufficiently substantial state interest. We emphasize again the difference between bona fide residence requirements and durational residence requirements. We have in the past noted approvingly that the States have the power to require that voters be bona fide residents of the relevant political subdivision. E. g., Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S., at 422; Kramer v. Union Free School District, supra, at 625; Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S., at 91; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621 (1904). An appropriately defined and uniformly applied requirement of bona fide residence may be necessary to preserve the basic conception of a political community, and therefore could withstand close constitutional scrutiny. But durational residence requirements, representing a separate voting qualification imposed on bona fide residents, must be separately tested by the stringent standard. Cf. Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, at 636.
It is worth noting at the outset that Congress has, in a somewhat different context, addressed the question whether durational residence laws further compelling state interests. In § 202 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, added by the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, Congress outlawed state durational residence requirements for presidential and vice-presidential elections, and prohibited the States from closing registration more than 30 days before such elections. 42 U. S. C. § 1973aa-1. In doing so, it made a specific finding that durational residence requirements and more restrictive registration practices do “not bear a reasonable relationship to any compelling State interest in the conduct of presidential elections.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973aa-1 (a)(6). We upheld this portion of the Voting Rights Act in Oregon v. Mitchell, supra. In our present case, of course, we deal with congressional, state, and local elections, in which the State’s interests are arguably somewhat different; and, in addition, our function is not merely to determine whether there was a reasonable basis for Congress’ findings. However, the congressional finding which forms the basis for the Federal Act is a useful background for the discussion that follows.
Tennessee tenders “two basic purposes” served by its durational residence requirements:
“(1) INSURE PURITY OF BALLOT BOX— Protection against fraud through colonization and inability to identify persons offering to vote, and
“(2) KNOWLEDGEABLE VOTER —Afford some surety that the voter has, in fact, become a member of the community and that as such, he has a common interest in all matters pertaining to its government and is, therefore, more likely to exercise his right more intelligently.” Brief for Appellants 15, citing 18 Am. Jur., Elections, § 56, p. 217.
We consider each in turn.
A
Preservation of the “purity of the ballot box” is a formidable-sounding state interest. The impurities feared, variously called “dual voting” and “colonization,” all involve voting by nonresidents, either singly or in groups. The main concern is that nonresidents will temporarily invade the State or county, falsely swear that they are residents to become eligible to vote, and, by voting, allow a candidate to win by fraud. Surely the prevention of such fraud is a legitimate and compelling government goal. But it is impossible to view durational residence requirements as necessary to achieve that state interest.
Preventing fraud, the asserted evil that justifies state lawmaking, means keeping nonresidents from voting. But, by definition, a durational residence law bars newly arrived residents from the franchise along with nonresidents. The State argues that such sweeping laws are necessary to prevent fraud because they are needed to identify bona fide residents. This contention is particularly unconvincing in light of Tennessee’s total statutory scheme for regulating the franchise.
Durational residence laws may once have been necessary to prevent a fraudulent evasion of state voter standards, but today in Tennessee, as in most other States, this purpose is served by a system of voter registration. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-301 et seg. (1955 and Supp. 1970); see State v. Weaver, 122 Tenn. 198, 122 S. W. 465 (1909). Given this system, the record is totally devoid of any evidence that durational residence requirements are in fact necessary to identify bona fide residents. The qualifications of the would-be voter in Tennessee are determined when he registers to vote, which he may do until 30 days before the election. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-304. His qualifications — including bona fide residence — are established then by oath. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-309. There is no indication in the record that Tennessee routinely goes behind the would-be voter’s oath to determine his qualifications. Since false swearing is no obstacle to one intent on fraud, the existence of burdensome voting qualifications like durational residence requirements cannot prevent corrupt nonresidents from fraudulently registering and voting. As long as the State relies on the oath-swearing system to establish qualifications, a du-rational residence requirement adds nothing to a simple residence requirement in the effort to stop fraud. The nonresident intent on committing election fraud will as quickly and effectively swear that he has been a resident for the requisite period of time as he would swear that he was simply a resident. Indeed, the durational residence requirement becomes an effective voting obstacle only to residents who tell the truth and have no fraudulent purposes.
Moreover, to the extent that the State makes an enforcement effort after the oath is sworn, it is not clear what role the durational residence requirement could play in protecting against fraud. The State closes the registration books 30 days before an election to give officials an opportunity to prepare for the election. Before the books close, anyone may register who claims that he will meet the durational residence requirement at the time of the next election. Although Tennessee argues that this 30-day period between registration and election does not give the State enough time to verify this claim of bona fide residence, we do not see the relevance of that position to this case. As long as the State permits registration up to 30 days before an election, a lengthy dura-tional residence requirement does not increase the amount of time the State has in which to carry out an investigation into the sworn claim by the would-be voter that he is in fact a resident.
Even if durational residence requirements imposed, in practice, a pre-election waiting period that gave voting officials three months or a year in which to confirm the bona fides of residence, Tennessee would not have demonstrated that these waiting periods were necessary. At the outset, the State is faced with the fact that it must defend two separate waiting periods of different lengths. It is impossible to see how both could be “necessary” to fulfill the pertinent state objective. If the State itself has determined that a three-month period is enough time in which to confirm bona fide residence in the State and county, obviously a one-year period cannot also be justified as “necessary” to achieve the same purpose. Beyond that, the job of detecting nonresidents from among persons who have registered is a relatively simple one. It hardly justifies prohibiting all newcomers from voting for even three months. To prevent dual voting, state voting officials simply have to cross-check lists of new registrants with their former jurisdictions. See Comment, Residence Requirements for Voting in Presidential Elections, 37 U. Chi. L. Rev. 359, 364 and n. 34, 374 (1970); cf. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 637. Objective information tendered as relevant to the question of bona fide residence under Tennessee law — places of dwelling, occupation, car registration, driver's license, property owned, etc. — is easy to doublecheck, especially in light of modern communications. Tennessee itself concedes that “[i]t might well be that these purposes can be achieved under requirements of shorter duration than that imposed by the State of Tennessee....” Brief for Appellants 10. Fixing a constitutionally acceptable period is surely a matter of degree. It is sufficient to note here that 30 days appears to be an ample period of time for the State to complete whatever administrative tasks are necessary to prevent fraud — and a year, or three months, too much. This was the judgment of Congress in the context of presidential elections. And, on the basis of the statutory scheme before us, it is almost surely the judgment of the Tennessee lawmakers as well. As the court below concluded, the cutoff point for registration 30 days before an election
“reflects the judgment of the Tennessee Legislature that thirty days is an adequate period in which Tennessee’s election officials can effect whatever measures may be necessary, in each particular case confronting them, to insure purity of the ballot and prevent dual registration and dual voting.” 337 F. Supp., at 330.
It has been argued that durational residence requirements are permissible because a person who has satisfied the waiting-period requirements is conclusively presumed to be a bona fide resident. In other words, durational residence requirements are justified because they create an administratively useful conclusive presumption that recent arrivals are not residents and are therefore properly barred from the franchise. This presumption, so the argument runs, also prevents fraud, for few candidates will be able to induce migration for the purpose of voting if fraudulent voters are required to remain in the false locale for three months or a year in order to vote on election day.
In Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, this Court considered and rejected a similar kind of argument in support of a similar kind of conclusive presumption. There, the State argued that it was difficult to tell whether persons moving to Texas while in the military service were in fact bona fide residents. Thus, the State said, the administrative convenience of avoiding difficult factual determinations justified a blanket exclusion of all servicemen stationed in Texas. The presumption created there was conclusive — “ 'incapable of being overcome by proof of the most positive character.’ ” Id., at 96, citing Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U. S. 312, 324 (1932). The Court rejected this “conclusive presumption” approach as violative of the Equal Protection Clause. While many servicemen in Texas were not bona fide residents, and therefore properly ineligible to vote, many servicemen clearly were bona fide residents. Since “more precise tests” were available “to winnow successfully from the ranks... those whose residence in the State is bona fide,” conclusive presumptions were impermissible in light of the individual interests affected. Id., at 95. “States may not casually deprive a class of individuals of the vote because of some remote administrative benefit to the State.” Id., at 96.
Carrington sufficiently disposes of this defense of dura-tional residence requirements. The State’s legitimate purpose is to determine whether certain persons in the community are bona fide residents. A durational residence requirement creates a classification that may, in a crude way, exclude nonresidents from that group. But it also excludes many residents. Given the State’s legitimate purpose and the individual interests that are affected, the classification is all too imprecise. See supra, at 343. In general, it is not very difficult for Tennessee to determine on an individualized basis whether one recently arrived in the community is in fact a resident, although of course there will always be difficult cases. Tennessee has defined a test for bona fide residence, and appears prepared to apply it on an individualized basis in various legal contexts. That test could easily be applied to new arrivals. Furthermore, if it is unlikely that would-be fraudulent voters would remain in a false locale for the lengthy period imposed by durational residence requirements, it is just as unlikely that they would collect such objective indicia of bona fide residence as a dwelling, car registration, or driver’s license. In spite of these things, the question of bona fide residence is settled for new arrivals by conclusive presumption, not by individualized inquiry. Cf. Carrington v. Rash, supra, at 95-96. Thus, it has always been undisputed that appellee Blumstein is himself a bona fide resident of Tennessee within the ordinary state definition of residence. But since Tennessee’s presumption from failure to meet the durational residence requirements is conclusive, a showing of actual bona fide residence is irrelevant, even though such a showing would fully serve the State’s purposes embodied in the presumption and would achieve those purposes with far less drastic impact on constitutionally protected interests. The Equal Protection Clause places a limit on government by classification, and that limit has been exceeded here. Cf. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 636; Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S., at 542-543; Carrington v. Rash, supra, at 95-96; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535 (1942).
Our conclusion that the waiting period is..not the least restrictive means necessary for preventing fraud is bolstered by the recognition that Tennessee has at its disposal a variety of criminal laws that are more than adequate to detect and deter whatever fraud may be feared. At least six separate sections of the Tennessee Code define offenses to deal with voter fraud. For example, Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-324 makes it a crime “for any person to register or to have his name registered as a qualified voter... when he is not entitled to be so registered... or to procure or induce any other person to register or be registered... when such person is not legally qualified to be registered as such....” In addition to the various criminal penalties, Tennessee permits the bona tides of a voter to be challenged on election day. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-1309 et seq. (1955 and Supp. 1970). Where a State has available such remedial action to supplement its voter registration system, it can hardly argue that broadly imposed political disabilities such as durational residence requirements are needed to deal with the evils of fraud. Now that the Federal Voting Rights Act abolishes those residence requirements as a precondition for voting in presidential and vice-presidential elections, 42 U. S. C. § 1973aa-l, it is clear that the States will have to resort to other devices available to prevent nonresidents from voting. Especially since every State must live with this new federal statute, it is impossible to believe that durational residence requirements are necessary to meet the State’s goal of stopping fraud.
B
The argument that durational residence requirements further the goal of having “knowledgeable voters” appears to involve three separate claims. The first is that such requirements “afford some surety that the voter has, in fact, become a member of the community.” But here the State appears to confuse a bona fide residence requirement with a durational residence requirement. As already noted, a State does have an interest in limiting the franchise to bona fide members of the community. But this does not justify or explain the exclusion from the franchise of persons, not because their bona fide residence is questioned, but because they are recent rather than longtime residents.
The second branch of the “knowledgeable voters” justification is that durational residence requirements assure that the voter “has a common interest in all matters pertaining to [the community’s] government....” By this, presumably, the State means that it may require a period of residence sufficiently lengthy to impress upon its voters the local viewpoint. This is precisely the sort of argument this Court has repeatedly rejected. In Carrington v. Rash, for example, the State argued that military men newly moved into Texas might not have local interests sufficiently in mind, and therefore could be excluded from voting in state elections. This Court replied:
“But if they are in fact residents,... they, as all other qualified residents, have a right to an equal opportunity for political representation,... 'Fencing out’ from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible.” 380 U. S., at 94.
See 42 U. S. C. § 1973aa-1 (a)(4).
Similarly here, Tennessee’s hopes for voters with a “common interest in all matters pertaining to [the community’s] government” is impermissible. To paraphrase what we said elsewhere, “All too often, lack of a ['common interest’] might mean no more than a different interest.” Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S., at 423. “[Differences of opinion” may not be the basis for excluding any group or person from the franchise. Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S., at 705-706. “[T]he fact that newly arrived [Tennesseeans] may have a more national outlook than longtime residents, or even may retain a viewpoint characteristic of the region from which they have come, is a constitutionally impermissible reason for depriving them of their chance to influence the electoral vote of their new home State.” Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45, 53-54 (1969) (dissenting opinion).
Finally, the State urges that a longtime resident is “more likely to exercise his right [to vote] more intelligently.” To the extent that this is different from the previous argument, the State is apparently asserting an interest in limiting the franchise to voters who are knowledgeable about the issues. In this case, Tennessee argues that people who have been in the State less than a year and the county less than three months are likely to be unaware of the issues involved in the congressional, state, and local elections, and therefore can be barred from the franchise. We note that the criterion of “intelligent” voting is an elusive one, and susceptible of abuse. But without deciding as a general matter the extent to which a State can bar less knowledgeable or intelligent citizens from the franchise, cf. Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S., at 422; Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S., at 632; Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S., at 705, we conclude that dura-tional residence requirements cannot be justified on this basis.
In Kramer v. Union Free School District, supra, we held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited New York State from limiting the vote in school-district elections to parents of school children and to property owners. The State claimed that since nonparents would be “less informed” about school affairs than parents, id., at 631, the State could properly exclude the class of nonparents in order to limit the franchise to the more “interested” group of residents. We rejected that position, concluding that a “close scrutiny of [the classification] demonstrates that [it does] not accomplish this purpose with sufficient precision....” Id., at 632. That scrutiny revealed that the classification excluding nonparents from the franchise kept many persons from voting who were as substantially interested.as those allowed to vote; given this, the classification was insufficiently “tailored” to achieve the articulated state goal. Ibid. See also Cipriano v. City of Houma, supra, at 706.
Similarly, the durational residence requirements in this case founder because of their crudeness as a device for achieving the articulated state goal of assuring the knowledgeable exercise of the franchise. The classifications created by durational residence requirements obviously permit any longtime resident to vote regardless of his knowledge of the issues — and obviously many longtime residents do not have any. On the other hand, the classifications bar from the franchise many other, admittedly new, residents who have become at least minimally, and often fully, informed about the issues. Indeed, recent migrants who take the time to register and vote shortly after moving are likely to be those citizens, such as appellee, who make it a point to be informed and knowledgeable about the issues. Given modern communications, and given the clear indication that campaign spending and voter education occur largely during the month before an election, the State cannot seriously maintain that it is “necessary” to reside for a year in the State and three months in the county in order to be knowledgeable about congressional, state, or even purely local elections. There is simply nothing in the record to support the conclusive presumption that residents who have lived in the State for less than a year and their county for less than three
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mb. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondents were convicted of introducing spirituous beverages into Indian country, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1154. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. 487 F. 2d 14 (1973). We granted certiorari, 415 U. S. 947 (1974), in order to consider the Solicitor General’s contentions that 18 U. S. C. § 1154 is not unconstitutionally vague, that Congress has the constitutional authority to control the sale of alcoholic beverages by non-Indians on fee-patented land within the boundaries of an Indian reservation, and that Congress could validly make á delegation of this authority to a reservation’s tribal council. We reverse the Court of Appeals.
I
The Wind River Reservation was established by treaty in 1868. Located in a rather arid portion of central Wyoming, at least some of its 2,300,000 acres have been described by Mr. Justice Cardozo as “fair and fertile,” Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U. S. 476,486 (1937). It straddles the Wind River, with its remarkable canyon, and lies in a mile-high basin at the foot of the Wind River Mountains, whose rugged, glaciated peaks and ridges form a portion of the Continental Divide. The reservation is occupied by the Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribes. . Although these tribes were once “ancestral foes,” ibid., they are today jointly known as the Wind River Tribes. As a result of various patents, substantial tracts of non-Indian-held land are scattered within the reservation’s boundaries. It was on such non-Indian land that respondents Martin and Margaret Mazurie operated their bar, which did business under the corporate name of the Blue Bull, Inc.
Before 1953 federal law generally prohibited the introduction of alcoholic beverages into “Indian country.” 18 U. S. C. § 1154 (a). “Indian country” was defined by 18 U. S. C. § 1151 to include non-Indian-held lands “within the limits of any Indian reservation.” In 1949, the term was given a narrower meaning, insofar as relevant to the liquor prohibition, so as to exclude both fee-patented lands within “non-Indian communities” and rights-of-way through reservations. Act of May 24, 1949, 63 Stat. 94, 18 U. S. C. § 1154 (c), supra, n. 1. The quoted term is not defined, a fact which creates problems with which we shall shortly deal. In 1953 Congress passed local-option legislation allowing Indian tribes, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to regulate the introduction of liquor into Indian country, so long as state law was not violated. Act of Aug. 15,1953, 67 Stat. 586,18 U. S. C. § 1161 The Wind River Tribes responded to this option by adopting an ordinance which permitted liquor sales on the reservation if made in accordance with Wyoming law. When the Blue Bull originally opened, a liquor license had been issued to it by Fremont County, Wyo., and its operation was therefore consistent with that tribal ordinance. But in 1971 the Wind River Tribes adopted a new liquor ordinance, Ordinance No. 26. That ordinance required that retail liquor outlets within Indian country obtain both tribal and state licenses.
In 1972, the Mazuries applied for a tribal license, after warnings that they would be subject to criminal charges if they continued to operate without one. The tribes held a public hearing which Martin Mazurie and the Ma-zuries’ lawyer attended. Witnesses protested grant of the license, complaining of singing and shooting at late hours, disturbances of elderly residents of a nearby housing development, and the permitting of Indian minors in the bar. The application was denied.
Thereafter, the Mazuries closed the Blue Bull. Three weeks later they reopened it. It remained in operation for approximately a year, until federal officers seized its alcoholic beverages, and this criminal prosecution was initiated.
The case was tried to the District Court without a jury. Since most of the factual issues were disposed of by stipulations, the testimony at trial primarily dealt with whether the bar was within “Indian country.” On the basis of testimony about the Blue Bull’s location, and about the racial composition of residents of the surrounding area, the court concluded that the bar was so located. Holding that federal authority could reach non-Indians located on privately held land within a reservation’s boundaries, the court entered judgments of conviction. Each respondent was fined $100.
The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions. It concluded that the prosecution had not carried its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the bar was not excluded from Indian country by the § 1154 (c) exception for “fee-patented lands in non-Indian communities.” This conclusion was tied directly to the more basic holding:
“[T]he terminology of 'non-Indian community’ is not capable of sufficiently precise definition to serve as an element of the crime herein considered .... The statute is thus fatally defective by reason of this indefinite and vague terminology.” 487 F. 2d, at 18.
As a second basis for reversal, the court held that insofar as 18 U. S. C. § 1161 authorized Indian tribes to adopt ordinances controlling the introduction by non-Indians of alcoholic beverages onto non-Indian land, it was an invalid congressional attempt to delegate authority. The Court of Appeals also suggested that Congress itself could not regulate the sale of alcohol by non-Indians on fee-patented non-Indian lands within Indian reservations.
II
It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand. United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U. S. 29 (1963). In determining whether § 1154 (c) is unconstitutionally vague as to respondents, we must therefore first consider the evidence as to the location of the Blue Bull.
The evidence showed that the bar was located on the outskirts of Fort Washakie, Wyo., an unincorporated village bearing the name of the man who was chief of the Shoshones during their early years on the Wind River Reservation. Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U. S., at 486; Harmston, supra, n. 2, at 3-4. Fort Washakie is the location of the Wind River Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and of the Tribal Headquarters of the Wind River Tribes. One witness testified that the village was an “Indian community.” App 49. The evidence also showed that of the 212 families living within a 20-square-mile area roughly centered on the Blue Bull, 170 were Indian families, 41 were non-Indians, and one was mixed. A large-scale United States Geological Survey map was introduced to show the limits of this housing survey. It indicates that the survey included all settlements within the Fort Washakie area, and that the nearest not-included concentrations of housing were at Saint James Church and Ethete, some four miles beyond the boundaries of the survey and some six miles from Fort Washakie. The evidence also established that the state school serving Fort Washakie, and located about two and one-half miles from the Blue Bull, had a total enrollment of 243 students, 223 of whom were Indian.
Other evidence bearing on whether the Blue Bull was located in a non-Indian community was Martin Mazurie’s testimony that the bar served both Indians and non-Indians, and that: “We are kind of out there by ourselves, you know.” App. 70. A transcript of the hearing on the Mazuries’ application to the tribes for a retail liquor license was also admitted at the trial. That transcript indicates that the Blue Bull was located near a public housing development populated largely if not entirely by Indians. Residents of this development complained that persons leaving the bar late at night, and for one reason or another having either no transportation or no destination, would wander into the development.
There was no testimony that the Blue Bull was in a non-Indian community. The defense did obtain acknowledgments by prosecution witnesses that they could not precisely state the boundaries of the Fort Washakie Indian community. Otherwise, examination by the defense was directed at establishing that the term “Indian” was without precise meaning, and that the State of Wyoming generally had jurisdiction over non-Indians and their lands within the reservation.
We think that the foregoing evidence was sufficient to justify the District Court’s implied conclusion that Fort Washakie and its surrounding settlements did not compose a non-Indian community. We do not read the opinion of the Court of Appeals as reaching a conclusion contrary to that which we have just stated. That court instead based its decision on the proposition that such proof did not go far enough, a view generated by its opinion of the requirements this statute must meet in order to avoid the vice of vagueness. The Court of Appeals was looking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt of precisely defined concepts of “Indian” and “community.” We gather that it expected persons treated as “Indians” in the housing and school surveys to be proved to satisfy a specific statutory definition. Similarly, it apparently expected that proof concerning the “community” should have conformed to some specific statutory definition, presumably one keyed to a geographical area with precise boundaries.
We believe that the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the Constitution requires proof of such precisely defined concepts. The prosecution was required to do no more than prove that the Blue Bull was not located in a non-Indian community, where that term has a meaning sufficiently precise for a man of average intelligence to “reasonably understand that his contemplated conduct is proscribed.” United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U. S., at 32-33. Given the nature of the Blue Bull’s location and surrounding population, the statute was sufficient to advise the Mazuries that their bar was not excepted from tribal regulation by virtue of being located in a non-Indian community.
Ill
The Court of Appeals, expressed doubt that “the Government has the power to regulate a business on the land it granted in fee without restrictions.” 487 F. 2d, at 18. Because that court went on to hold that even if Congress did possess such power, it could not be delegated to an Indian tribe, that court did not find it necessary to resolve the issue of congressional power. We do, however, reach the issue, because we hereinafter conclude that federal authority was properly delegated to the Indian tribes. We conclude that federal authority is adequate, even though the lands were held in fee by non-Indians, and even though the persons regulated were non-Indians.
Article I, § 8, of the Constitution gives Congress power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” This Court has repeatedly held that this clause affords Congress the power to prohibit or regulate the sale of aleoholic beverages to tribal Indians, wherever situated, and to prohibit or regulate the introduction of alcoholic beverages into Indian country. United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 417-418 (1866); United States v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U. S. 188, 194-195 (1876); Ex parte Webb, 225 U. S. 663, 683-684 (1912); Perrin v. United States, 232 U. S. 478, 482 (1914); Johnson v. Gearlds, 234 U. S. 422, 438-439 (1914); United States v. Nice, 241 U. S. 591, 597 (1916).
Perrin v. United States, supra, demonstrates the controlling principle. It dealt with the sale of intoxicating beverages within premises owned by non-Indians, on privately held land in an organized non-Indian municipality. The land originally had been included in the Yankton Sioux Indian Reservation, but had been ceded to the United States. The cession agreement, as ratified and confirmed by Congress, specified that alcoholic beverages would never be sold on the ceded land. The land was subsequently opened to private non-Indian settlers. In upholding Perrin’s conviction, this Court stated:
“The power of Congress to prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquors into an Indian reservation, wheresoever situate, and to prohibit traffic in such liquors with tribal Indians, whether upon or off a reservation and whether within or without the limits of a State, does not admit of any doubt. It arises in part from the clause in the Constitution investing Congress with authority ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes,’ and in part from the recognized relation of tribal Indians to the Federal Government.” 232 U. S., at 482.
Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U. S. 351 (1962), is a more recent indication of congressional authority over events occurring on non-Indian land within a reservation. The case concerned an Indian’s challenge to a state burglary conviction. The Indian contended that because the offense took place within “Indian country,” it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States by virtue of 18 U. S. C. § 1153. This Court agreed, despite the fact that the crime occurred on land patented in fee to non-Indians. While the opinion did not address the constitutional issue, it did reject a variety of statutory arguments for excluding the crime’s situs from 18 U. S. C. § 1151’s definition of “Indian country.” Of significance for our purposes is the fact that Congress’ authority to define “Indian country” so broadly, and to supersede state jurisdiction within the defined area, went both unchallenged by the parties and unquestioned by this Court.
We hold that neither the Constitution nor our previous cases leave any room for doubt that Congress possesses the authority to regulate the distribution of alcoholic beverages by establishments such as the Blue Bull.
IV
The Court of Appeals said, however, that even if Congress possessed authority to regulate the Blue Bull, it could not delegate such authority to the Indian tribes. The court reasoned as follows:
“The tribal members are citizens of the United States. It is difficult to see how such an association of citizens could exercise any degree of governmental authority or sovereignty over other citizens who do not belong, and who cannot participate in any way in the tribal organization. The situation is in no way comparable to a city, county, or special district under state laws. There cannot be such a separate 'nation’ of' United States citizens within the boundaries of the United States which has any authority, other than as landowners, over individuals who are excluded as members.
“The purported delegation of authority to the tribal officials contained in 18 U. S. C. § 1161 is therefore invalid. Congress cannot delegate its authority to a private, voluntary organization, which is obviously not a governmental agency, to regulate a business on privately owned lands, no matter where located. It is obvious that the authority of Congress under the Constitution to regulate commerce with Indian Tribes is broad, but it cannot encompass the relationships here concerned.” 487 F. 2d, at 19.
This Court has recognized limits on the authority of Congress to delegate its legislative power. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388 (1935). Those limitations are, however, less stringent in cases where the entity exercising the delegated authority itself possesses independent authority over the subject matter. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 319-322 (1936). Thus it is an important aspect of this case that Indian tribes are unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory, Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 557 (1832); they are “a separate people” possessing “the power of regulating their internal and social relations . . . ,” United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 381-382 (1886); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 173 (1973).
Cases such as Worcester, supra, and Kagama, supra, surely establish the proposition that Indian tribes within “Indian country” are a good deal more than “private, voluntary organizations,” and they thus undermine the rationale of the Court of Appeals’ decision. These same cases, in addition, make clear that when Congress delegated its authority to control the introduction of alcoholic beverages into Indian country, it did so to entities which possess a certain degree of independent authority over matters that affect the internal and social relations of tribal life. Clearly the distribution and use of intoxicants is just such a matter. We need not decide whether this independent authority is itself sufficient for the tribes to impose Ordinance No. 26. It is necessary only to state that the independent tribal authority is quite sufficient to protect Congress’ decision to vest in tribal councils this portion of its own authority “to regulate Commerce ... with the Indian tribes.” Cf. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., supra.
The fact that the Mazuries could not become members of the tribe, and therefore could not participate in the tribal government, does not alter our conclusion. This claim, that because respondents are non-Indians Congress could not subject them to the authority of the Tribal Council with respect to the sale of liquor, is answered by this Court’s opinion in Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217 (1959). In holding that the authority of tribal courts could extend over non-Indians, insofar as concerned their transactions on a reservation with Indians, we stated:
“It is immaterial that respondent is not an Indian. He was on the Reservation and the transaction with an Indian took place there. The cases in this Court have consistently guarded the authority of Indian governments over their reservations. Congress recognized this authority in the Navajos in the Treaty of 1868, and has done so ever since. If this power is to be taken away from them, it is for Congress to do it. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553, 564-566.” Id., at 223 (citations omitted).
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed, and the convictions of respondents reinstated.
Reversed.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1154 provides in pertinent part:
“(a) [W]hoever introduces or attempts to introduce any malt, spirituous, or vinous liquor, including beer, ale, and wine, or any ardent or intoxicating liquor of any kind whatsoever into the Indian country, shall, for the first offense, be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and, for each subsequent offense, be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
“(c) The term ‘Indian country’ as used in this section does not include fee-patented lands in non-Indian communities or rights-of-way through Indian reservations, and this section does not apply to such lands or rights-of-way in the absence of a treaty or statute extending the Indian liquor laws thereto.”
F. Harmston, Wind River Basin 2 (1953); H. Granger et al., Mineral Resources of the Glacier Primitive Area, Wyoming, Geological Survey Bull. No. 1319-F, pp. F2-F5 (1971).
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1151 provides in pertinent part:
“Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term ‘Indian country,’ as used in this chapter, means (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 . . . .”
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1161 provides:
“The provisions' of sections 1154, 1156, 3113, 3488, and 3618, of this title, shall not apply within any area that is not Indian country, nor to any act or transaction within any area of Indian country provided such act or transaction is in conformity both- with the laws of the State in which such act or transaction occurs and with an ordinance duly adopted by the tribe having jurisdiction over such area of Indian country, certified by the Secretary of the Interior, .and published in the Federal Register.”
The ordinance was properly approved by the Secretary of the Interior and published in the Federal Register. 37 Fed. Reg. 1253-1254 (1972).
The Blue Bull was reopened after the decision of the Court of Appeals. In April 1974, however, Fremont County refused to renew its license and it was again closed. Brief for United States 5 n. 4; Brief for Respondents 20 n. 8.
It was stipulated that the Blue Bull was being operated without the license required by Ordinance No. 26, that alcoholic beverages had been sold at the Blue Bull, that the Blue Bull was located within the Wind River Reservation, but on land which it owned in fee, and that the Blue Bull had been properly licensed by state authorities.
The District Court did not make a specific finding of fact that the Blue Bull was not located in a non-Indian community. The court did find that it was in “Indian Country,” that it was situated “at a site known as Fort Washakie, Wyoming,” that “Fort Washakie is not an incorporated non-Indian community with recognized boundaries,” and that the bar had been operated in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1154 (which contains the exclusion from “Indian country” of fee-patented lands in non-Indian communities). The ambiguity in the trial court’s findings is readily explained by respondents’ failure to focus on the issue at trial. The nature of defense testimony and cross-examination is discussed infra, at 552. That respondents failed to contest the issue is further established by the motion to dismiss at the close of the Government’s evidence. The basis of the motion was failure “to prove beyond a doubt that [respondents] are operating in an Indian community,” App. 64 (emphasis added), which even if true is plainly irrelevant under the wording of § 1154 (c). Respondents’ counsel then proceeded with an argument based on respondents’ unrestricted fee ownership of the property on .which the bar was located. App. 64. In addition, respondents’ counsel did not dispute the court's statement at the close of the trial that the “sole issue” was “whether or not the Tribal Council has jurisdiction over deeded land held by these parties in fee . . . .” 2 Record on Appeal 140. The court went on to state:
“[I]t is in Indian Country. There is not any question. You do not need to cite a single case that this bar and this ten acres is [sic] located in Indian Country. I am not saying it is Indian land, but it is Indian Country.” Ibid.
Again, respondents’ counsel made no objection. He also apparently did not seek to focus the court’s attention on the issue by filing either a post-trial brief or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; while both parties had the opportunity to make such submissions, only the prosecution’s appears in the record on appeal.
We assume, arguendo, as has the Government in its arguments before this court, that the prosecution has the burden of proving that the § 1154 (c) statutory exceptions are not applicable. Because of this assumption, and because we conclude that the Government in any event did carry this burden, we need not consider whether the exception must be pleaded and proved by criminal defendants. Cf. United States v. Vuitch, 402 U. S. 62, 70 (1971) (dealing with a criminal statute in which "an exception is incorporated in the enacting clause of a statute”). (Emphasis supplied.)
We note that the § 1154 (e) exception is available for fee-patented lands which are in non-Indian communities, rather than for those which are not in Indian communities. This fact renders irrelevant the inability of prosecution witnesses to specify precise boundaries of the Fort Washakie Indian community.
We need not detain ourselves with an issue which seemed to cause the Court of Appeals some difficulties, that of what qualifies a person as an "Indian.” The record plainly establishes that, in the circumstances of this case, the distinction between Indians and non-Indians was generally understood. Those who testified about the housing and school surveys displayed no difficulty in making such classifications. Nor did Mr. Mazurie. He testified that when there was trouble at his bar he would call the county sheriff to deal with a non-Indian, but would call the tribal police to deal with an Indian. When his counsel questioned him as to how he determined which was which, he simply replied: “Because I knew them.” App. 70.
It is undisputed that the Wind River Tribes have not been emancipated from federal guardianship and control. There is thus no doubt that this case is properly analyzed in terms of Congress exclusive constitutional authority to deal with Indian tribes.
Respondents attempt to bolster this claim with the argument that “the basic rights and principles of equal protection and due process [are] currently not available to non-Indians within the tribal councils.” Brief for Respondents 24. However, respondents make no claim that the tribal decision to deny them a license constituted a denial of equal protection or that it resulted from a hearing which lacked due process. Whether and to what extent the Fifth Amendment would be available to correct arbitrary or-discriminatory tribal exercise of its delegated federal authority must therefore, await decision in a case in which the issue is squarely presented and appropriately briefed. This observation is also applicable with regard to § 202 of Pub. L. 90-284, 82 Stat. 77, 25 U. S. C. §1302, which provides: “No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall ... (8) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law.” Quite apart from these potential sources of protection against arbitrary tribal action, such protection is to some extent assured by § 1161’s requirement that delegated authority be exercised pursuant to a tribal ordinance which itself has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961).
I
On March 5, 1976, in Baltimore, Md., Patricia McDonough was robbed. She gave the police a description of the robber and of a 1975 Monte Carlo automobile she had observed near the scene of the crime. Tr. 66-68. After the robbery, McDonough began receiving threatening and obscene phone calls from a man identifying himself as the robber. On one occasion, the caller asked that she step out on her front porch; she did so, and saw the 1975 Monte Carlo she had earlier described to police moving slowly past her home. Id., at 70. On March 16, police spotted a man who met McDonough’s description driving a 1975 Monte Carlo in her neighborhood. Id., at 71-72. By tracing the license plate number, police learned that the car was registered in the name of petitioner, Michael Lee Smith. Id., at 72.
The next day, the telephone company, at police request, installed a pen register at its central offices to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner’s home. Id., at 73, 75. The police did not get a warrant or court order before having the pen register installed. The register revealed that on March 17 a call was placed from petitioner’s home to McDonough’s phone. Id., at 74. On the basis of this and other evidence, the police obtained a warrant to search petitioner’s residence. Id., at 75. The search revealed that a page in petitioner’s phone book was turned down to the name and number of Patricia McDonough; the phone book was seized. Ibid. Petitioner was arrested, and a six-man lineup was held on March 19. McDonough identified petitioner as the man who had robbed her. Id., at 70-71.
Petitioner was indicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for robbery. By pretrial motion, he sought to suppress “all fruits derived from the pen register” on the ground that the police had failed to secure a warrant prior to its installation. Record 14; Tr. 54 — 56. The trial court denied the suppression motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 63. Petitioner then waived a jury, and the case was submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts. Id., at 65-66. The pen register tape (evidencing the fact that a phone call had been made from petitioner’s phone to McDonough’s phone) and the phone book seized in the search of petitioner’s residence were admitted into evidence against him. Id., at 74-76. Petitioner was convicted, id., at 78, and was sentenced to six years. He appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, but the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued a writ of certiorari to the intermediate court in advance of its decision in order to consider whether the pen register evidence had been properly admitted at petitioner’s trial. 283 Md. 156, 160, 389 A. 2d 858, 860 (1978).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that “there is no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed into a telephone system and hence no search within the fourth amendment is implicated by the use of a pen register installed at the central offices of the telephone company.” Id., at 173, 389 A. 2d, at 867. Because there was no “search,” the court concluded, no warrant was needed. Three judges dissented, expressing the view that individuals do have a legitimate expectation of privacy regarding the phone numbers they dial from their homes; that the installation of a pen register thus constitutes a “search”; and that, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the failure of police to secure a warrant mandated that the pen register evidence here be excluded. Id., at 174, 178, 389 A. 2d, at 868, 870. Certiorari was granted in order to resolve indications of conflict in the decided cases as to the restrictions imposed by the Fourth Amendment on the use of pen registers. 439 U. S. 1001 (1978).
II
A
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “'[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In determining whether a particular form of government-initiated electronic surveillance is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, our lodestar is Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967). In Katz, Government agents had intercepted the contents of a telephone conversation by attaching an electronic listening device to the outside of a public phone booth. The Court rejected the argument that a “search” can occur only when there has been a “physical intrusion” into a “constitutionally protected area,” noting that the Fourth Amendment “protects people, not places.” Id., at 351-353. Because the Government’s monitoring of Katz’ conversation “violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth,” the Court held that it “constituted a 'search and seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 353.
Consistently with Katz, this Court uniformly has held that the application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a “justifiable,” a “reasonable,” or a “legitimate expectation of privacy” that has been invaded by government action. E. g., Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 143, and n. 12 (1978); id., at 150, 151 (concurring opinion); id., at 164 (dissenting opinion) ; United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 7 (1977); United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 442 (1976); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1, 14 (1973); Couch v. United States, 409 U. S. 322, 335-336 (1973); United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745, 752 (1971) (plurality opinion); Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U. S. 364, 368 (1968); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 9 (1968). This inquiry, as Mr. Justice Harlan aptly noted in his Katz concurrence, normally embraces two discrete questions. The first is whether the individual, by his conduct, has “exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy,” 389 U. S., at 361 — whether, in the words of the Katz majority, the individual has shown that “he seeks to preserve [something] as private.” Id., at 351. The second question is whether the individual’s subjective expectation of privacy is “one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable,’ ” id., at 361— whether, in the words of the Katz majority, the individual’s expectation, viewed objectively, is “justifiable” under the circumstances. Id., at 353. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S., at 143-144, n. 12; id., at 151 (concurring opinion); United States v. White, 401 U. S., at 752 (plurality opinion).
B
In applying the Katz analysis to this case, it is important to begin by specifying precisely the nature of the state activity that is challenged. The activity here took the form of installing and using a pen register. Since the pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company’s central offices, petitioner obviously cannot claim that his “property”’ was invaded or that police intruded into a “constitutionally protected area.” Petitioner’s claim, rather, is that, notwithstanding the absence of a trespass, the State, as did the Government in Katz, infringed a “legitimate expectation of privacy” that petitioner held. Yet a pen register differs significantly from the listening device employed in Katz, for pen registers do not acquire the contents of communications. This Court recently noted:
“Indeed, a law enforcement official could not even determine from the use of a pen register whether a communication existed. These devices do not hear sound. They disclose only the telephone numbers that have been dialed — a means of establishing communication. Neither the purport of any communication between the caller and the recipient of the call, their identities, nor whether the call was even completed is disclosed by pen registers.” United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U. S. 159, 167 (1977).
Given a pen register’s limited capabilities, therefore, petitioner’s argument that its installation and use constituted a “search” necessarily rests upon a claim that he had a “legitimate expectation of privacy” regarding the numbers he dialed on his phone.
This claim must be rejected. First, we doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must “convey” phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. In fact, pen registers and similar devices are routinely used by telephone companies “for the purposes of checking billing operations, detecting fraud, and preventing violations of law.” United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U. S., at 174-175. Electronic equipment is used not only to keep billing records of toll calls, but also “to keep a record of all calls dialed from a telephone which is subject to a special rate structure.” Hodge v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 555 F. 2d 254, 266 (CA9 1977) (concurring opinion). Pen registers are regularly employed “to determine whether a home phone is being used to conduct a business, to check for a defective dial, or to check for overbilling.” Note, The Legal Constraints upon the Use of the Pen Register as a Law Enforcement Tool, 60 Cornell L. Rev. 1028, 1029 (1975) (footnotes omitted). Although most people may be oblivious to a pen register’s esoteric functions, they presumably have some awareness of one common use: to aid in the identification of persons making annoying or obscene calls. See, e. g., Von Lusch v. C & P Telephone Co., 457 F. Supp. 814, 816 (Md. 1978); Note, 60 Cornell L. Rev., at 1029-1030, n. 11; Claerhout, The Pen Register, 20 Drake L. Rev. 108, 110-111 (1970). Most phone books tell subscribers, on a page entitled “Consumer Information/’ that the company “can frequently help in identifying to the authorities the origin of unwelcome and troublesome calls.” E. g., Baltimore Telephone Directory 21 (1978); District of Columbia Telephone Directory 13 (1978). Telephone users, in sum, typically know that they must convey numerical information to the phone company; that the phone company has facilities for recording this information; and that the phone company does in fact record this information for a variety of legitimate business purposes. Although subjective expectations cannot be scientifically gauged, it is too much to believe that telephone subscribers, under these circumstances, harbor any general expectation that the numbers they dial will remain secret.
Petitioner argues, however, that, whatever the expectations of telephone users in general, he demonstrated an expectation of privacy by his own conduct here, since he “us'[ed] the telephone in his house to the exclusion of all others.” Brief for Petitioner 6 (emphasis added). But the site of the call is immaterial for purposes of analysis in this case. Although petitioner’s conduct may have been calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, his conduct was not and could not have been calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Regardless of his location, petitioner had to convey that number to the telephone company in precisely the same way if he wished to complete his call. The fact that he dialed the number on his home phone rather than on some other phone could make no conceivable difference, nor could any subscriber rationally think that it would.
Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not “one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.’ ” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S., at 361. This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. E. g., United States v. Miller, 425 U. S., at 442-444; Couch v. United States, 409 U. S., at 335-336; United States v. White, 401 U. S., at 752 (plurality opinion); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293, 302 (1966); Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 (1963). In Miller, for example, the Court held that a bank depositor has no “legitimate 'expectation of privacy’ ” in financial information “voluntarily conveyed to . . . banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.” 425 U. S., at 442. The Court explained:
“The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. . . . This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed.” Id., at 443.
Because the depositor “assumed the risk” of disclosure, the Court held that it would be unreasonable for him to expect his financial records to remain private.
This analysis dictates that petitioner can claim no legitimate expectation of privacy here. When he used his phone, petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and “exposed” that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, petitioner assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed. The switching equipment that processed those numbers is merely the modern counterpart of the operator who, in an earlier day, personally completed calls for the subscriber. Petitioner concedes that if he had placed his calls through an operator, he could claim no legitimate expectation of privacy. Tr. of Oral Arg. 3-5, 11-12, 32. We are not inclined to hold that a different constitutional result is required because the telephone company has decided to automate.
Petitioner argues, however, that automatic switching equipment differs from a live operator in one pertinent respect. An operator, in theory at least, is capable of remembering every number that is conveyed to him by callers. Electronic equipment, by contrast, can “remember” only those numbers it is programmed to record, and telephone companies, in view of their present billing practices, usually do not record local calls. Since petitioner, in calling McDonough, was making a local call, his expectation of privacy as to her number, on this theory, would be “legitimate.”
This argument does not withstand scrutiny. The fortuity of whether or not the phone company in fact elects to make a quasi-permanent record of a particular number dialed does not, in our view, make any constitutional difference. Regardless of the phone company’s election, petitioner voluntarily conveyed to it information that it had facilities for recording and that it was free to record. In these circumstances, petitioner assumed the risk that the information would be divulged to police. Under petitioner’s theory, Fourth Amendment protection would exist, or not, depending on how the telephone company chose to define local-dialing zones, and depending on how it chose to bill its customers for local calls. Calls placed across town, or dialed directly, would be protected; calls placed across the river, or dialed with operator assistance, might not be. We are not inclined to make a crazy quilt of the Fourth Amendment, especially in circumstances where (as here) the pattern of protection would be dictated by billing practices of a private corporation.
We therefore conclude that petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and that, even if he did, his expectation was not “legitimate.” The installation and use of a pen register, consequently, was not a “search,” and no warrant was required. The judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“A pen register is a mechanical device that records the numbers dialed on a telephone by monitoring the electrical impulses caused when the dial on the telephone is released. It does not overhear oral communications and does not indicate whether calls are actually completed.” United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U. S. 159, 161 n. 1 (1977). A pen register is “usually installed at a central telephone facility [and] records on a paper tape all numbers dialed from [the] line” to which it is attached. United States v. Giordano, 416 U. S. 505, 549 n. 1 (1974) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). See also United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U. S., at 162.
“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.” U. S. Const., Arndt. 4.
See Application of United States for Order, 546 F. 2d 243, 245 (CA8 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. United States, 434 U. S. 1008 (1978); Application of United States in Matter of Order, 538 F. 2d 956, 959-960 (CA2 1976), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U. S. 159 (1977); United States v. Falcone, 505 F. 2d 478, 482, and n. 21 (CA3 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 955 (1975); Hodge v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 555 F. 2d 254, 256 (CA9 1977); id., at 266 (concurring opinion); and United States v. Clegg, 509 F. 2d 605, 610 (CA5 1975). In previous decisions, this Court has not found it necessary to consider whether “pen register surveillance [is] subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U. S., at 165 n. 7. See United States v. Giordano, 416 U. S., at 554 n. 4 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In this case, the pen register was installed, and the numbers dialed were recorded, by the telephone company. Tr. 73-74. The telephone company, however, acted at police request. Id., at 73, 75. In view of this, respondent appears to concede that the company is to be deemed an “agent” of the police for purposes of this case, so as to render the installation and use of the pen register “state action” under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. We may assume that “state action” was present here.
Situations can be imagined, of course, in which Katz’ two-pronged inquiry would provide an inadequate index of Fourth Amendment protection. For example, if the Government were suddenly to announce on nationwide television that all homes henceforth would be subject to war-rantless entry, individuals thereafter might not in fact entertain any actual expectation of privacy regarding their homes, papers, and effects. Similarly, if a refugee from a totalitarian country, unaware of this Nation’s traditions, erroneously assumed that police were continuously monitoring his telephone conversations, a subjective expectation of privacy regarding the contents of his calls might be lacking as well. In such circumstances, where an individual’s subjective expectations had been “conditioned” by influences alien to well-recognized Fourth Amendment freedoms, those subjective expectations obviously could play no meaningful role in ascertaining what the scope of Fourth Amendment protection was. In determining whether a “legitimate expectation of privacy” existed in such cases, a normative inquiry would be proper.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The question presented in this case is whether Congress, in either § 1395ff or § 1395ii of Title 42 of the United States Code, barred judicial review of regulations promulgated under Part B of the Medicare program.
Respondents, who include an association of family physicians and several individual doctors, filed suit to challenge the validity of 42 CFR § 405.504(b) (1985), which authorizes the payment of benefits in different amounts for similar physicians’ services. The District Court held that the regulation contravened several provisions of the statute governing the Medicare program:
“There is no basis to justify the segregation of allopathic family physicians from all other types of physicians. Such segregation is not rationally related to any legitimate purpose of the Medicare statute. To lump MDs who are family physicians, but who have chosen not to become board certified family physicians for whatever motive, with chiropractors, dentists, and podiatrists for the purpose of determining Medicare reimbursement defies all reason.” Michigan Academy of Family Physicians v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, 502 F. Supp. 751, 755 (ED Mich. 1980).
Because it ruled in favor of respondents on statutory grounds, the District Court did not reach their constitutional claims. See id., at 756. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the Secretary’s regulation was “obviously] inconsistent] with the plain language of the Medicare statute” and held that “this regulation is irrational and is invalid.” Michigan Academy of Family Physicians v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, 728 F. 2d 326, 332 (CA6 1984). Like the District Court, it too declined to reach respondents’ constitutional claims. See id., at 332, n. 5.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services has not sought review of the decision on the merits invalidating the regulation. Instead, he renews the contention, rejected by both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, that Congress has forbidden judicial review of all questions affecting the amount of benefits payable under Part B of the Medicare program. Because the question is important and has divided the Courts of Appeals, we granted the petition for a writ of certiorari. We now affirm.
I
We begin with the strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action. From the beginning “our cases [have established] that judicial review of a final agency action by an aggrieved person will not be cut off unless there is persuasive reason to believe that such was the purpose of Congress.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140 (1967) (citing cases). See generally L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 339-353 (1965). In Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803), a case itself involving review of executiye action, Chief Justice Marshall insisted that “[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws.” Later, in the lesser known but nonetheless important case of United States v. Nourse, 9 Pet. 8, 28-29 (1835), the Chief Justice noted the traditional observance of this right and laid the foundation for the modem presumption of judicial review:
“It would excite some surprise if, in a government of laws and of principle, furnished with a department whose appropriate duty it is to decide questions of right, not only between individuals, but between the government and individuals; a ministerial officer might, at his discretion, issue this powerful process . . . leaving to the debtor no remedy, no appeal to the laws of his country, if he should believe the claim to be unjust. But this anomaly does not exist; this imputation cannot be cast on the legislature of the United States.”
Committees of both Houses of Congress have endorsed this view. In undertaking the comprehensive rethinking of the place of administrative agencies in a regime of separate and divided powers that culminated in the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §§551-559, 701-706, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary remarked:
“Very rarely do statutes withhold judicial review. It has never been the policy of Congress to prevent the administration of its own statutes from being judicially confined to the scope of authority granted or to the objectives specified. Its policy could not be otherwise, for in such a case statutes would in effect be blank checks drawn to the credit of some administrative officer or board.” S. Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 26 (1945).
Accord, H. R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 41 (1946). The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives agreed that Congress ordinarily intends that there be judicial review, and emphasized the clarity with which a contrary intent must be expressed:
“The statutes of Congress are not merely advisory when they relate to administrative agencies, any more than in other cases. To preclude judicial review under this bill a statute, if not specific in withholding such review, must upon its face give clear and convincing evidence of an intent to withhold it. The mere failure to provide specially by statute for judicial review is certainly no evidence of intent to withhold review.” Ibid.
Taking up the language in the House Committee Report, Justice Harlan reaffirmed the Court’s holding in Rusk v. Cort, 369 U. S. 367, 379-380 (1962), that “only upon a showing of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of a contrary legislative intent should the courts restrict access to judicial review.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S., at 141 (citations omitted). This standard has been invoked time and again when considering whether the Secretary has discharged “the heavy burden of overcoming the strong presumption that Congress did not mean to prohibit all judicial review of his decision,” Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S. 560, 567 (1975).
Subject to constitutional constraints, Congress can, of course, make exceptions to the historic practice whereby courts review agency action. The presumption of judicial review is, after all, a presumption, and “like all presumptions used in interpreting statutes, may be overcome by,” inter alia, “specific language or specific legislative history that is a reliable indicator of congressional intent,” or a specific congressional intent to preclude judicial review that is “‘fairly discernible’ in the detail of the legislative scheme.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349, 351 (1984).
In this case, the Government asserts that two statutory provisions remove the Secretary’s regulation from review under the grant of general federal-question jurisdiction found in 28 U. S. C. § 1331. First, the Government contends that 42 U. S. C. § 1395ff(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II), which authorizes “Appeal by individuals,” impliedly forecloses administrative or judicial review of any action taken under Part B of the Medicare program by failing to authorize such review while simultaneously authorizing administrative and judicial review of “any determination . . . as to . . . the amount of benefits under part A,” § 1395ff(b)(l)(C). Second, the Government asserts that 42 U. S. C. §1395ii (1982 ed., '-Supp. II), which makes applicable 42 U. S. C. §405(h) (1982 ed., Supp. II), of the Social Security Act to the Medicare program, expressly precludes all administrative or judicial review not otherwise provided in that statute. We find neither argument persuasive.
II
Section 1395ff on its face is an explicit authorization of judicial review, not a bar. As a general matter, “‘[t]he mere fact that some acts are made reviewable should not suffice to support an implication of exclusion as to others. The right to review is too important to be excluded on such slender and indeterminate evidence of legislative intent.’” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S., at 141 (quoting L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 357 (1965)). See Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159, 166 (1970); Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288, 309 (1944).
In the Medicare program, however, the situation is somewhat more complex. Under Part B of that program, which is at issue here, the Secretary contracts with private health insurance carriers to provide benefits for which individuals voluntarily remit premiums. This optional coverage, which is federally subsidized, supplements the mandatory institutional health benefits (such as coverage for hospital expenses) provided by Part A. Subject to an amount-in-controversy requirement, individuals aggrieved by delayed or insufficient payment with respect to benefits payable under Part B are afforded an “opportunity for a fair hearing by the carrier, ” 42 U. S. C. § 1395u(b)(3)(C) (emphasis added); in comparison, and subject to a like amount-in-controversy requirement, a similarly aggrieved individual under Part A is entitled “to a hearing thereon by the Secretary . . . and to judicial review,” 42 U. S. C. §§ 1395ff(b)(l)(C), (b)(2) (1982 ed. and Supp. II). “In the context of the statute’s precisely drawn provisions,” we held in United States v. Erika, Inc., 456 U. S. 201, 208 (1982), that the failure “to authorize further review for determinations of the amount of Part B awards . . . provides persuasive evidence that Congress deliberately intended to foreclose further review of such claims.” Not limiting our consideration to the statutory text, we investigated the legislative history which “confirm[ed] this view,” ibid., and disclosed a purpose to “ ‘avoid overloading the courts’ ” with “‘trivial matters,’” a consequence which would “‘unduly ta[x]’ ” the federal court system with “ ‘little real value’ ” to be derived by participants in the program, id., at 210, n. 13 (quoting 118 Cong. Rec. 33992 (1972) (remarks of Sen. Bennett)).
Respondents’ federal-court challenge to the validity of the Secretary’s regulation is not foreclosed by § 1395ff as we construed that provision in Erika. The reticulated statutory scheme, which carefully details the forum and limits of review of “any determination . . . of . . . the amount of benefits under part A,” 42 U. S. C. § 1395ff(b)(l)(C) (1982 ed., Supp. II), and of the “amount of . . . payment” of benefits under Part B, 42 U. S. C. § 1395u(b)(3)(C), simply does not speak to challenges mounted against the method by which such amounts are to be determined rather than the determinations themselves. As the Secretary has made clear, “the legality, constitutional or otherwise, of any provision of the Act or regulations relevant to the Medicare Program” is not considered in a “fair hearing” held by a carrier to resolve a grievance related to a determination of the amount of a Part B award. As a result, an attack on the validity of a regulation is not the kind of administrative action that we described in Erika as an “amount determination” which decides “the amount of the Medicare payment to be made on a particular claim” and with respect to which the Act impliedly denies judicial review. 456 U. S., at 208.
That Congress did not preclude review of the method by which Part B awards are computed (as opposed to the computation) is borne out by the very legislative history we found persuasive in Erika. The Senate Committee Report on the original 1965 legislation reveals an intention to preclude “judicial review of a determination concerning the amount of benefits under part B where claims will probably be for substantially smaller amounts than under part A.” S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 54-55 (1965) (emphasis added). The Report makes plain that “carriers, not the Secretary, would review beneficiary complaints regarding the amount of benefits.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Accord, H. R. Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 47 (1965) (“Under the supplementary plan [Part B], carriers, not the Secretary, would review beneficiary complaints regarding the amount of benefits” (emphasis added)). The legislative history of the pertinent 1972 amendment likewise reveals that judicial review was precluded only as to controversies regarding determinations of amounts of benefits. The Conference Report on the 1972 amendment explains that “there is no authorization for an appeal to the Secretary or for judicial review on matters solely involving amounts of benefits under Part B.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1605, p. 61 (1972) (emphasis added). Senator Bennett’s introductory explanation to the amendment confirms that preclusion of judicial review of Part B awards — designed “to avoid overloading the courts with quite minor matters” — embraced only “decisions on a claim for payment for a given service.” 118 Cong. Rec. 33992 (1972). The Senator feared that “[i]f judicial review is made available where any claim is denied, as some court decisions have held, the resources of the Federal court system would be unduly taxed and little real value would be derived by the enrollees. The proposed amendment would merely clarify the original intent of the law and prevent the overloading of the courts with trivial matters because the intent is considered unclear.” Ibid. As we found in Erika, 456 U. S., at 206, Congress has precluded judicial review only “of adversé hearing officer determinations of the amount of Part B payments.”
Careful analysis of the governing statutory provisions and their legislative history thus reveals that Congress intended to bar judicial review only of determinations of the amount of benefits to be awarded under Part B. Congress delegated this task to carriers who would finally determine such matters in conformity with the regulations and instructions of the Secretary. We conclude, therefore, that those matters which Congress did not leave to be determined in a “fair hearing” conducted by the carrier — including challenges to the validity of the Secretary’s instructions and regulations — are not impliedly insulated from judicial review by 42 U. S. C. § 1395ff (1982 ed. and Supp. II).
Ill
In light of Congress’ express provision for carrier review of millions of what it characterized as “trivial” claims, it is implausible to think it intended that there be no forum to adjudicate statutory and constitutional challenges to regulations promulgated by the Secretary. The Government nevertheless maintains that this is precisely what Congress intended to accomplish in 42 U. S. C. §1395ii (1982 ed., Supp. II). That section states that 42 U. S. C. § 405(h) (1982 ed., Supp. II), along with a string citation of 10 other provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act, “shall also apply with respect to this subchapter to the same extent as they are applicable with respect to subchapter II of this chapter.” Section 405(h), in turn, reads in full as follows:
“(h) Finality of Secretary’s decision
“The findings and decision of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter.”
The Government contends that the third sentence of § 405(h) by its terms prevents any resort to the grant of general federal-question jurisdiction contained in 28 U. S. C. § 1331. It finds support for this construction in Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 756-762 (1975), and Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S. 602, 614-616, 620-626 (1984). Respondents counter that the dispositions in these two cases are consistent with the view that Congress’ purpose was to make clear that whatever specific procedures it provided for judicial review of final action by the Secretary were exclusive, and could not be circumvented by resort to the general jurisdiction of the federal courts. Cf. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S., at 764-765; Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S., at 621-622.
Whichever may be the better reading of Salfi and Ringer, we need not pass on the meaning of § 405(h) in the abstract to resolve this case. Section 405(h) does not apply on its own terms to Part B of the Medicare program, but is instead incorporated mutatis mutandis by § 1395Ü. The legislative history of both the statute establishing the Medicare program and the 1972 amendments thereto provides specific evidence of Congress’ intent to foreclose review only of “amount determinations” — ! e., those “quite minor matters,” 118 Cong. Rec. 33992 (1972) (remarks of Sen. Bennett), remitted finally and exclusively to adjudication by private insurance carriers in a “fair hearing.” By the same token, matters which Congress did not delegate to private carriers, such as challenges to the validity of the Secretary’s instructions and regulations, are cognizable in courts of law. In the face of this persuasive evidence of legislative intent, we will not indulge the Government’s assumption that Congress contemplated review by carriers of “trivial” monetary claims, ibid., but intended no review at all of substantial statutory and constitutional challenges to the Secretary’s administration of Part B of the Medicare program. This is an extreme position, and one we would be most reluctant to adopt without “a showing of ‘clear and convincing evidence/” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S., at 141, to overcome the “strong presumption that Congress did not mean to prohibit all judicial review” of executive action, Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S., at 567. We ordinarily presume that Congress intends the executive to obey its statutory commands and, accordingly, that it expects the courts to grant relief when an executive agency violates such a command. That presumption has not been surmounted here.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in conflict with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, has held that regulations promulgated under Part B of the Medicare program are insulated from judicial review. See Starnes v. Schweiker, 748 F. 2d 217, 218 (1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U. S. 1017 (1985).
In fact, we did so twice. We first granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to allow the Court of Appeals to consider its jurisdictional ruling in the light of Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S. 602 (1984). 467 U. S. 1223 (1984). On remand, the Court of Appeals ultimately decided to reinstate its original judgment, see Michigan Academy of Family Physicians v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, 757 F. 2d 91 (1985); Michigan Academy of Family Physicians v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, 751 F. 2d 809 (1984), whereupon we issued the writ on which the judgment is now before us. 474 U. S. 815 (1985).
See, e. g., Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 470 U. S. 768, 778 (1985); Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S., at 567; Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 410 (1971); Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159, 166-167 (1970) (“Indeed, judicial review of such administrative action is the rule, and nonreviewability an exception which must be demonstrated”). See also Wong Wing Hang v. INS, 360 F. 2d 715, 718 (CA2 1966) (Friendly, J.) (“[Ojnly in the rare — some say non-existent-case . . . may review for ‘abuse’ be precluded”). Of course, this Court has “never applied the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard in the strict evidentiary sense”; nevertheless, the standard serves as “a useful reminder to courts that, where substantial doubt about the congressional intent exists, the general presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action is controlling.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 350-351 (1984).
A strong presumption finds support in a wealth of scholarly literature. See, e. g., 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law §9:6, p. 240 (1979) (praising “the case law since 1974” for being “strongly on the side of reviewability”); L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 327 (1965) (“An agency is not an island entire of itself. It is one of the many rooms in the magnificent mansion of the law. The very subordination of the agency to judicial jurisdiction is intended to proclaim the premise that each agency is to be brought into harmony with the totality of the law, the law as it is found in the statute at hand, the statute book at large, the principles and conceptions of the ‘common law,’ and the ultimate guarantees associated with the Constitution”); B. Schwartz, Administrative Law § 8.1, p. 436 (2d ed. 1984) (“The responsibility of enforcing the limits of statutory grants of authority is a judicial function;. . . [wjithout judicial review, statutory limits would be naught but empty words”); Jaffe, The Right to Judicial Review I, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 401, 432 (1958) (“[Jjudicial review is the rule. ... It is a basic right; it is a traditional power and the intention to exclude it must be made specifically manifest”); Shapiro, Administrative Discretion: The Next Stage, 92 Yale L. J. 1487,1489, n. 11 (1983) (since passage of the APA, the sustained effort of administrative law has been to “continuously narro[w] the category of actions considered to be so discretionary as to be exempted from review”).
“The congressional intent necessary to overcome the presumption may also be inferred from contemporaneous judicial construction barring review and the congressional acquiescence in it, see, e. g., Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160 (1948), or from the collective import of legislative and judicial history behind a particular statute, see, e. g., Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229 (1953). More important for purposes of this case, the presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action may be overcome by inferences of intent drawn from the statutory scheme as a whole. See, e. g., Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S. 491 (1977); Switchmen v. National Mediation Board, 320 U. S. 297 (1943).” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S., at 349.
The pertinent text of § 1395ff reads as follows:
“(a) Entitlement to and amount of benefits
“The determination of whether an individual is entitled to benefits under part A or part B, and the determination of the amount of benefits under part A, shall be made by the Secretary in accordance with regulations prescribed by him.
“(b) Appeal by individuals
“(1) Any individual dissatisfied with any determination under subsection (a) of this section as to—
“(A) whether he meets the conditions of section 426 or section 426a of this title [which set forth eligibility requirements to be satisfied before an individual is permitted to participate in Part A of the Medicare program], or
“(B) whether he is eligible to enroll and has enrolled pursuant to the provisions of part B of [the Medicare program]... , or,
“(C) the amount of the benefits under part A (including a determination where such amount is determined to be zero)
shall be entitled to a hearing thereon by the Secretary to the same extent as is provided in section 405(b) of this title and to judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision after such hearing as is provided in section 405(g) of this title.”
Medicare Carrier’s Manual § 12016 (1985). In a “fair hearing” conducted pursuant to § 1395u(b)(3)(C), see 42 CFR §405.820 (1985), the carrier designates a hearing officer, § 405.823, whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by regulation as follows:
“The hearing officer in exercising the authority to conduct a hearing under section 1842(b)(3)(C) of the Act is to comply with all the provisions of title XVIII of the Act and regulations issued thereunder, as well as with policy statements, instructions, and other guides issued by the Health Care Financing Administration in accordance with the Secretary’s agreement with the carriers.” §405.860.
One of those guides is a compilation of instructions prepared by the Secretary and entitled the “Carrier’s Manual.” Section 12016 of the Manual, part of which is quoted in text, provides as follows:
“Authority — the HO [Hearing Officer] occupies a significant position in the administration appeals process. Authority of the HO is limited to the extent that he must comply with all provisions of title XVIII of the Act and regulations issued thereunder, as well as with HCFA. The HO may not overrule the provisions of the law or interpret them in a way different than HCFA does when he disagrees with their intent; nor may he use hearing decisions as a vehicle for commenting upon the legality, constitutional or otherwise, of any provision of the Act or regulations relevant to the Medicare Program.”
The fourth footnote of our opinion in Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S., at 608-609, n. 4, on which the Government relies for the proposition that Part B challenges are never cognizable in a judicial forum, merely declined to review “claims for Part B benefits.” Id., at 609, n. 4. The single sen-fence in which we disposed of respondents’ claim rested entirely on Erika and its companion case of Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U. S. 188 (1982). (Schweiker upheld the constitutionality of “fair hearing” proceedings conducted by private insurance carriers against a Due Process Clause attack.) We did not, in that single sentence, extend the preclusion of judicial review beyond the Part B “amount determinations” with which both Erika and that part of the Ringer opinion were concerned.
The Government also argues that the challenged regulation is a “decision of the Secretary” which the second sentence of § 405(h) excepts from “reviefw] by any . . . tribunal.” The Government’s assumption that the regulation is such a decision, however, ignores the contextual definition of “decision” in the first sentence as those determinations made by “the Secretary after a hearing.” The purpose of “the first two sentences of § 405(h),” as we made clear in Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 757 (1975), is to “assure that administrative exhaustion will be required.” Respondents’ attack on the regulation here is not subject to such a requirement because there is no hearing, and thus no administrative remedy, to exhaust.
See Ellis v. Blum, 643 F. 2d 68, 74 (CA2 1981) (Friendly, J.). Cf. S. Rep. No. 734, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 52 (1939); H. R. Rep. No. 728, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 43-44 (1939).
In this connection it bears mention that the legislative history summarized in the preceding section speaks to provisions for appeal generieally, and is thus as probative of congressional intent in enacting § 1395Ü as it is of §1395ff. See S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 54 (1965) (“Appeals”); H. R. Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 47 (1965) (“Appeals”); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1605, p. 61 (1972) (“CLARIFICATION OF MEDICARE APPEAL PROCEDURES”); 118 Cong. Rec. 33991 (1972) (“DETERMINATIONS AND APPEALS”) (caption to amendment proposed by Sen. Bennett).
We do not believe that our decision will open the floodgates to millions of Part B Medicare claims. Unlike the determinations of amounts of benefits, the method by which such amounts are determined ordinarily affects vast sums of money and thus differs qualitatively from the “quite minor matters” review of which Congress confined to hearings by carriers. In addition, as one commentator pointed out, “permitting review only [of]. . . a particular statutory or administrative standard . . . would not result in a costly flood of litigation, because the validity of a standard can be readily established, at times even in a single ease.” Note, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 778, 792 (1984) (footnote omitted). We observed no flood of litigation in the first 20 years of operation of Part B of the Medicare program, and we seriously doubt that we will be inundated in the future.
Our disposition avoids the “serious constitutional question” that would arise if we construed § 1395Ü to deny a judicial forum for constitutional claims arising under Part B of the Medicare program. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S., at 762 (citing Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361, 366-367 (1974). See Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 433-444 (1944); St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 38, 84 (1936) (Brandéis, J., concurring); Gunther, Congressional Power to Curtail Federal Court Jurisdiction: An Opinionated Guide to the Ongoing Debate, 36 Stan. L. Rev. 895, 921, n. 113 (1984) (“[A]ll agree that Congress cannot bar all remedies for enforcing federal constitutional rights”). Cf. Hart, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1362, 1378-1379 (1953). It also accords with our decision in Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U. S. 188 (1982), in which we resolved a constitutional challenge arising under Part B of the Medicare program. Although the Government notes, quite accurately, that our opinion in McClure makes no mention of the jurisdictional question, we can hardly be charged with overlooking that point. McClure was argued and announced the same day as Erika, a case which did concern the judicial competence to review a challenge arising under Part B; it was written by the same Member of this Court who authored Erika, immediately precedes Erika in the United States Reports, and contains a number of cross-references to that opinion. Finally, we cannot, as the Government would have us, dismiss respondents’ constitutional attack as insubstantial — that is to say, “essentially fictitious,” “obviously frivolous,” and “obviously without merit” — under Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 537 (1974) (internal quotations omitted), as would be necessary to decline jurisdiction over the case. Both courts below found the classification embodied in the regulation to be “irrational,” see supra, at 668-669, and although this finding was made with respect to respondents’ statutory claims, it surely casts sufficient doubt on the constitutionality of the classification under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to merit resolution of the constitutional challenge.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Beennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision in this case is whether an international union, which neither instigates, supports, ratifies, nor encourages “wildcat” strikes engaged in by local unions in violation of a collective-bargaining agreement, may be held hable in damages to an affected employer if the union did not use all reasonable means available to it to prevent the strikes or bring about their termination.
Petitioner, Carbon Fuel Co., and respondent United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) were parties to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreements of 1968 and 1971, collective-bargaining agreements covering, inter alia, workers at petitioner’s several coal mines in southern West Virginia. Forty-eight unauthorized or “wildcat” strikes were engaged in by three local unions at petitioner’s mines from 1969 to 1973. Efforts of District 17, a regional subdivision of UMWA, to persuade the miners not to strike and to return to work were uniformly unsuccessful.
Petitioner brought this suit pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185, in the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. UMWA, District 17, and the three local unions were named defendants. The complaint sought injunctive relief and damages, alleging that the strikes were in violation of the two collective-bargaining agreements. The case was tried before a jury. The trial judge found as a matter of law that the strikes violated the agreements. The trial judge also instructed the jury, over objection of UMWA and District 17, that those defendants might be found liable in damages to petitioner “[i]f you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the International and District Unions did not use all of the reasonable means available to them to prevent work stoppages or strikes from occurring in violation of the contract, or to terminate any such work stoppages or strikes after they began. . . App. 197a. Verdicts in different amounts were returned against UMWA, District 17, and the three local unions.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated in part the judgments against the three local unions but otherwise affirmed those judgments. However, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgments against UMWA and District 17, and remanded to the-District Court with directions to dismiss the case against those defendants. 582 F. 2d 1346 (1978). The court held that this result was required by its earlier decision in United Construction Workers v. Haislip Baking Co., 223 F. 2d 872 (1955). 582 F. 2d, at 1351. Haislip held as follows, 223 F. 2d, at 877-878:
“We have never held . . . that there is any responsibility on the part of a union for a strike with which it has had nothing to do; and there manifestly is no such liability. If [UMWA or District 17] had done nothing when [petitioner] called on them to help get the men back to work, there would have been no liability on the part of [UMWA or District 17]. This being true, defendants were not rendered liable by the efforts which [District 17] made to bring about an adjustment of the difficulty, even if they did not do everything that they might have done to that end. The question is not whether they did everything they might have done, but whether they adopted, encouraged or prolonged the continuance of the strike. There is no evidence of any sort that they did.”
The Court of Appeals recognized that its conclusion was in conflict with the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Eazor Express, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 520 F. 2d 951 (1975) (union liable under no-strike clause for failure to use best efforts to end unauthorized strikes). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 440 U. S. 957 (1979). We affirm.
Petitioner argues that the obligation of UMWA and District 17 to use all reasonable means to prevent and end unauthorized strikes in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement is either (a) implied in law because the agreement contains an arbitration provision or (b) in any event is to be implied from the provision of the agreement that the parties “agree and affirm that they will maintain the integrity of this contract. . . .” We find no merit in either argument.
A
Insofar as petitioner’s argument relies on the history of § 301 and the congressional plan to prevent and remedy strikes in breach of contract by encouraging arbitration, the legislative history is clear that Congress limited the responsibility of unions for strikes in breach of contract to cases when the union may be found responsible according to the common-law rule of agency.
Section 301 (a) makes collective-bargaining agreements judicially enforceable. Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957). At the same time, Congress gave careful attention to the problem of strikes during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement, but stopped short of imposing liability upon a union for strikes not authorized, participated in, or ratified by it. Rather, to effectuate § 301 (a), the Taft-Hartley Act provided in § 301 (b) that a union “shall be bound by the acts of its agents,” and in § 301 (e) provided that the common law of agency shall govern “in determining whether any person is acting as an ‘agent’ of another person.” In explaining § 301 (e) Senator Taft stated, 93 Cong. Rec. 4022 (1947):
“If the wife of a man who is working at a plant receives a lot of telephone messages, very likely it cannot be proved that they came from the union. There is no case then. There must be legal proof of agency in the case of unions as in the case of corporations. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
Congress’ reason for adopting the common-law agency test, and applying to unions the common-law doctrine of re-spondeat superior, follows the lead of Mr. Chief Justice Taft in Coronado Coal Co. v. Mine Workers, 268 U. S. 295, 304 (1925), that to find the union liable “it must be clearly shown . . . that what was done was done by their agents in accordance with their fundamental agreement of association.” The common-law agency test replaced the very loose test of responsibility incorporated in § 2 (2) of the original 1935 National Labor Relations Act under which the term “employer” included “any person acting in the interest of an employer. . . .” 49 Stat. 450.
Petitioner makes the distinct argument that we should hold the International liable for its own failure to respond to the locals’ strike. In the face of Congress’ clear statement of the limits of an international union’s legal responsibility for the acts of one of its local unions, it would be anomalous to hold that an international is nonetheless liable for its failure to take certain steps in response to actions of the local. Such a rule would pierce the shield that Congress took such care to construct. Accordingly, we reject petitioner’s suggestion that Congress’ policy in favor of arbitration extends to imposing an obligation on the respondents, which agreed to arbitrate grievances, to use reasonable means to try to control the locals’ actions in contravention of that agreement.
The Court of Appeals stated: “There was no evidence presented in the district court that either the District or International Union instigated, supported, ratified, or encouraged any of the work stoppages. . . .” 582 F. 2d, at 1351. Under Art. XVI, § 1, of the UMWA constitution, the local unions lacked authority to strike without authorization from UMWA. App. 195a. Moreover, UMWA had repeatedly expressed its opposition to wildcat strikes. Petitioner thus failed to prove agency as required by §§ 301 (b) and (e), and we therefore agree with the Court of Appeals that “under these circumstances it was error for the [District Court] to deny the motions of these defendants for directed verdicts.” 582 F. 2d, at 1351.
B
We turn next to petitioner’s argument that even if the no-strike obligation to be implied from the promise to resolve disputes by arbitration did not carry with it the further step of implying an obligation on UMWA and District 17 to use all reasonable efforts to end an unauthorized strike, that obligation should nevertheless be implied from the contract provision obligating UMWA and District 17 to “maintain the integrity of this contract. . . .”
In the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act Congress sought to promote numerous policies. One policy of particular importance—if not the overriding one — was the policy of free collective bargaining. See Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 104 (1962); NLRB v. Insurance Agents, 361 U. S. 477, 488 (1960); Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, supra, at 453-454. And to make crystal clear the intention to leave the parties entirely free of any Government compulsion to agree to a proposal, or even reach an agreement, Congress added § 8 (d) defining “to bargain collectively” as “not '[to] compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.” 29 U. S. C. § 158 (d). See Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel Employees, 417 U. S. 249, 25A-255 (1974); NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U. S. 272, 287 (1972); H. K. Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 U. S. 99, 104-106 (1970); NLRB v. Insurance Agents, supra, at 488. It follows that the parties’ agreement primarily determines their relationship. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574 (1960) (though policy in favor of arbitration may color interpretation of contract, it cannot impose an agreement to arbitrate where the parties have agreed not to arbitrate). See Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U. S. 564, 570 (1960) (Brennan, J., concurring). If the parties’ agreement specifically resolves a particular issue, the courts cannot substitute a different resolution.
The contractual provision to which petitioner looks to create the alleged union duty to use “all reasonable means” to end wildcat strikes is the promise to “maintain the integrity of this contract.” Petitioner argues that the promise, intended to get disputes into arbitration, is meaningless if the UMWA and District 17 have no obligation to exert their best efforts to force the miners to live up to the contracts.
The bargaining history of the contracts completely answers petitioner’s argument. The parties directly addressed the issue early in their bargaining history and, after first including such an obligation, specifically deleted it from their agreement. The first agreement between the parties, in 1941, contained an explicit no-strike clause. In order to avoid liability under § 301 for contract breaches, UMWA negotiated the deletion of the no-strike provision from the 1947 contract. Instead, the coverage of the contract was limited to employees “able and willing to work,” and the parties agreed that all disagreements would be settled through arbitration or collective bargaining. In 1950 the contract was again rewritten. The “able and willing” provision was dropped and replaced by a promise “to maintain the integrity of this contract and to exercise their best efforts through available disciplinary measures to prevent stoppages of work by strike or lockout.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Because the union did not want to surrender its freedom to decide what measures to take or not to take in dealing with unauthorized strikes, it negotiated the deletion of the “best efforts through available disciplinary measures” clause. See International Union, UMWA v. NLRB, 103 U. S. App. D. C. 207, 212-213, 257 F. 2d 211, 216-217 (1958); International Union, UMWA, 117 N. L. R. B. 1095, 1118 (1957) (Intermediate Report of Trial Examiner, reprinted as an appendix to NLRB opinion). The new provision in the 1952 contract, which was carried forward into the 1968 and 1971 contracts essentially unchanged as to this issue, read as follows:
“The United Mine Workers of America and the Operators agree and affirm that they will maintain the integrity of this contract and that all disputes and claims which are not settled by agreement shall be settled by the machinery provided in the 'Settlement of Local and District Disputes’ section of the Agreement unless national in character in which event the parties shall settle such disputes by free collective bargaining as heretofore practiced in the industry, it being the purpose of this provision to provide for the settlement of all such disputes and claims through the machinery in this contract provided and by collective bargaining without recourse to the courts.”
It makes no sense to assume that the parties thought the new language subsumed the deleted provision. Had that been their intention, there would have been no reason to alter the contract.
The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from their bargaining history is that, whatever the integrity clause may mean, the parties purposely decided not to impose on the union an obligation to take disciplinary or other actions to get unauthorized strikers back to work. It would do violence to the bargaining process and the national policy furthering free collective bargaining to impose by judicial implication a duty upon UMWA and District 17 that the parties in arm’s-length bargaining first included and then purposely deleted.
Moreover, since the deletion but before 1968 or 1971 when these agreements were reached, two Courts of Appeals construed this contract as not imposing liability on the union for wildcat strikes and as not requiring UMWA to take any action with regard to such strikes. Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp., 259 F. 2d 346, 351 (CA6 1958) (Stewart, J.), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 361 U. S. 459, 464 (1960); United Construction Workers v. Haislip Baking Co., 223 F. 2d, at 877. If these interpretations did not accord with the parties’ understanding of their contract, they had ample opportunity to make their own understanding explicit. Failure to do so strongly suggests the parties incorporated the courts’ interpretation of the agreements.
Affirmed.
The facts relevant to the participation of the District and International in the wildcat strikes can be briefly stated. As recently as 1965 the International expressed its intention to discipline “wildcatters.” The District and International were promptly notified of each strike. In each instance a District representative arranged for a meeting of the striking local and directed the members to return to work. Often the representative advised the members that the International and the District could take disciplinary action against participants in illegal, unauthorized strikes. If the strike did not end after the first meeting a second meeting was called. Most strikes ended in the first one or two days. No strike lasted longer than six days. From concern that such action might only aggravate a bad situation, no disciplinary action was taken against the strikers. There is however no suggestion that the District’s efforts to end the strikes were not in good faith.
The contracts have expired, and the question of injunctive relief is out of the case.
Review of the judgments against the locals was not sought here.
Accord, Republic Steel Corp. v. UMWA, 570 F. 2d 467 (CA3 1978); Bituminous Coal Operators v. UMWA, 585 F. 2d 586 (CA3 1978); United States Steel Corp. v. UMWA, 534 F. 2d 1063 (CA3 1976); Wagner Elec. Corp. v. Local 1104, Electrical Workers, 496 F. 2d 954 (CA8 1974). Contra, Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. UMWA, 551 F. 2d 695 (CA6 1977).
An international union, of course, is responsible under § 301 for any authorized strike if such strike violates any term of the contract, whether express or implied. See, e. g., Gateway Coal Co. v. Mine Workers, 414 U. S. 368 (1974); Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks, 398 U. S. 235 (1970). Our holding in Part A of this opinion does not affect the content, as implied by law, of arbitration clauses. Rather, we are addressing the wholly different issue of whether an international or district union may be held legally responsible for locals’ unilateral actions which are concededly in violation of the locals’ responsibilities under the contract.
At the same time, Congress applied to unions the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior rather than the more restrictive test of union responsibility under § 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which requires “clear proof of actual participation in, or actual authorization of, such acts, or of ratification of such acts after actual knowledge thereof.” 29 U. S. C. § 106 (emphasis supplied).
The full text of this new provision read:
“The United Mine Workers of America and the Operators signatory hereto affirm their intention to maintain the integrity of this contract and to exercise their best efforts through available disciplinary measures to prevent stoppages of work by strike or lockout pending adjustment or adjudication of disputes and grievances in the manner provided in this agreement.”
Contrary to petitioner’s suggestion, the Trial Examiner’s opinion, which was affirmed by the Labor Board but set aside by the Court of Appeals, does not present an inconsistent interpretation of the bargaining history on this point. Although the Trial Examiner gave more importance to the retention of the integrity clause than to the deletion of the best-efforts clause, he did so in the discrete context of deciding whether or not there was an implied agreement not to strike. The issue of what obligation, if any, the union owed to try to get the miners back to work was not before the Board. Consequently, the importance of the best-efforts language was properly minimized.
In fact, the Trial Examiner’s interpretation of the contract appears to reject, rather than support, petitioner’s suggested reading concerning the damages liability of UMWA for wildcat strikes. He stated that the contract and the bargaining history suggested that “the contracting parties may have intended that no breach of contract damage or other suits resulting from strikes should be lodged in courts of law.” 117 N. L. R. B., at 1115. This suit seeks damages in a court of law on the basis of a breach of contract resulting from a strike.
We need not decide what content the “integrity” clause has since we have determined that it does not support petitioner's cause of action. The District of Columbia Circuit has suggested one possible meaning. International Union, UMWA v. NLBB, 103 U. S. App. D. C. 207, 214, 257 F. 2d 211, 218 (1958).
Since 1971 the Seventh Circuit has adopted the same reading of this contract. Old Ben Coal Corp. v. Local Union No. 1487, United Mine Workers, 457 F. 2d 162, 164 (1972). Only the Third Circuit has read this provision differently. United States Steel Corp. v. UMWA, 534 P. 2d, at 1072-1073.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a child of 14, and another juvenile followed an elderly man to a hotel, got into his room on a ruse, assaulted him, overpowered him, stole $13 from his pockets, and fled. All this happened on December 20, 1958. Petitioner was picked up by the police on January 1, 1959, and immediately admitted the assault and robbery. At that time, however, the victim of the robbery was still alive, though hospitalized. He died on Janu-uary 26, 1959, and forthwith an information charging first degree murder was returned against petitioner. A jury found him guilty, the crucial evidence introduced at the trial being a formal confession which he signed on January 7, 1959, after he had been held for five days during which time he saw no lawyer, parent, or other friendly adult. The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the judgment of conviction. 145 Colo. 53, 358 P. 2d 1028. We granted the petition for certiorari, 368 U. S. 815.
After petitioner’s arrest on January 1, the following events took place. His mother tried to see him on Friday, January 2, but permission was denied, the reason given being that visiting hours were from 7 p. m. to 8 p. m. on Monday and Thursday. From January 1 through January 7, petitioner was in Juvenile Hall, where he was kept in security, though he was allowed to eat with the other inmates. He was examined by the police in Juvenile Hall January 2, and made a confession which an officer recorded in longhand. On January 3, 1959, a complaint was filed against him in the Juvenile Court by the investigating detectives.
The State in its brief calls this preliminary procedure in Juvenile Hall being “booked in.” As noted, petitioner signed a full and formal confession on January 7. The trial in the Juvenile Court took place January 16 on a petition dated January 13 containing a charge of “assault to injure.” He was committed to the State Industrial School for an indeterminate period. Thereafter, as noted above, the victim of the robbery died and the murder trial was held.
Confessions obtained by “secret inquisitorial processes” (Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 237) are suspect, since such procedures are conducive to the use of physical and psychological pressures. Chambers v. Florida, supra; Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556. The reason that due process, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, condemns the obtaining of confessions in that manner is a compound of two influences. First is the procedural requirement stated in Chambers v. Florida, supra, 236-237:
“From the popular hatred and abhorrence of illegal confinement, torture and extortion of confessions of violations of the ‘law of the land’ evolved the fundamental idea that no man’s life, liberty or property be forfeited as criminal punishment for violation of that law until there had been a charge fairly made and fairly tried in a public tribunal free of prejudice, passion, excitement, and tyrannical power. Thus, as assurance against ancient evils, our country, in order to preserve ‘the blessings of liberty,’ wrote into its basic law the requirement, among others, that the forfeiture of the lives, liberties or property of people accused of crime can only follow if procedural safeguards of due process have been obeyed.”
We emphasized this point in Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, 152, where we said that “always evidence concerning the inner details of secret inquisitions is weighted against an accused . . . .”
Second is the element of compulsion which is condemned by the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice Hughes in Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 285, emphasized that ingredient of due process. After noting that the Court had held that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination in the courts of the States is not guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he went on to say:
“But the question of the right of the State to withdraw the privilege against self-incrimination is not here involved. The compulsion to which the quoted statements refer is that of the processes of justice by which the accused may be called as a witness and required to testify. Compulsion by torture to extort a confession is a different matter.” And see Brennan, The Bill of Rights and the States, 36 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 761.
We reiterated that view in Ashcraft v. Tennessee, supra; where we held that the principle of Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, 562-563, was applicable to state proceedings. 322 U. S., at 154, n. 9. We said:
“We think a situation such as that here shown by uncontradicted evidence is so inherently coercive that its very existence is irreconcilable with the possession of mental freedom by a lone suspect against whom its full coercive force is brought to bear. It is inconceivable that any court of justice in the land, conducted as our courts are, open to the public, would permit prosecutors serving in relays to keep a defendant witness under continuous cross-examination for thirty-six hours without rest or sleep in an effort to extract a ‘voluntary’ confession. Nor can we, consistently with Constitutional due process of law, hold voluntary a confession where prosecutors do the same thing away from the restraining influences of a public trial in an open court room.” 322 U. S., at 154. (Italics added.)
The application of these principles involves close scrutiny of the facts of individual cases. The length of the questioning (Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315), the use of fear to break a suspect (Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401), the youth of the accused (Haley v. Ohio, 332 U. S. 596) are illustrative of the circumstances on which cases of this kind turn. The youth of the suspect was the crucial factor in Haley v. Ohio, supra, at 599-600:
“What transpired would make us pause for careful inquiry if a mature man were involved. And when, as here, a mere child — an easy victim of the law — is before us, special care in scrutinizing the record must be used. Age 15 is a tender and difficult age for a boy of any race. He cannot be judged by the more exacting standards of maturity. That which would leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a lad in his early teens. This is the period of great instability -which the crisis of adolescence produces. A 15-year-old lad, questioned through the dead of night by relays of police, is a ready victim of the inquisition. Mature men possibly might stand the ordeal from midnight to 5 a. m. But we cannot believe that a lad of tender years is a match for the police in such a contest. He needs counsel and support if he is not to become the victim first of fear, then of panic. He needs someone on whom to lean lest the overpowering presence of the law, as he knows it, crush him. No friend stood at the side of this 15-year-old boy as the police, working in relays, questioned him hour after hour, from midnight until dawn. No lawyer stood guard to make sure that the police went so far and no farther, to see to it that they stopped short of the point where he became the victim of coercion. No counsel or friend was called during the critical hours of questioning. A photographer was admitted once this lad broke and confessed. But not even a gesture towards getting a lawyer for him was ever made.”
The fact that petitioner was only 14 years old puts this case on the same footing as Haley v. Ohio, supra. There was here no evidence of prolonged questioning. But the five-day detention — during which time the boy’s mother unsuccessfully tried to see him and he was cut off from contact with any lawyer or adult advisor — gives the case an ominous cast. The prosecution says that the boy was advised of his right to counsel, but that he did not ask either for a lawyer or for his parents. But a 14-year-old boy, no matter how sophisticated, is unlikely to have any conception of what will confront him when he is made accessible only to the police. That is to say, we deal with a person who is not equal to the police in knowledge and understanding of the consequences of the questions and answers being recorded and who is unable to know how to protect his own interests or how to get the benefits of his constitutional rights.
The prosecution says that the youth and immaturity of the petitioner and the five-day detention are irrelevant, because the basic ingredients of the confession came tumbling out as soon as he was arrested. But if we took that position, it would, with all deference, be in callous disregard of this boy’s constitutional rights. He cannot be compared with an adult in full possession of his senses and knowledgeable of the consequences of his admissions. He would have no way of knowing what the consequences of his confession were without advice as to his rights — from someone concerned with securing him those rights — and without the aid of more mature judgment as to the steps he should take in the predicament in which he found himself. A lawyer or an adult relative or friend could have given the petitioner the protection which his own immaturity could not. Adult advice would have put him on a less unequal footing with his interrogators. Without some adult protection against this inequality, a 14-year-old boy would not be able to know, let alone assert, such constitutional rights as he had. To allow this conviction to stand would, in effect, be to treat him as if he had no constitutional rights.
There is no guide to the decision of cases such as this, except the totality of circumstances that bear on the two factors we have mentioned. The youth of the petitioner, the long detention, the failure to send for his parents, the failure immediately to bring him before the judge of the Juvenile Court, the failure to see to it that he had the advice of a lawyer or a friend — all these combine to make us conclude that the formal confession on which this conviction may have rested (see Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560, 568) was obtained in violation of due process.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether it was error for the Court of Appeals to hold that the state trial court violated respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by denying respondent’s motion for a continuance until the Deputy Public Defender initially assigned to defend him was available. We granted certiorari, 456 U. S. 904 (1982), and we reverse.
The issues raised arise out of two trials in the state court, the second trial having been held on two counts on which the first jury could not agree. Respondent was convicted of robbery, burglary, and false imprisonment in the first trial; he was convicted of rape and forcible oral copulation in the second. On review of all five counts, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed the convictions, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Thereafter the United States District Court denied respondent’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This denial was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals, which held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to counsel with whom the accused has a “meaningful attorney-client relationship,” and that the trial judge abused his discretion and violated this right by denying a motion for a continuance based on the substitution of appointed counsel six days before trial. 649 F. 2d 718 (CA9 1981).
I
Respondent’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court set forth two grounds for relief: (a) that the state “[t]rial court abused its discretion by failing to order a substitution of counsel after [respondent and counsel became] embroiled in irreconcilable conflict,” Record 3; and (b) that the trial court had not permitted him to testify in his own behalf in the second trial. Ibid. The facts shown by the record conclusively rebut both these claims and are alone dispositive, independent of the correctness of the novel Sixth Amendment guarantee announced by the Court of Appeals.
A
After midnight on July 7,1976, the victim, a young woman, left her apartment to shop at a nearby grocery store in San Francisco. There she was accosted by respondent and when she complained to the store manager, he ordered respondent to leave. Respondent waited for the victim outside; when the victim left the store, respondent threw a beer bottle at her. She asked the store manager to call the police, but he told her just to walk away. She then walked home taking the long way around the block, but when she entered her apartment house, respondent was waiting for her in the lobby. From this fact, the jury could have inferred that respondent had been stalking the victim from the time she first left her apartment. Respondent forced the victim into the basement, where, she testified, he raped and sodomized her and then robbed her.
The victim managed to escape from respondent and fled from the building into a nearby all-night diner, where she was sheltered until the police came. She gave the police a description of her assailant; he was apprehended two blocks away. He was wearing the green fatigue jacket with fur-trimmed hood and the “Afro” style wig that the victim had described to the police. On his person the police found jewelry taken from the victim. The respondent told the booking officer that he had been given the jewelry by a woman whose last name he did not recall and whose address he did not know. Police found the victim’s clothing scattered, on the floor of the basement of her apartment building and a button from respondent’s jacket on the basement steps.
Respondent was charged in San Francisco Superior Court with five felonies. The court appointed the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office to represent respondent and Deputy Public Defender Harvey Goldfine was assigned to defend the accused. Goldfine represented respondent at the preliminary hearing and supervised an extensive investigation. The trial was scheduled for Thursday, September 23, 1976. Shortly prior to trial, however, Goldfine was hospitalized for emergency surgery. On Friday, September 17, six days before the scheduled trial date, the Public Defender assigned Bruce Hotchkiss, a senior trial attorney in the Public Defender’s Office, to represent respondent.
On the day he was assigned the case, Hotchkiss interviewed respondent in jail and advised him of the substitution. Between that date and the following Tuesday, September 21, Hotchkiss reviewed the files and investigation prepared by his colleague. On Tuesday, he conferred with respondent for three hours; on the following day he again met with respondent in the morning and afternoon.
(a) First Day of First Trial
The first trial began as scheduled on Thursday, September 23. At the opening of trial, respondent told the court: “I only have this P. D. [Public Defender] for a day and a half, we have not had time to prepare this case. He came in Tuesday night, last Tuesday night was the first time I saw him. ... We have not had enough time to prepare this case.” App. 7.
Construing respondent’s remarks as a motion for a continuance, the court denied the motion, noting that the case had been assigned to Hotchkiss the previous Friday, six days before the trial date, and that Hotchkiss stated he had “investigated the case, [and] studied it.” Id., at 8. In reply, respondent repeated his claim that Hotchkiss had only been on the case for a day and a half.
Respondent then stated:
“[T]his past Tuesday was the first time [Hotchkiss interviewed me.] He said he was busy and he couldn’t make it up there. He only [sic] been on this case one day and a half your Honor, he can’t possibly have had enough time to investigate all these things in this case. Some of the major issues have not been investigated. It’s impossible for him to have time enough to take care of this case to represent this case properly, the way it should be represented.” Ibid.
Hotchkiss explained Goldfine’s absence and stated that he was prepared to try the case on the basis of his study of the investigation made by Goldfine and his conferences with respondent. “I feel that I am prepared. My own feeling is that a further continuance would not benefit me in presenting the case.” Id., at 11. Respondent replied that he was “satisfied with the Public Defender, but it’s just no way, no possible way, that he has had enough time to prepare this case.” Id., at 12 (emphasis added).
The trial judge repeated that he was confident that the Public Defender’s Office was representing respondent adequately and that Hotchkiss was an experienced counsel; the court again denied a continuance. Id., at 9.
(b) Second Day of First Trial
At the start of the second day of trial, on Friday, September 24, 1976, respondent again complained that Hotchkiss was not prepared. When the court expressed its confidence in Hotchkiss, respondent said:
“I don’t mean he’s not a good P. D., I don’t have anything against him. It’s just that he didn’t have time to prepare the case, one day and a half.” Id., at 18 (emphasis added).
The trial judge again stated that he was satisfied that the case had been “well prepared” by Goldfine, and that Hotchkiss had been assigned to the case the previous week, had read the transcript of the preliminary hearing, and had “prepared the case, reviewed all the matters, obtained the pictures, and other items that he intends to produce into evidence.” Ibid. In conclusion, the trial judge stated: “I am satisfied . . . that Mr. Hotchkiss is doing a more than adequate job, a very fine job.” Id., at 18-19.
When respondent continued to complain that Hotchkiss had not adequately investigated the case, Hotchkiss told the court:
“My feeling is that all investigation that needed to be done and that should be done and quite possibly that could have been done has been done.” Id., at 21-22.
Finally, Hotchkiss pointed out that he would have the weekend between the close of the prosecution’s case and the beginning of the defense’s case for further conferences with respondent. Id., at 22-23.
At this time — on the second day of the first trial — respondent first mentioned Goldfine’s name. After complaining again about Hotchkiss’ alleged lack of time for preparation, respondent said: “Mr. Harvey Goldfine was my attorney, he was my attorney, and he still is. I haven’t seen him in five weeks because he’s in the hospital.” Id., at 24. Respondent then claimed that not even Goldfine had had enough time to prepare the case: “Mr. Harvey Goldfine didn’t even have enough time to go over my case with me, he didn’t even have time.” Ibid. Respondent concluded these remarks with additional complaints about Hotchkiss’ preparation.
(c) Third Day of First Trial
Trial resumed four days later, on Tuesday, September 28, 1976. Out of the presence of the jury, respondent presented the court with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he was unrepresented by counsel. In support of his petition, respondent claimed that Goldfine, not Hotch-kiss, was his attorney. Specifically, he said that the writ should be granted on
“the grounds that my attorney’s in the hospital, and I don’t legally have no attorney, and this P. D. here told me, this P. D., Mr. Hotchkiss, Bruce Hotchkiss, told me I didn’t have no defense to my charges.” Id., at 29 (emphasis added).
Hotchkiss disputed this charge. The trial court treated the petition as a renewal of respondent’s motion for a continuance, and denied it.
Following the court’s ruling, respondent announced that he would not cooperate at all in the trial and asked to be returned to his cell. The court urged respondent to cooperate but respondent refused, claiming that Hotchkiss did not represent him: “I don’t have any Counsel, I just got through telling you, I don’t have no Counsel.” Id., at 32. However, respondent remained in the courtroom and the trial proceeded.
Later, respondent renewed his attack:
“What do I have to say to get through to you, your Honor, what do I have to say to make you understand. I have told you two or three times, and then you keep telling me about talking to my Counsel. I don’t have no attorney, I told you I don’t have no attorney. My attorney’s name is Mr. P. D. Goldfine, Harvey Goldfine, that’s my attorney, he’s in the hospital.” Id., at 37-38.
Ultimately, respondent refused to take the stand, ignoring Hotchkiss’ advice that he testify. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the robbery, burglary, and false imprisonment counts, but failed to reach a verdict on the rape and oral copulation counts.
(d) Second Trial
A week later, a second trial was held on the charges left unresolved as a result of the mistrial and Hotchkiss again appeared for respondent. Once more, respondent ignored Hotchkiss’ advice and refused to take the stand. Indeed, respondent refused to cooperate with or even speak to Hotchkiss. The second jury returned a guilty verdict on the sexual assault counts. The California Court of Appeal affirmed respondent’s convictions on all five counts; the California Supreme Court denied review.
B
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Peckham, J.) construed the pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus liberally as including a claim that the trial court abused its discretion both in denying a continuance to allow Hotchkiss additional time to prepare and in denying a continuance to permit Goldfine to defend respondent. In denying the writ, the District Court stated:
“The record supports the trial judge’s conclusion that Hotchkiss had adequate time to prepare for the trials and that he presented an able defense despite [respondent’s] lack of cooperation with him.” App. to Pet. for Cert. D3-D4.
The District Court also rejected respondent’s claim that the trial court should have granted the continuance to permit Goldfine to represent respondent, stating that
“it was not unreasonable to conclude that the efficient administration of justice required that petitioner be represented by Hotchkiss rather than Goldfine after the latter had fully recovered from surgery.” Id., at D4-D5.
The District Court thus rejected any claim that the state trial judge had abused his discretion in denying a continuance.
In reversing the District Court’s denial of the writ, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that “an indigent defendant does not have an unqualified right to the appointment of counsel of his own choosing,” but argued that respondent was not seeking appointment of counsel of his own choosing; rather, he “was merely seeking a continuance of the trial date so that his attorney [Goldfine] would be able to represent him at trial.” 649 F. 2d, at 720.
The Court of Appeals went on to announce a new component of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment right, it held, would
“be without substance if it did not include the right to a meaningful attorney-client relationship.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
The court seems to have determined, solely on the basis of respondent’s confusing and contradictory remarks on the subject, that respondent had developed such a “meaningful attorney-client relationship” with Goldfine but not with Hotchkiss.
The Court of Appeals next stated that the trial court, having failed to inquire about the probable length of Goldfine’s absence, could not have weighed respondent’s interest in continued representation by Goldfine against the State’s interest in proceeding with the scheduled trial. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s failure to conduct this balancing test ignored respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to a “meaningful attorney-client relationship” and hence violated respondent’s right to counsel; this violation was held to require reversal without any need to show prejudice. The Court of Appeals directed that the writ issue unless respondent received a new trial on all five counts.
HH 1 — i
Not every restriction on counsel’s time or opportunity to investigate or to consult with his client or otherwise to prepare for trial violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 53-54 (1970). Trial judges necessarily require a great deal of latitude in scheduling trials. Not the least of their problems is that of assembling the witnesses, lawyers, and jurors at the same place at the same time, and this burden counsels against continuances except for compelling reasons. Consequently, broad discretion must be granted trial courts on matters of continuances; only an unreasoning and arbitrary “insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay” violates the right to the assistance of counsel. Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U. S. 575, 589 (1964).
We have set out at greater length than usual the record facts showing Hotchkiss’ prompt action in taking Goldfine’s place, his prompt study of the investigation, his careful review of the materials prepared by Goldfine for trial, his conferences with respondent, and his representation to the court that “a further continuance would not benefit me in presenting the case,” App. 11. In the face of the unequivocal and uncontradicted statement by a responsible officer of the court that he was fully prepared and “ready” for trial, it was far from an abuse of discretion to deny a continuance. On this record, it would have been remarkable had the trial court not accepted counsel’s assurances.
Nor is there any merit to the claim that the denial of a continuance prevented Hotchkiss from being fully prepared for trial. Despite respondent’s adamant — even contumacious— refusal to cooperate with Hotchkiss or to take the stand as Hotchkiss advised, in spite of respondent’s numerous outbursts and disruptions, and in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, Hotchkiss succeeded in getting a “hung jury” on the two most serious charges at the first trial. Given the undisputed and overwhelming evidence of guilt, the jury’s failure at the first trial to convict the defendant on the more serious charges cannot reflect other than favorably on Hotch-kiss’ readiness for trial.
III
In holding that the trial judge violated respondent’s right to the assistance of counsel by arbitrarily refusing a continuance that would have permitted Goldfine to try the case, the Court of Appeals misread the record and the controlling law and announced a new constitutional standard which is unsupported by any authority.
A
The Court of Appeals’ first error was in reading the record as indicating that respondent timely and in good faith moved for a delay to permit Goldfine to continue to represent him. The transcript clearly shows that respondent did not specifically assert a concern for continued representation by Goldfine until the third day of trial, 11 days after Hotchkiss had been substituted for Goldfine. Until then, all that respondent sought was a delay to give Hotchkiss additional time that respondent, but not Hotchkiss, thought necessary to prepare for trial. Moreover, respondent specifically disavowed any dissatisfaction with counsel; he informed the court on the first day of trial that he was “satisfied” with Hotchkiss. Id., at 12. On this record, we cannot fathom how the Court of Appeals could have construed these complaints about Hotchkiss’ alleged lack of time in which to prepare as indicating an unspoken preference for Goldfine.
On the contrary, the trial court was abundantly justified in denying respondent’s midtrial motion for a continuance so as to have Goldfine represent him. On this record, it could reasonably have concluded that respondent’s belated requests to be represented by Goldfine were not made in good faith but were a transparent ploy for delay. In our view, the record shows that the trial judge exhibited sensitive concern for the rights of the accused and extraordinary patience with a contumacious litigant.
B
The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel “would be without substance if it did not include the right to a meaningful attorney-client relationship,” 649 F. 2d, at 720 (emphasis added), is without basis in the law. No authority was cited for this novel ingredient of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel, and of course none could be. No court could possibly guarantee that a defendant will develop the kind of rapport with his attorney — privately retained or provided by the public — that the Court of Appeals thought part of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel. Accordingly, we reject the claim that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a “meaningful relationship” between an accused and his counsel.
IV
We have gone to unusual length in discussing the facts and relevant authorities in order to evaluate the claim of abuse of discretion by the trial judge and to deal with the novel idea that the Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused a “meaningful attorney-client relationship.” Had the Court of Appeals examined the record more carefully, it would have had no occasion to consider, let alone announce, a new constitutional rule under the Sixth Amendment.
In its haste to create a novel Sixth Amendment right, the court wholly failed to take into account the interest of the victim of these crimes in not undergoing the ordeal of yet a third trial in this case. Of course, inconvenience and embarrassment to witnesses cannot justify failing to enforce constitutional rights of an accused: when prejudicial error is made that clearly impairs a defendant’s constitutional rights, the burden of a new trial must be borne by the prosecution, the courts, and the witnesses; the Constitution permits nothing less. But in the administration of criminal justice, courts may not ignore the concerns of victims. Apart from all other factors, such a course would hardly encourage victims to report violations to the proper authorities; this is especially so when the crime is one calling for public testimony about a humiliating and degrading experience such as was involved here. Precisely what weight should be given to the ordeal of reliving such an experience for the third time need not be decided now; but that factor is not to be ignored by the courts. The spectacle of repeated trials to establish the truth about a single criminal episode inevitably places burdens on the system in terms of witnesses, records, and fading memories, to say nothing of misusing judicial resources.
Over 75 years ago, Roscoe Pound condemned American courts for ignoring “substantive law and justice,” and treating trials as sporting contests in which the “inquiry is, Have the rules of the game been carried out strictly?” Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction With the Administration of Justice, 29 ABA Ann. Rep. 395, 406 (1906). A criminal trial is not a “game,” and nothing in the record of respondent’s two trials gives any support for the conclusion that he was constitutionally entitled to a new trial. The state courts provided respondent a fair trial, and the United States District Judge properly denied relief.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to reinstate the judgment of the District Court.
It is so ordered.
Respondent was charged with rape, Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 261, subd. 3 (West 1970); forcible oral copulation, Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 288a (West 1970); second-degree burglary, Cal: Penal Code Ann. § 459 (West 1970); second-degree robbery, Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 211a (West 1970); and false imprisonment, Cal. Penal Code Ann. §236 (West 1970).
After the jury had been charged, but before it had retired to begin deliberations, respondent asked the judge in open court to permit him to take the stand and testify. A chambers conference was then held, at which the judge denied respondent’s motion to testify, concluding it had been made in bad faith: “I am denying it because I am not convinced. All you’re trying to do is make a record for appeal. . . .” App. 52.
The District Court also rejected the claim that the trial judge had abused his discretion in denying respondent the opportunity to testify after the jury had already been charged in the second trial.
The Court of Appeals undertook to confine its holding to cases where the defendant requests a continuance in good faith. Here, the court asserted: “The record clearly demonstrates the sincerity of Slappy’s desire to be represented by Goldfine, and the state has not contended that Slappy was acting in bad faith. . . . [T]here is nothing in the record from which it can be inferred that Slappy’s request for a continuance was motivated by a desire to delay his trial for an improper purpose.” 649 F. 2d, at 722. Nothing in the record affords any support for these “findings” of the Court of Appeals. By contrast, the State asserts that it has “always contended that Slappy was acting in bad faith when he demanded that Goldfine rather than Hotchkiss represent him.” Brief for Petitioner 38, n. 23.
Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s motion to testify in the second trial after closing argument had been made and after the jury had been instructed.
The Court of Appeals seems to have believed that an appointed counsel with whom the accused did not have a “meaningful relationship” was the equivalent of no counsel; as a consequence, it held that no prejudice need be shown for violations of the right to a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. Our holding that there is no Sixth Amendment right to a “meaningful attorney-client relationship” disposes of that argument.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We noted probable jurisdiction in this case, 395 U. S. 974 (1969), because the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court appeared to raise substantial questions under the Fourteenth Amendment that were deserving of our plenary consideration, and because whatever conclusion this Court might reach with respect to them would definitively settle this aspect of the litigation. In brief, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld, over due process and equal protection challenges, a state statutory scheme that compelled appellants, both indigent persons who sought to contest landlord petitions for summary eviction from their homes, to post, as a condition precedent to offering any defense to summary eviction, a surety bond in double the potential amount of rent due at the end of trial. The statutes, this aspect of which was also upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court, provided further that the landlords would become entitled to such double rent should the tenant-appellants lose their cases.
The case was first heard by us at the 1969 Term, and was thereafter set for reargument at the present Term. 399 U. S. 922 (1970). At reargument it became apparent that events occurring subsequent to our notation of probable jurisdiction had so drastically undermined the premises on which we originally set this case for plenary consideration as to lead us to conclude that, with due regard for the proper functioning of this Court, we should not now adjudicate it.
I
The Georgia statutory scheme under which this case was initiated, Ga. Code Ann. §§ 61-301 to 61-305 (1966), and § 61-306 (Supp. 1969), operated in the following manner. A landlord seeking summary eviction could file an affidavit in a local court, alleging that the tenant, for one or more statutorily enumerated reasons, was unlawfully holding possession of the premises and had refused the landlord’s demand to relinquish possession. (§ 61-301.) When such an affidavit had been filed the local judicial officer was required to issue a “warrant or process” to the sheriff directing him to “deliver to the owner” the premises described in the affidavit. (§ 61-302.) The sheriff was to give the tenant four days’ notice before executing the dispossessory warrant. (§61-306 (Supp. 1969).)
The tenant could prevent immediate eviction only by filing a counter-affidavit, alleging one of several specified defenses and accompanied by a surety bond “for the payment of such sum, with costs, as may be recovered against him on the trial of the case.” (§ 61-303.) Only if the tenant followed these procedures was he then entitled to a trial on the issues raised by the affidavits. (§ 61-304.) Against this background, § 61-305 provided:
“If the issue specified in the preceding section shall be determined against the tenant, judgment shall go against him for double the rent reserved or stipulated to be paid, or if he shall be a tenant at will or sufferance, for double what the rent of the premises is shown to be worth . . .
In the case before us, appellants Sanks and Momman were served with dispossessory warrants on May 21, 1968, and July 17, 1968, respectively (App. 3, 18), and then applied for (App. 5, 20), and eventually obtained (App. 24 — 39) from the Civil Court of Fulton County a “rule nisi” permitting appellants to remain in possession of their respective premises pending resolution of the factual issues raised by their applications, so long as they timely paid their rent into court during the pendency of the litigation. Both the bond-posting requirement (§61-303) and the double-rent damages measure (§ 61-305) were declared unconstitutional and, hence, inapplicable to these eviction proceedings. (App. 27-39.) On an interlocutory appeal, the trial court’s constitutional declarations were set aside by the Supreme Court of Georgia, 225 Ga. 88, 166 S. E. 2d 19 (1969), and the judgment of the lower court was reversed.
II
Since we noted probable jurisdiction the posture of this case has shifted dramatically. Both Mrs. Momman and Mrs. Sanks have removed from the premises originally sought to be recovered by their landlords. In addition, the Georgia General Assembly has repealed virtually the entire statutory scheme that has governed this litigation from its inception and replaced it with a new one, effective July 1, 1970, that contains neither the bond-posting nor double-rent requirement. 1 Ga. Laws 1970, pp. 968-972, Ga. Code Ann. §§ 61-302 to 61-305 (Supp. 1970). Under the new law, dispossessory actions will still be commenced by the landlord’s execution of an affidavit. Now, however, this merely compels the local judicial officer to cause the tenant to be summoned to a hearing (§ 61-302), and the tenant can retain possession and force a trial of any defenses he may wish to raise simply by answering the affidavit, orally or in writing, at the hearing. (§ 61-303.) Expedited trials are encouraged. If the litigation has not been concluded within a month of the execution of the landlord’s affidavit, the tenant may retain possession by paying into court all rent as it becomes due, in addition to any rent that was due but not paid prior to issuance of the summons. (§§ 61-303, 61-304.) If the landlord ultimately prevails, his monetary damages, if any, are to be based on the actual, not double, rent found due. (§ 61— 305.) Similarly, the tenant may, in effect, stay execution of the dispossessory warrant pending appeal of an adverse determination simply by paying rent, as it accrues, into the court. (§ 61-306.)
Ill
The crux of this controversy from its inception has been appellants’ insistence that they, not their alleged landlords, had the right to lawful possession of the premises in dispute and their demands that they be permitted to remain in possession pending the outcome of the litigation. With appellants’ voluntary removal from the premises this aspect of the case is clearly moot. We have been apprised of no basis in the statutes or case law for assuming that were this Court now to hold Mrs. Sanks and Mrs. Momman were constitutionally entitled to proceed in the trial court without first posting a double-rent bond, they could then seek a decree under the statutes here at issue returning them to possession of the premises. The repealed statute spoke only of enabling a tenant already in possession to contest forcible eviction upon posting a bond. Indeed, neither appellants nor appellees — all of whom resist the suggestion that the case as a whole is moot — contend that this aspect of it is not moot. There is thus no reason to believe that, on remand, either appellant, if successful in this Court, could litigate, in the context of any proceeding that might conceivably be governed by any of the provisions of these repealed Georgia statutes, a claim to be put in possession of the premises she originally occupied.
In support of the continued justiciability of the case, appellants rely upon a subsidiary aspect of this controversy which they claim remains alive. Were this Court to affirm the Georgia Supreme Court on the merits, the case would presumably be remanded to the trial court in accordance with the Georgia Supreme Court’s mandate. There, argue appellants, those who initially procured the dispossessory warrants might then move for entry of a judgment for double damages as provided in former § 61-305. Appellants fear that such a judgment might automatically be entered because their removal from the premises might be construed as effectively conceding their lack of substantive defenses or that, even if they are still technically entitled to raise defenses, appellants’ ability to do so will be conditioned on first posting the bond. Such a result is possible only if a number of factors coalesce. First, the original moving parties, the alleged lessors, would have to decide to seek such damages from these relatively impecunious appellants. Second, the Georgia courts would have to rule that such request for damages should be adjudicated under the repealed statutes. Third, it would also be necessary for the state courts to hold that those statutes contemplated awarding double rent in the circumstances here and (see infra) on a basis that renders material the bond-posting provision.
Beyond all this, the original posture of this case has been further upset by the apparent fact that prior to moving out, and in compliance with the order of the trial court, appellants paid their rent money into the court’s registry as it became due, money that still remains on deposit there. Tr. of Oral Rearg., Nov. 18, 1970, pp. 10-11, 26.
With the case in this Court thus so reoriented, it is impossible for us to predict whether and to what extent our adjudication of the issues originally presented would now be material to any further litigation that might ensue on remand. Whether the original initiating,parties will seek double damages is a matter wholly beyond the control of this, or any other, court. Whether the existence of funds in the registry of the trial court will necessitate an adversary proceeding to redistribute them and, if so, whether that proceeding would be governed by the repealed statutes which, on their face, do not even remotely speak to this problem, are matters of pure conjecture. Because the former statutes provided for double damages only where “the issue . . . [is] determined against the tenant” (former § 61-305) and provided for joinder of issue only where a double-rent bond had first been posted (former §§ 61-303, 61-304), we are quite unable to say whether the Georgia courts would nevertheless hold this language sufficiently elastic to permit a claim for double damages where eviction was arrested by court order rather than a bond, yet insufficiently flexible to permit simultaneous waiver of the bond-posting requirement before adjudication of such a claim. Nor can we predict whether and to what extent repeal of the former statutory scheme would, on remand, be held to alter any of the conclusions respecting it which the Georgia courts might otherwise adopt in this context. All these issues, so far as it appears, would be matters of first impression for the Georgia judiciary.
IV
Given this imponderable legal tangle, involving, as it does, purely matters of state law, we perceive no other responsible course for this Court than to decline, at this stage, to adjudicate the issues originally presented. We do not rest this conclusion on a determination that the case is moot. Conceivably, appellants may on remand be subjected to the double-rent or bond-posting requirements of the former statutes. But it has always been a matter of fundamental principle with this Court, a principle dictated by our very institutional nature and constitutional obligations, that we exercise our powers of judicial review only as a matter of necessity. As said in United States v. Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1, 5 (1947), “We have consistently refrained from passing on the constitutionality of a statute until a case involving it has reached a stage where the decision of a precise constitutional issue is a necessity.” Manifestly, it cannot plausibly be maintained that this is such a case. Indeed, the only thing that is now apparent about this lawsuit is that the clear-cut constitutional issues it formerly presented cannot with any certainty be said to be relevant to the issues remaining in it, if, in fact, any issues do remain.
Moreover, even were the constitutional issues certain to arise below we cannot foretell the context in which they will appear. Possibly the double-rent provision will be successfully invoked, but not the bond-posting requirement. Similarly, if the latter is held applicable, we would at this stage be required to adjudicate, in advance of that fact, its validity as a precondition not to resisting summary eviction, which is its normal and clearly intended use, but to contesting a claim for damages only. The operative competing constitutional considerations, particularly the nature and scope of the State’s interest in imposing such a barrier to litigation, may well be significantly different depending on the principal purposes for which the bond is required. Yet, given the debilitated state of this lawsuit, we could address only the subsidiary problem — and this in a legal context where we would not know whether that problem will ever arise.
The principle of prudent restraint we invoke today is nothing new, although, happily, it has not frequently proved necessary to dispose of appeals on this basis. United States v. Fruehauf, 365 U. S. 146 (1961), provides an apt analogy. There the United States had appealed the dismissal of an indictment brought under § 302 (a) of the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 157, which made it unlawful “for any employer to pay or deliver, or to agree to pay or deliver, any money or other thing of value to any representative of any of his employees,” where the lower court had construed a Government pretrial memorandum as a concession that the transaction forming the basis of the indictment was a loan and held that the statute did not penalize management for loaning money to union officials. This Court noted probable jurisdiction to consider the validity of this construction of the statute, but after oral argument the Solicitor General represented to the Court that he felt the Government was free, on remand, to prove the transaction came within the statute because its particular facts revealed this was not a bona fide loan. This occurrence left the precise issue to be decided so opaque and the extent to which a decision would resolve the controversy so uncertain that the Court, in effect, was being asked to render an “advance expression of legal judgment upon issues which remain unfocused,” 365 U. S., at 157. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case without further adjudication.
In the case now before us subsequent events have produced similar consequences. The focus of this lawsuit has been completely blurred, if not altogether obliterated, and our judgment on the important issues involved is potentially immaterial. Indeed, the instant case is obviously more compelling than Fruehauf, since this one presents an issue of constitutional, not statutory, interpretation.
Similarly, in Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 331 U. S. 549 (1947), the Court declined to adjudicate an appeal presenting important constitutional issues because those issues were, on close inspection, so intertwined with complex problems of construing the Los Angeles Municipal Code that it was not possible to tell with precision at that stage in what context and to what extent the appellants’ freedom was being restrained. So, here, we do not know, assuming the bond-posting or double-damages provisions ultimately are successfully invoked, in what context this will occur, or what the precise rationale for applying them will be.
In short, resolution by this Court at this time, of the issues originally raised by appellants would not be appropriate. We leave ourselves completely free, of course, to review these issues should appellants’ fears that they will be adversely affected by the repealed statutes subsequently be confirmed by proceedings in the Georgia courts.
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed and the case remanded to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the judgment of the Court dismissing this appeal but does so specifically on the ground that the case is now moot.
Mrs. Sanks intended to contest the dispossessory warrant on the ground that she is not, in fact, the tenant of the person seeking to evict her. App. 5.
Georgia has a statutory policy disapproving the retroactive application of new statutes. Ga. Code Ann. § 102-104 (1968). However, the statute expressly distinguishes “[l]aws looking only to the remedy or mode of trial.” Conceivably, this case might be held to fall within that exception. Moreover, we cannot foretell whether a subsequent motion for double damages would be treated as, in effect, a new lawsuit filed well after passage of the new Act.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this appeal, we decide whether state courts, consistent with the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act, 10 U. S. C. § 1408 (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (Former Spouses’ Protection Act or Act), may treat as property divisible upon divorce military retirement pay waived by the retiree in order to receive veterans’ disability benefits. We hold that they may not.
I
A
Members of the Armed Forces who serve for a specified period, generally at least 20 years, may retire with retired pay. 10 U. S. C. §3911 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (Army); § 6321 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (Navy and Marine Corps); §8911 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (Air Force). The amount of retirement pay a veteran is eligible to receive is calculated according to the number of years served and the rank achieved. §§3926 and 3991 (Army); §§6325-6327 (Navy and Marine Corps); § 8929 (Air Force). Veterans who became disabled as a result of military service are eligible for disability benefits. 38 U. S. C. §310 (wartime disability); § 331 (peacetime disability). The amount of disability benefits a veteran is eligible to receive is calculated according to the seriousness of the disability and the degree to which the veteran’s ability to earn a living has been impaired. §§314 and 355.
In order to prevent double dipping, a military retiree may receive disability benefits only to the extent that he waives a corresponding amount of his military retirement pay. §3105. Because disability benefits are exempt from federal, state, and local taxation, § 3101(a), military retirees who waive their retirement pay in favor of disability benefits increase their after-tax income. Not surprisingly, waivers of retirement pay are common.
California, like several other States, treats property acquired during marriage as community property. When a couple divorces, a state court divides community property equally between the spouses while each spouse retains full ownership of any separate property. See Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 4800(a) (West 1983 and Supp. 1989). California treats military retirement payments as community property to the extent they derive from military service performed during the marriage. See, e. g., Casas v. Thompson, 42 Cal. 3d 131, 139, 720 P. 2d 921, 925, cert. denied, 479 U. S. 1012 (1986).
In McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U. S. 210 (1981), we held that the federal statutes then governing military retirement pay prevented state courts from treating military retirement pay as community property. We concluded that treating such pay as community property would do clear damage to important military personnel objectives. Id,., at 232-235. We reasoned that Congress intended that military retirement pay reach the veteran and no one else. Id., at 228. In reaching this conclusion, we relied particularly on Congress’ refusal to pass legislation that would have allowed former spouses to garnish military retirement pay to satisfy property settlements. Id., at 228-232. Finally, noting the distressed plight of many former spouses of military members, we observed that Congress was free to change the statutory framework. Id., at 235-236.
In direct response to McCarty, Congress enacted the Former Spouses’ Protection Act, which authorizes state courts to treat “disposable retired or retainer pay” as community property. 10 U. S. C. § 1408(c)(1). “‘Disposable retired or retainer pay’” is defined as “the total monthly retired or retainer pay to which a military member is entitled,” minus certain deductions. § 1408(a)(4) (1982 ed. and Supp. V). Among the amounts required to be deducted from total pay are any amounts waived in order to receive disability benefits. § 1408(a)(4)(B).
The Act also creates a payments mechanism under which the Federal Government will make direct payments to a former spouse who presents, to the Secretary of the relevant military service, a state-court order granting her a portion of the military retiree’s disposable retired or retainer pay. This direct payments mechanism is limited in two ways. § 1408(d). First, only a former spouse who was married to a military member “for a period of 10 years or more during which the member performed at least 10 years of service creditable in determining the member’s eligibility for retired or retainer pay,” § 1408(d)(2), is eligible to receive direct community property payments. Second, the Federal Government will not make community property payments that exceed 50 percent of disposable retired or retainer pay. § 1408(e)(1).
B
Appellant Gerald E. Mansell and appellee Gaye M. Mansell were married for 23 years and are the parents of six children. Their marriage ended in 1979 with a divorce decree from the Merced County, California, Superior Court. At that time, Major Mansell received both Air Force retirement pay and, pursuant to a waiver of a portion of that pay, disability benefits. Mrs. Mansell and Major Mansell entered into a property settlement which provided, in part, that Major Mansell would pay Mrs. Mansell 50 percent of his total military retirement pay, including that portion of retirement pay waived so that Major Mansell could receive disability benefits. Civ. No. 55594 (May 29, 1979). In 1983, Major Mansell asked the Superior Court to modify the divorce decree by removing the provision that required him to share his total retirement pay with Mrs. Mansell. The Superior Court denied Major Mansell’s request without opinion.
Major Mansell appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, arguing that both the Former Spouses’ Protection Act and the anti-attachment clause that protects a veteran’s receipt of disability benefits, 38 U. S. C. § 3101(a) (1982 ed. and Supp. IV), precluded the Superior Court from treating military retirement pay that had been waived to receive disability benefits as community property. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Casas v. Thompson, supra, the Court of Appeal rejected that portion of Major Mansell’s argument based on the Former Spouses’ Protection Act. 5 Civ. No. F002872 (Jan. 30, 1987). Casas held that after the passage of the Former Spouses’ Protection Act, federal law no longer pre-empted state community property law as it applies to military retirement pay. The Casas court reasoned that the Act did not limit a state court’s ability to treat total military retirement pay as community property and to enforce a former spouse’s rights to such pay through remedies other than direct payments from the Federal Government. 42 Cal. 3d, at 143-151, 720 P. 2d, at 928-933. The Court of Appeal did not discuss the anti-attachment clause, 38 U. S. C. § 3101(a). The Supreme Court of California denied Major Mansell’s petition for review.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 487 U. S. 1217 (1988), and now reverse.
II
Because domestic relations are preeminently matters of state law, we have consistently recognized that Congress, when it passes general legislation, rarely intends to displace state authority in this area. See, e. g., Rose v. Rose, 481 U. S. 619, 628 (1987); Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S. 572, 581 (1979). Thus we have held that we will not find pre-emption absent evidence that it is “‘positively required by direct enactment.’” Hisquierdo, supra, at 581 (quoting Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U. S. 68, 77 (1904)). The instant case, however, presents one of those rare instances where Congress has directly and specifically legislated in the area of domestic relations.
It is clear from both the language of the Former Spouses’ Protection Act, see, e. g., § 1408(c)(1), and its legislative history, see, e. g., H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-749, p. 165 (1982); S. Rep. No. 97-502, pp. 1-3, 16 (1982), that Congress sought to change the legal landscape created by the McCarty decision. Because pre-existing federal law, as construed by this Court, completely pre-empted the application of state community property law to military retirement pay, Congress could overcome the McCarty decision only by enacting an affirmative grant of authority giving the States the power to treat military retirement pay as community property. Cf. Midlantic Nat. Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 474 U. S. 494, 501 (1986).
The appellant and appellee differ sharply on the scope of-Congress’ modification of McCarty. Mrs. Mansell views the Former Spouses’ Protection Act as a complete congressional rejection of McCarty's holding that state law is pre-empted; she reads the Act as restoring to state courts all pre-McCarty authority. Major Mansell, supported by the United States, argues that the Former Spouses’ Protection Act is only a partial rejection of the McCarty rule that federal law pre-empts state law regarding military retirement pay.
Where, as here, the question is one of statutory construction, we begin with the language of the statute. See, e. g., Blum v. Stenson, 465 U. S. 886, 896 (1984); Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). Mrs. Mansell’s argument faces a formidable obstacle in the language of the Former Spouses’ Protection Act. Section 1408(c)(1) of the Act affirmatively grants state courts the power to divide military retirement pay, yet its language is both precise and limited. It provides that “a court may treat disposable retired or retainer pay . . . either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and his spouse in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of such court.” § 1408(c)(1). The Act’s definitional section specifically defines the term “disposable retired or retainer pay” to exclude, inter alia, military retirement pay waived in order to receive veterans’ disability payments. § 1408(a) (4)(B). Thus, under the Act’s plain and precise language, state courts have been granted the authority to treat disposable retired pay as community property; they have not been granted the authority to treat total retired pay as community property.
Mrs. Mansell attempts to overcome the limiting language contained in the definition, § 1408(a)(4)(B), by reading the Act as a garnishment statute designed solely to set out the circumstances under which, pursuant to a court order, the Federal Government will make direct payments to a former spouse. According to this view, § 1408(a)(4)(B) defines “[disposable retired or retainer pay” only because payments under the federal direct payments mechanism are limited to amounts defined by that term.
The garnishment argument relies heavily on the Act’s saving clause. That clause provides:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve a member of liability for the payment of alimony, child support, or other payments required by a court order on the grounds that payments made out of disposable retired or retainer pay under this section have been made in the maximum amount permitted under [the direct payments mechanism]. Any such unsatisfied obligation of a member may be enforced by any means available under law other than the means provided under this section in any case in which the maximum amount permitted under . . . [the direct payments mechanism] has been paid.” § 1408(e)(6) (emphasis added).
Mrs. Mansell argues that, because the saving clause expressly contemplates “other payments” in excess of those made under the direct payments mechanism, the Act does not “attempt to tell the state courts what they may or may not do with the underlying property.” Brief for Appellee 17. For the reasons discussed below, we find a different interpretation more plausible. In our view, the saving clause serves the limited purpose of defeating any inference that the federal direct payments mechanism displaced the authority of state courts to divide and garnish property not covered by the mechanism. Cf. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S., at 584 (to prohibit garnishment is to prohibit division of property); Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U. S. 655 (1950) (same).
First, the most serious flaw in the garnishment argument is that it completely ignores § 1408(c)(1). Mrs. Mansell provides no explanation for the fact that the defined term — “disposable retired or retainer pay” — is used in § 1408(c)(1) to limit specifically and plainly the extent to which state courts may treat military retirement pay as community property.
Second, the view that the Act is solely a garnishment statute and therefore not intended to pre-empt the authority of state courts is contradicted not only by § 1408(c)(1), but also by the other subsections of § 1408(c). Sections 1408(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) impose new substantive limits on state courts’ power to divide military retirement pay. Section 1408(c)(2) prevents a former spouse from transferring, selling, or otherwise disposing of her community interest in the military retirement pay. Section 1408(c)(3) provides that a state court cannot order a military member to retire so that the former spouse can immediately begin receiving her portion of military retirement pay. And § 1408(c)(4) prevents spouses from forum shopping for a State with favorable divorce laws. Because each of these provisions pre-empts state law, the argument that the Act has no pre-emptive effect of its own must fail. Significantly, Congress placed each of these substantive restrictions on state courts in the same section of the Act as § 1408(c)(1). We think it unlikely that every subsection of § 1408(c), except § 1408(c)(1), was intended to pre-empt state law.
In the face of such plain and precise statutory language, Mrs. Mansell faces a daunting standard. She cannot prevail without clear evidence that reading the language literally would thwart the obvious purposes of the Act. See, e. g., Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U. S. 631, 643 (1978). The legislative history does not indicate the reason for Congress’ decision to shelter from community property law that portion of military retirement pay waived to receive veterans’ disability payments. But the absence of legislative history on this decision is immaterial in light of the plain and precise language of the statute; Congress is not required to build a record in the legislative history to defend its policy choices.
Because of the absence of evidence of specific intent in the legislative history, Mrs. Mansell resorts to arguments about the broad purposes of the Act. But this reliance is misplaced because, at this general level, there are statements that both contradict and support her arguments. Her argument that the Act contemplates no federal pre-emption is supported by statements in the Senate Report and the House Conference Report that the purpose of the Act is to overcome the McCarty decision and to restore power to the States. But the Senate Report and the House Conference Report also contain statements indicating that Congress rejected the uncomplicated option of removing all federal pre-emption and returning unlimited authority to the States. Indeed, a bill that would have eliminated all federal pre-emption died in the Senate Committee. Her argument that Congress primarily intended to protect former spouses is supported by evidence that Members of Congress were moved by, and responding to, the distressed economic plight of military wives after a divorce. But the Senate Report and the House debates contain statements which reveal that Congress was concerned as well with protecting the interests of military members.
Thus, the legislative history, read as a whole, indicates that Congress intended both to create new benefits for former spouses and to place limits on state courts designed to protect military retirees. Our' task is to interpret the statute as best' we can, not to second-guess the wisdom of the congressional policy choice. See, e. g., Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U. S. 522, 526 (1987) (per curiam) (“Deciding what competing values will or will not be sacrificed to the achievement of a particular objective is the very essence of legislative choice”). Given Congress’ mixed purposes, the legislative history does not clearly support Mrs. Mansell’s view that giving effect to the plain and precise language of the statute would thwart the obvious purposes of the Act.
We realize that reading the statute literally may inflict economic harm on many former spouses. But we decline to misread the statute in order to reach a sympathetic result when such a reading requires us to do violence to the plain language of the statute and to ignore much of the legislative history. Congress chose the language that requires us to decide as we do, and Congress is free to change it.
Ill
For the reasons stated above, we hold that the Former Spouses’ Protection Act does not grant state courts the power to treat as property divisible upon divorce military retirement pay that has been waived to receive veterans’ disability benefits. The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is hereby reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
For example, if a military retiree is eligible for $1500 a month in retirement pay and $500 a month in disability benefits, he must waive $500 of retirement pay before he can receive any disability benefits.
The language of the Act covers both community property and equitable distribution States, as does our decision today. Because this case concerns a community property State, for the sake of simplicity we refer to § 1408(e)(1) as authorizing state courts to treat “disposable retired or retainer pay” as community property.
Also deducted from total military retirement pay are amounts: (a) owed by the military member to the United States; (b) required by law to be deducted from total pay, including employment taxes, and fines and forfeitures ordered by courts-martial; (c) properly deducted for federal, state, and local income taxes; (d) withheld pursuant to other provisions under the Internal Revenue Code; (e) equal to the amount of retired pay of a member retired for physical disability; and (f) deducted to create an annuity for the former spouse. 10 U. S. C. §§ 1408(a)(4)(A)-(F) (1982 ed. and Supp. V).
That clause provides that veterans’ benefits “shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law, and . . . shall be exempt from the claim[s] of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the [veteran].” 38 U. S. C. § 3101(a) (1982 ed. and Supp. V).
In a supplemental brief, Mrs. Mansell argues that the doctrine of res judicata should have prevented this pre-McCarty property settlement from being reopened. McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U. S. 210 (1981). The California Court of Appeal, however, decided that it was appropriate, under California law, to reopen the settlement and reach the federal question. 5 Civ. No. F002872 (Jan. 30, 1987). Whether the doctrine of res judicata, as applied in California, should have barred the reopening of preMcCarty settlements is a matter of state law over which we have no jurisr diction. The federal question is therefore properly before us.
Because we decide that the Former Spouses’ Protection Act precludes States from treating as community property retirement pay waived to receive veterans’ disability benefits, we need not decide whether the anti-attachment clause, § 3101(a), independently protects such pay. See, e. g., Rose v. Rose, 481 U. S. 619 (1987); Wissver v. Wissner, 338 U. S. 655 (1950).
Congress also demonstrated its focus on McCarty when it chose June 25, 1981, the day before McCarty was decided, as the applicable date for some of the Act’s provisions. 10 U. S. C. § 1408(c)(1); see also note following § 1408, Pub. L. 97-252, § 1006(b) (transition provisions).
Although the United States has filed an amicus brief supporting Major Mansell, its initial amiciis brief, filed before the Court noted jurisdiction, supported Mrs. Mansell.
The statute provides in pertinent part:
“ ‘Disposable retired or retainer pay’ means the total monthly retired or retainer pay to which a member is entitled . . . less amounts which—
“(B) are required by law to be and are deducted from the retired or retainer pay of such member, including fines and forfeitures ordered by courts-martials, Federal employment taxes, and amounts waived in order to receive compensation under title 5 or title 38 [disability payments].” § 1408(a)(4)(B).
The Senate Report expressly contemplates that § 1408(c)(2) will preempt state law. S. Rep. No. 97-502, p. 16 (1982).
There was some concern expressed at the Senate hearings on the Act that state courts could direct a military member to retire. See, e. g., Hearings before the Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 132-133 (1982) (Sen. Exon); id., at 70-71 (veterans’ group); id., at 184 (Air Force). Thus the Senate version of the bill contained 8 1408(c)(3) in order to ensure that state courts did not have such power, S. Rep. No. 97-502, supra, at 17, and at conference the House agreed to add the provision. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-749, p. 167 (1982).
A state court may not treat disposable retirement pay as community property unless it has jurisdiction over the military member by reason of (1) residence, other than by military assignment in the territorial jurisdiction of the court, (2) domicile, or (3) consent. 8 1408(c)(4). Although the Senate Committee had decided not to include any forum shopping restrictions, seeing “no need to limit the jurisdiction of the State courts by restricting the benefits afforded by this bill . . . ,” S. Rep. No. 97-502, supra, at 9, the House version of the bill contained the restrictions, and at conference, the Senate agreed to add them. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-749, supra, at 167.
That Congress intended the substantive limits in 81408(c)(1) to be, to some extent, distinct from the limits on the direct payments mechanism contained in 8 1408(d) is demonstrated by the legislative compromise that resulted in the direct payments mechanism being available only to former spouses who had been married to the military retiree for 10 years or more. 8 1408(d)(2). Under the House version of the bill, military retirement pay could be treated as community property only if the couple had been married for 10 years or more. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-749, supra, at 165. The Senate Committee had considered, but rejected, such a provision. S. Rep. No. 97-502, supra, at 9-11. The conferees agreed to remove the House restriction. Instead, they limited the federal direct payments mechanism to marriages that had lasted 10 years or more. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-749, supra, at 166-167. Under this compromise, state courts have been granted the authority to award a portion of disposable military retired pay to former spouses who were married to the military member for less than 10 years, but such former spouses may not take advantage of the direct payments mechanism.
The only reference to the definitional section is contained in the Senate Report which states that the deductions from total retired pay, including retirement pay waived in favor of veterans’ disability payments, “generally parallel those existing deductions which may be made from the pay of Federal employees and military personnel before such pay is subject to garnishment for alimony or child support payments under section 459 of the Social Security Act. (42 U. S. C. 659).” S. Rep. No. 97-502, supra, at 14. This statement, however, describes the defined term in § 1408(a)(4). It is not helpful in determining why Congress chose to use the defined term — “disposable retired or retainer pay” — to limit state-court authority in § 1408(c)(1).
See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 97-502, supra, at 1 (“The primary purpose of the bill is to remove the effect of the United States Supreme Court decision in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U. S. 210 (1981). The bill would accomplish this objective by permitting Federal, State, and certain other courts, con-' sistent with the appropriate laws, to once again consider military retired pay when fixing the property rights between the parties to a divorce, dissolution, annulment or legal separation”). See also id., at 5 and 16; H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-749, supra, at 165.
H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-749, supra, at 165 (“The House amendment would permit disposable military retired pay to be considered as property in divorce settlements under certain specified conditions”) (emphasis added); ibid. (“The House Amendment contained several provisions that would place restrictions on the division of retired pay”); S. Rep. No. 97-502, supra, at 4 (“[Senate] 1814 imposes three distinct limits on the division or enforcement of court orders against military retired pay in divorce cases”) (emphasis added).
Entitled “Nonpreemption of State law” the bill provided that “[f]or purposes of division of marital property of any member or former member of the armed forces upon dissolution of such member’s marriage, the law of the State in which the dissolution of marriage proceeding was instituted shall be dispositive on all matters pertaining to the division of any retired, retirement, or retainer pay to which such member or former member is entitled or will become entitled.” S. 1453, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).
The Senate Committee pointed out that “frequent change-of-station moves and the special pressures placed on the military spouse as a homemaker make it extremely difficult to pursue a career affording economic security, job skills and pension protection.” S. Rep. No. 97-502, supra, at 6. The language of the Act, and much of its legislative history, is written in gender neutral terms, and there is no doubt that the Act applies equally to both former husbands and former wives. But “it is quite evident from the legislative history that Congress acted largely in response to the plight of the military wife.” Horkovich, Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act: Congress’ Answer to McCarty v. McCarty Goes Beyond the Fundamental Question, 23 Air Force L. Rev. 287, 308 (1982-1983) (emphasis in original).
See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 97-502, supra, at 7 (“All agreed that some form of remedial legislation which is fair and equitable to both spouses was necessary to provide a solution to the McCarty decision”); see also id., at 11; nn. 10, 11, 12, and 16, 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.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants are graduates of schools of chiropractic who seek to practice in Louisiana without complying with the educational requirements of the Louisiana Medical Practice Act, Title 37, La. Rev. Stat. §§ 1261-1290. They brought this action against respondent Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking an injunction and a declaration that, as applied to them, the Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment. A statutory three-judge court invoked, sua sponte, the doctrine of abstention, on the ground that “The state court might effectively end this controversy by a determination that chiropractors are not governed by the statute,” and entered an order “staying further proceedings in this Court until the courts of the State of Louisiana shall have been afforded an opportunity to determine the issues here presented, and retaining jurisdiction to take such steps as may be necessary for the just disposition of the litigation should anything prevent a prompt state court determination.” 180 F. Supp. 121, 124.
Appellants thereupon brought proceedings in the Louisiana courts. They did not restrict those proceedings to the question whether the Medical Practice Act applied to chiropractors. They unreservedly submitted for decision, and briefed and argued, their contention that the Act, if applicable to chiropractors, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The state proceedings terminated with a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court declining to review an intermediate appellate court’s holding both that the Medical Practice Act applied to chiropractors and that, as so applied, it did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. 126 So. 2d 51.
Appellants then returned to the District Court, where they were met with a motion by appellees to dismiss the federal action. This motion was granted, on the ground that “since the courts of Louisiana have passed on all issues raised, including the claims of deprivation under the Federal Constitution, this court, having no power to review those proceedings, must dismiss the complaint. The proper remedy was by appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.” The court saw the case as illustrating “the dilemma of a litigant who has invoked the jurisdiction of a federal court to assert a claimed constitutional right and finds himself remitted to the state tribunals.” The dilemma, said the court, was that “On the one hand, in view of Government & Civic Employees Organizing Committee v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364, ... he dare not restrict his state court case to local law issues. On the other, if, as required by Windsor, he raises the federal questions there, well established principles will bar a relitigation of those issues in the United States District Court. . . . Since, in the usual case, no question not already passed on by the state courts will remain, he is thereby effectively deprived of a federal forum for the adjudication of his federal claims.” 194 F. Supp. 521, 522. Appellants appealed directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 372 U. S. 904. We reverse and remand to the District Court for decision on the merits of appellants’ Fourteenth Amendment claims.
There are fundamental objections to any conclusion that a litigant who has properly invoked the jurisdiction of a Federal District Court to consider federal constitutional claims can be' compelled, without his consent and through no fault of his own, to accept instead a state court’s determination of those claims. Such a result would be at war with the unqualified terms in which Congress, pursuant to constitutional authorization, has conferred specific categories of jurisdiction upon the federal courts, and with the principle that “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. Nor does anything in the abstention doctrine require or support such a result. Abstention is a judge-fashioned vehicle for according appropriate deference to the “respective competence of the state and federal court systems.” Louisiana P. & L. Co. v. Thibodaux, 360 U. S. 25, 29. Its recognition of the role of state courts as the final expositors of state law implies no disregard for the primacy of the federal judiciary in deciding questions of federal law. Accordingly, we have on several occasions explicitly recognized that abstention “does not, of course, involve the abdication of federal jurisdiction, but only the postponement of its exercise.” Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167, 177; accord, Louisiana P. & L. Co. v. Thibodaux, supra, 360 U. S., at 29.
It is true that, after a post-abstention determination and rejection of his federal claims by the state courts, a litigant could seek direct review in this Court. NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415; Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U. S. 45. But such review, even when available by appeal rather than only by discretionary writ of certiorari, is an inadequate substitute for the initial District Court determination — often by three judges, 28 U. S. C. § 2281 — to which the litigant is entitled in the federal courts. This is true as to issues of law; it is especially true as to issues of fact. Limiting the litigant to review here would deny him the benefit of a federal trial court’s role in constructing a record and making fact findings. How the facts are found will often dictate the decision of federal claims. “It is the typical, not the rare, case in which constitutional claims turn upon the resolution of contested factual issues.” Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 312. “There is always in litigation a margin of error, representing error in factfind-ing ....” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 525. Thus in cases where, but for the application of the abstention doctrine, the primary fact determination would have been by the District Court, a litigant may not be unwillingly deprived of that determination. The possibility of appellate review by this Court of a state court determination may not be substituted, against a party’s wishes, for his right to litigate his federal claims fully in the federal courts. We made this clear only last Term in NAACP v. Button, supra, 371 U. S., at 427, when we said that “a party has the right to return to the District Court, after obtaining the authoritative state court construction for which the court abstained, for a final determination of his claim.”
We also made clear in Button, however, that a party may elect to forgo that right. Our holding in that case was that a judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upon federal issues submitted to the state tribunals by parties remitted there under the abstention doctrine was “final” for purposes of our review under 28 U. S. C. § 1257. In so determining, we held that the petitioner had elected “to seek a complete and final adjudication of [its] rights in the state courts” and thus not to return to the District Court, and that it had manifested this election “by seeking from the Richmond Circuit Court ‘a binding adjudication’ of all its claims and a permanent injunction as well as declaratory relief, by making no reservation to the disposition of the entire case by the state courts, and by coming here directly on certio-rari.” 371 U. S., at 427-428. We fashioned the rule recognizing such an election because we saw no inconsistency with the abstention doctrine in allowing a litigant to decide, once the federal court has abstained and compelled him to proceed in the state courts in any event, to abandon his original choice of a federal forum and submit his entire case to the state courts, relying on the opportunity to come here directly if the state decision on his federal claims should go against him. Such a choice by a litigant serves to avoid much of the delay and expense to which application of the abstention doctrine inevitably gives rise; when the choice is voluntarily made, we see no reason why it should not be given effect.
In Button, we had no need to determine what steps, if any, short of those taken by the petitioner there would suffice to manifest the election. The instant case, where appellants did not attempt to come directly to this Court but sought to return to the District Court, requires such a determination. The line drawn should be bright and clear, so that litigants shunted from federal to state courts by application of the abstention doctrine will not be exposed, not only to unusual expense and delay, but also to procedural traps operating to deprive them of their right to a District Court determination of their federal claims. It might be argued that nothing short of what was done in Button should suffice — that a litigant should retain the right to return to the District Court unless he not only litigates his federal claims in the state tribunals but seeks review of the state decision in this Court. But we see no reason why a party, after unreservedly litigating his federal claims in the state courts although not required to do so, should be allowed to ignore the adverse state decision and start all over again in the District Court. Such a rule would not only countenance an unnecessary increase in the length and cost of the litigation; it would also be a potential source of friction between the state and federal judiciaries. We implicitly rejected such a rule in Button, when we stated that a party elects to forgo his right to return to the District Court by a decision “to seek a complete and final adjudication of his rights in the state courts.” We now explicitly hold that if a party freely and without reservation submits his federal claims for decision by the state courts, litigates them there, and has them decided there, then — whether or not he seeks direct review of the state decision in this Court — he has elected to forgo his right to return to the District Court.
This rule requires clarification of our decision in Government Employees v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364, the case referred to by the District Court. The plaintiffs in Windsor had submitted to the state courts only the question whether the state statute they challenged applied to them, and had not “advanced” or “presented” to those courts their contentions against the statute’s constitutionality. We held that “the bare adjudication by the Alabama Supreme Court that the [appellant] union is subject to this Act does not suffice, since that court was not asked to interpret the statute in light of the constitutional objections presented to the District Court. If appellants’ freedom-of-expression and equal-protection arguments had been presented to the state court, it might have construed the statute in a different manner.” 353 U. S., at 366. On oral argument in the instant case, we were advised that appellants’ submission of their federal claims to the state ¡courts had been motivated primarily by a belief that Windsor required this. The District Court likewise thought that under Windsor a party is required to litigate his federal question in the state courts and “dare not restrict his state court case to local law issues.” 194 F. Supp., at 522. Others have read Windsor the same way. It should not be so read. The case does not mean that a party must litigate his federal claims in the state courts, but only that he must inform those courts what his federal claims are, so that the state statute may be construed “in light of” those claims. See Note, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1358, 1364-1365 (1960). Thus mere compliance with Windsor will not support a conclusion, much less create a presumption, that a litigant has freely and without reservation litigated his federal claims in the state courts and so elected not to return to the District Court.
We recognize that in the heat of litigation a party may find it difficult to avoid doing more than is required by Windsor. This would be particularly true in the typical case, such as the instant one, where the state courts are asked to construe a state statute against the backdrop of a federal constitutional challenge. The litigant denying the statute’s applicability may be led not merely to state his federal constitutional claim but to argue it, for if he can persuade the state court that application of the statute to him would offend the Federal Constitution, he will ordinarily have persuaded it that the statute should not be construed as applicable to him. In addition, the parties cannot prevent the state court from rendering a decision on the federal question if it chooses to do so; and even if such a decision is not explicit, a holding that the statute is applicable may arguably imply, in view of the constitutional objections to such a construction, that the court considers the constitutional challenge to be without merit.
Despite these uncertainties arising from application of Windsor — which decision, we repeat, does not require that federal claims be actually litigated in the state courts — a party may readily forestall any conclusion that he has elected not to return to the District Court. He may accomplish this by making on the state record the “reservation to the disposition of the entire case by the state courts” that we referred to in Button. That is, he may inform the state courts that he is exposing his federal claims there only for the purpose of complying with Windsor, and that he intends, should the state courts hold against him on the question of state law, to return to the District Court for disposition of his federal contentions. Such an explicit reservation is not indispensable; the litigant is in no event to be denied his right to return to the District Court unless it clearly appears that he voluntarily did more than Windsor required and fully litigated his federal claims in the state courts. When the reservation has been made, however, his right to return will in all events be preserved.
On the record in the instant case, the rule we announce today would call for affirmance of the District Court’s judgment. But we are unwilling to apply the rule against these appellants. As we have noted, their primary reason for litigating their federal claims in the state courts was assertedly a view that Windsor required them to do so. That view was mistaken, and will not avail other litigants who rely upon it after today’s decision. But we cannot say, in the face of the support given the view by respectable authorities, including the court below, that appellants were unreasonable in holding it or acting upon it. We therefore hold that the District Court should not have dismissed their action. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The action was brought in 1957. The District Court initially dismissed the complaint on the authority of Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Fife, 162 La. 681, 111 So. 58, aff’d per curiam, 274 U. S. 720. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, 259 F. 2d 626, on petition for rehearing, 263 F. 2d 661. We denied certiorari, 359 U. S. 1012. On remand the three-judge District Court was convened.
Appellants did not challenge the order of abstention by appeal here. See Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U. S. 350; 28 U. S. C. § 1253. Nor do they now challenge it. Thus there is not before us any question as to either the proper scope of the abstention doctrine or the propriety of its application to this case.
Appellants’ petition in the Louisiana trial court appended a copy of the abstention order and opinion and recited that the state proceeding was brought “in pursuance of and obedience to” the abstention order. Like the complaint filed in the federal court, the petition sought both declaratory and injunctive relief. The allegations were that the Medical Practice Act was inapplicable to chiropractors and also “In the alternative, in the event the court should hold that the Medical Practice Act does apply to your plaintiffs . . . said Act is unconstitutional” because in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The petition challenged the statute’s validity under that Amendment in terms substantially identical to those in the federal court complaint. The trial court, on the basis of the same documentary evidence that had been submitted to the three-judge District Court, sustained appellees’ defense of “no cause of action.”
Appellants made no attempt to obtain appellate review of the state court decision in this Court. See Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U. S. 45; NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415; 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).
At least this is true in a ease, like the instant one, not involving the possibility of unwarranted disruption of a state administrative process. Compare Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315; Alabama Public Service Comm’n v. Southern R. Co., 341 U. S. 341.
See Kurland, Toward a Co-operative Judicial Federalism: The Federal Court Abstention Doctrine, 24 F. R. D. 481, 487.
The doctrine contemplates only “that controversies involving unsettled questions of state law [may] be decided in the state tribunals preliminary to a federal court’s consideration of the underlying federal constitutional questions,” City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U. S. 639, 640; “that decision of the federal question be deferred until the potentially controlling state-law issue is authoritatively put to rest,” United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., 369 U. S. 134, 135-136; “that federal courts do not decide questions of constitutionality on the basis of preliminary guesses regarding local law,” Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105; “that these enactments should be exposed to state construction or limiting interpretation before the federal courts are asked to decide upon their constitutionality,” Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167, 178.
Even where fact findings on federal constitutional contentions are for state tribunals to make in the first instance, as in state criminal prosecutions, they are not immune, when brought into question in federal habeas corpus, from District Court consideration and, in proper cases, from de novo consideration. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 312-319.
Cf. Wright, The Abstention Doctrine Reconsidered, 37 Tex. L. Rev. 815, 825 (1959).
One case has even permitted the litigant to return to the District Court although review was sought and denied here. See Tribune Review Publishing Co. v. Thomas, 153 F. Supp. 486, aff’d, 254 F. 2d 883, where the litigant’s federal claims were decided by the District Court following decision upon the same claims by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and denial by us of certiorari to that court’s judgment. Mack v. Pennsylvania, 386 Pa. 251,126 A. 2d 679, cert. denied, 352 U. S. 1002.
See Note, 59 Col. L. Rev. 749, 773 (1959); Note, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1358, 1364 (1960), quoting brief for appellant, p. 5, in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U. S. 45.
It has been suggested that state courts may “take no more pleasure than do federal courts in deciding cases piecemeal . . .” and “probably prefer to determine their questions of law with complete records of cases in which they can enter final judgments before them.” Clay v. Sun Ins. Office, 363 U. S. 207, 227 (dissenting opinion). We are confident that state courts, sharing the abstention doctrine’s purpose of “furthering the harmonious relation between state and federal authority,” Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 501, will respect a litigant’s reservation of his federal claims for deci- . sion by the federal courts. See Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. Walsh, 135 Conn. 37, 40-41, 61 A. 2d 89, 92. However, evidence that a party has been compelled by the state courts to litigate his federal claims there will of course preclude a finding that he has voluntarily done so. And if the state court has declined to decide the state question because of the litigant’s refusal to submit without reservation the federal question as well, the District Court will have no alternative but to vacate its order of abstention.
The reservation may be made by any party to the litigation. Usually the plaintiff will have made the original choice to litigate in the federal court, but the defendant also, by virtue of the removal jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (b), has a right to litigate the federal question there. Once issue has been joined in the federal court, no party is entitled to insist, over another’s objection, upon a binding state court determination of the federal question. Thus, while a plaintiff who unreservedly litigates his federal claims in the state courts may thereby elect to 'forgo his own right to return to the District Court, he cannot impair the corresponding right of the defendant. The latter may protect his right by either declining to oppose the plaintiff’s federal claim in the state court or opposing it with the appropriate reservation. It may well be, of course, that a refusal to litigate or a reservation by any party will deter the state court from deciding the federal question.
The District Court’s abstention order, in instructing appellants to obtain a state court determination not of the state question alone but of “the issues here presented,” was also misleading.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina dismissed petitioner’s lawsuit against Richland County (hereinafter respondent) as time barred. In doing so it held that 28 U. S. C. § 1367(d), which required the state statute of limitations to be tolled for the period during which petitioner’s cause of action had previously been pending in federal court, is unconstitutional as applied to lawsuits brought against a State’s political subdivisions. The issue before us is the validity of that constitutional determination.
HH
£>
When a federal district court has original jurisdiction over a civil cause of action, § 1867 determines whether it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other claims that do not independently come within its jurisdiction, but that form part of the same Article III “ease or controversy.” Section 1367(a) provides:
“Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.”
As the introductory clause suggests, not every claim within the same “case or controversy” as the claim within the federal courts’ original jurisdiction will be decided by the federal court; §§ 1367(b) and (c) describe situations in which a federal court may or must decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Section 1367(c), for example, states:
“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if—
“(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
“(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
“(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
“(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”
Thus, some claims asserted under § 1367(a) will be dismissed because the district court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them and, if they are to be pursued, must be refiled in state court. To prevent the limitations period on such supplemental claims from expiring while the plaintiff was fruitlessly pursuing them in federal court, § 1367(d) provides a tolling rule that must be applied by state courts:
“The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.”
B
On October 14,1994, Carl H. Jinks was arrested and jailed for failure to pay child support. Four days later, while confined at respondent’s detention center, he died of complications associated with alcohol withdrawal. In 1996, within the applicable statute of limitations, petitioner Susan Jinks, Carl Jinks’s widow, brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina against respondent, its detention center director, and its detention center physician. She asserted a cause of action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and also supplemental claims for wrongful death and survival under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. See S. C. Code Ann. §15-78-10 et seq. (West Supp. 2002). On November 20, 1997, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, and two weeks later issued an order declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1367(c)(3).
On December 18,1997, petitioner filed her wrongful-death and survival claims in state court. After the jury returned a verdict of $80,000 against respondent on the wrongful-death claim, respondent appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which reversed on the ground that petitioner’s state-law claims were time barred. Although they would not have been time barred under § 1367(d)’s tolling rule, the State Supreme Court held that § 1367(d) was unconstitutional as applied to claims brought in state court against a State’s political subdivisions, because it “interferes with the State’s sovereign authority to establish the extent to which its political subdivisions are subject to suit.” 349 S. C. 298, 304, 563 S. E. 2d 104, 107 (2002).
We granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 972 (2002).
K
>
Respondent and its amici first contend that § 1367(d) is facially invalid because it exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress. We disagree. Although the Constitution does not expressly empower Congress to toll limitations periods for state-law claims brought in state court, it does give Congress the authority “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [Congress’s Article I, §8,] Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States . . . .” Art. I,. §8, cl. 18. The enactment of § 1367(d) was not the first time Congress prescribed the alteration of a state-law limitations period; nor is this the first case in which we have ruled on its authority to do so. In Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall. 493 (1871), we upheld as constitutional a federal statute that tolled limitations periods for state-law civil and criminal cases for the time during which actions could not be prosecuted because of the Civil War. We reasoned that this law was both necessary and proper to carrying into effect the Federal Government’s war powers, because it “remedied] the evils” that had arisen from the war. “It would be a strange result if those in rebellion, by protracting the conflict, could thus rid themselves of their debts, and Congress, which had the power to wage war and suppress the insurrection, had no power to remedy such an evil, which is one of its consequences.” Id., at 507.
Of course § 1367(d) has nothing to do with the war power. We agree with petitioner and intervenor United States, however, that § 1367(d) is necessary and proper for carrying into execution Congress’s power “[t]o constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court,” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 9, and to assure that those tribunals may fairly and efficiently exercise “[t]he judicial Power of the United States,” Art. III, §1. As to “necessity”: The federal courts can assuredly exist and function in the absence of § 1367(d), but we long ago rejected the view that the Necessary and Proper Clause demands that an Act of Congress be “‘absolutely necessary’ ” to the exercise of an enumerated power. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 414-415 (1819). Rather, it suffices that § 1367(d) is “conducive to the due administration of justice” in federal court, and is “plainly adapted” to that end, id., at 417, 421. Section 1367(d) is conducive to the administration of justice because it provides an alternative to the unsatisfactory options that federal judges faced when they decided whether to retain jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims that might be time barred in state court. In the pre-§ 1367(d) world, they had three basic choices: First, they could condition dismissal of the state-law claim on the defendant’s waiver of any statute-of-limitations defense in state court. See, e. g., Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F. 2d 645, 657 (CA7 1985); Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F. 2d 768, 778 (CADC 1982). That waiver could be refused, however, in which case one of the remaining two choices would have to be pursued. Second, they could retain jurisdiction over the state-law claim even though it would more appropriately be heard in state court. See Newman v. Burgin, 930 F. 2d 955, 963-964 (CA1 1991) (collecting cases). That would produce an obvious frustration of statutory policy. And third, they could dismiss the state-law claim but allow the plaintiff to reopen the federal case if the state court later held the claim to be time barred. See, e. g., Rheaume v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety, 666 F. 2d 925, 932 (CA5 1982). That was obviously inefficient. By providing a straightforward tolling rule in place of this regime, § 1367(d) unquestionably promotes fair and efficient operation of the federal courts and is therefore conducive to the administration of justice.
And it is conducive to the administration of justice for another reason: It eliminates a serious impediment to access to the federal courts on the part of plaintiffs pursuing federal- and state-law claims that “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715, 725 (1966). Prior to enactment of § 1367(d), they had the following unattractive options: (1) They could file a single federal-court action, which would rim the risk that the federal court would dismiss the state-law claims after the limitations period had expired; (2) they could file a single state-law action, which would abandon their right to a federal forum; (3) they could file separate, timely actions in federal and state court and ask that the state-court litigation be stayed pending resolution of the federal case, which would increase litigation costs with no guarantee that the state court would oblige. Section 1367(d) replaces this selection of inadequate choices with the assurance that state-law claims asserted under § 1367(a) will not become time barred while pending in federal court.
We are also persuaded, and respondent does not deny, that § 1367(d) is “plainly adapted” to the power of Congress to establish the lower federal courts and provide for the fair and efficient exercise of their Article III powers. There is no suggestion by either of the parties that Congress enacted § 1367(d) as a “pretext” for “the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the [federal] government,” McCulloch, supra, at 423, nor is the connection between § 1367(d) and Congress’s authority over the federal courts so attenuated as to undermine the enumeration of powers set forth in Article I, § 8, cf. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 567-568 (1995); United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 615 (2000).
Respondent and its amici further contend, however, that § 1367(d) is not a “proper” exercise of Congress’s Article I powers because it violates principles of state sovereignty. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 923-924 (1997). Respondent views § 1367(d)’s tolling rule as a regulation of state-court “procedure,” and contends that Congress may not, consistent with the Constitution, prescribe procedural rules for state courts’ adjudication of purely state-law claims. See, e. g., Bellia, Federal Regulation of State Court Procedures, 110 Yale L. J. 947 (2001); Congressional Authority to Require State Courts to Use Certain Procedures in Products Liability Cases, 13 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 372, 373-374 (1989) (stating that “potential constitutional questions” arise when Congress “attempts to prescribe directly the state court procedures to be followed in products liability cases”). Assuming for the sake of argument that a principled dichotomy can be drawn, for purposes of determining whether an Act of Congress is “proper,” between federal laws that regulate state-court “procedure” and laws that change the “substance” of state-law rights of action, we do not think that state-law limitations periods fall into the category of “procedure” immune from congressional regulation. Respondent’s reliance on Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U. S. 717 (1988), which held a state statute of limitations to be “procedural” for purposes of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is misplaced. As we noted in that very case, the meaning of “‘substance’” and “‘procedure’” in a particular context is “largely determined by the purposes for which the dichotomy is drawn.” Id., at 726. For purposes of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), for example, statutes of limitations are treated as substantive. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99 (1945). Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall., at 506-507, provides ample support for the proposition that — if the substance-procedure dichotomy posited by respondent is valid — the tolling of limitations periods falls on the “substantive” side of the line. To sustain § 1367(d) in this case, we need not (and do not) hold that Congress has unlimited power to regulate practice and procedure in state courts.
We therefore reject respondent’s contention that § 1367(d) is facially unconstitutional.
B
Respondent next maintains that § 1367(d) should not be interpreted to apply to claims brought against a State’s political subdivisions. We find this contention also to be without merit.
The South Carolina Tort Claims Act, S. C. Code Ann. § 15-78-10 et seq. (West Supp. 2002), confers upon respondent an immunity from tort liability for any claim brought more than two years after the injury was or should have been discovered. In respondent’s view, § 1367(d)’s extension of the time period in which a State’s political subdivisions may be sued constitutes an impermissible abrogation of “sovereign immunity.” That is not so. Although we have held that Congress lacks authority under Article I to override a State’s immunity from suit in its own courts, see Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706 (1999), it may subject a municipality to suit in state court if that is done pursuant to a valid exercise of its enumerated powers, see id., at 756. Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period with respect to state-law causes of action brought against municipalities, but we see no reason why that represents a greater intrusion on “state sovereignty” than the undisputed power of Congress to override state-law immunity when subjecting a municipality to suit under a federal cause of action. In either case, a State’s authority to set the conditions upon which its political subdivisions are subject to suit in its own courts must yield to the enactments of Congress. This is not an encroachment on “state sovereignty,” but merely the consequence of those cases (which respondent does not ask us to overrule) which hold that municipalities, unlike States, do not enjoy a constitutionally protected immunity from suit.
Nor do we see any reason to construe § 1367(d) not to apply to claims brought against a State’s political subdivisions absent an “unmistakably clear” statement of the statute’s applicability to such claims. Although we held in Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U. S. 533 (2002), that § 1367(d) does not apply to claims filed in federal court against States but subsequently dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds, we did so to avoid interpreting the statute in a manner that would raise “serious constitutional doubt” in light of our decisions protecting a State’s sovereign immunity from congressional abrogation, id., at 543. As we have just explained, however, no such constitutional doubt arises from holding that petitioner’s claim against respondent — which is not a State, but a political subdivision of a State — falls under the definition of “any claim asserted under subsection (a).” § 1367(d) (emphasis added). In any event, the idea that an “unmistakably clear” statement is required before an Act of Congress may expose a local government to liability cannot possibly be reconciled with our holding in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658 (1978), that municipalities are subject to suit as “persons” under § 1983.
* * *
The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See, e. g., Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, 50 U. S. C. App. § 525 (“The period of military service shall not be included in computing any period now or hereafter to be limited by any law, regulation, or order for the bringing of any action or proceeding in any court... by or against any person in military service”); 42 U. S. C. § 9658(a)(1) (“In the case of any action brought under State law for personal injury, or property damages, which are caused or contributed to by exposure to any hazardous substance, or pollutant or contaminant, released into the environment from a facility, if the applicable limitations period for such action (as specified in the State statute of limitations or under common law) provides a commencement date which is earlier than the federally required commencement date, such period shall commence at the federally required commencement date in lieu of the date specified in such State statute”); 11 U. S. C. § 108(c) (“Except as provided in section 524 of this title, if applicable nonbankruptcy law .. . fixes a period for commencing or continuing a civil action in a court other than a bankruptcy court on a claim against the debtor... and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, then such period does not expire until the later of — (1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the commencement of the ease; or (2) 30 days after notice of the termination or expiration of the stay under section 362, 922,1201, or 1301 of this title, as the case may be, with respect to such claim”).
This was Chief Justice Marshall’s description in McCulloch of why— by way of example — legislation punishing perjury in the federal courts is valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause. See 4 Wheat., at 417.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Judgment of the Court and opinion of
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
joined by Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whittaker, announced by Mr. Justice Harlan.
Defendant, the petitioner here, in 1952 was convicted in the United States District Court for Massachusetts on a three-count indictment charging him with (1) entering a bank with intent to commit a felony, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (a); (2) robbing the bank, also in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (a); and (3) assaulting or putting in jeopardy the lives of persons by use of a dangerous weapon while committing the robbery, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (d). Five days later, after defendant’s counsel had completed motions in arrest of judgment and for new trial, the district judge asked, “Did you want to say something?” whereupon counsel at some length invoked the trial judge’s discretionary leniency. The defendant’s age, family status, and physical condition were mentioned, as was the fact that he was then serving a sentence in a state penitentiary which would delay the time from which his federal punishment would run. Thereupon the trial judge, presumably relying upon a presentence probation report, observed that the defendant was a hardened criminal, that he had in the past committed other armed robberies, and that there was no warrant to believe that rehabilitation was possible. He then pronounced sentence as follows:
“Theodore Green, the Court orders that on this indictment you be sentenced as follows: On Count 1 of the indictment 20 years, on Count 2 of the indictment that you be imprisoned for 20 years, and on Count 3 of the indictment that you be imprisoned for the period of 25 years, said prison sentence to run concurrent and to begin upon your release from prison upon the sentence you are now receiving under order of the State Court.”
Subsequently, defendant was permitted to bring his appeal in forma pauperis which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals “for want of diligent prosecution.” In two other later actions, defendant unsuccessfully brought proceedings under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence.
These two cases, here consolidated, arise out of two separate actions brought, some seven years after conviction, under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in an effort to set aside the sentence which petitioner asserts to be illegal. In No. 70, petitioner claims that the failure of the judge to inquire of the defendant if he had anything to say on his own behalf prior to sentencing rendered the subsequent sentence illegal under Federal Criminal Rule 32 (a). In No. 179, petitioner questions the legality of the twenty-five-year sentence for aggravated bank robbery when immediately prior to its imposition the judge had imposed a twenty-year sentence under another count of the indictment for the same offense without the elements of aggravation.
If Rule 32 (a) constitutes an inflexible requirement that the trial judge specifically address the defendant, e. g., “Do you, the defendant, Theodore Green, have anything to say before I pass sentence?” then what transpired in the present case falls short of the requirement, even assuming that this inadequacy in the circumstances now before us would constitute an error per se rendering the sentence illegal.
The design of Rule 32 (a) did not begin with its promulgation; its legal provenance was the common-law right of allocution. As early as 1689, it was recognized that the court's failure to ask the defendant if he had anything to say before sentence was imposed required reversal. See Anonymous, 3 Mod. 265, 266, 87 Eng. Rep. 175 (K. B.). Taken in the context of its history, there can be little doubt that the drafters of Rule 32 (a) intended that the defendant be personally afforded the opportunity to speak before imposition of sentence. We are not unmindful of the relevant major changes that have evolved in criminal procedure since the seventeenth century — the sharp decrease in the number of crimes which were punishable by death, the right of the defendant to testify on his own behalf, and the right to counsel. But we see no reason why a procedural rule should be limited to the circumstances under which it arose if reasons for the right it protects remain. None of these modern innovations lessens the need for the defendant, personally, to have the opportunity to present to the court his plea in mitigation. The most persuasive counsel may not be able to speak for a defendant as the defendant might, with halting eloquence, speak for himself. We are buttressed in this conclusion by the fact that the Rule explicitly affords the defendant two rights: “to make a statement in his own behalf,” and “to present any information in mitigation of punishment.” We therefore reject the Government’s contention that merely affording defendant’s counsel the opportunity to speak fulfills the dual role of Rule 32 (a). See Taylor v. United States, 285 F. 2d 703.
However, we do not read the record before us to have denied the defendant the opportunity to which Rule 32 (a) entitled him. The single pertinent sentence — the trial judge’s question “Did you want to say something?”— may well have been directed to the defendant and not to his counsel. A record, certainly this record, unlike a play, is unaccompanied with stage directions which may tell the significant cast of the eye or the nod of the head. It may well be that the defendant himself was recognized and sufficiently apprised of his right to speak and chose to exercise this right through his counsel. Especially is this conclusion warranted by the fact that the defendant has raised this claim seven years after the occurrence. The defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that he was not accorded the personal right which Rule 32 (a) guarantees, and we therefore find that his sentence was not illegal.
However, to avoid litigation arising out of ambiguous records in order to determine whether the trial judge did address himself to the defendant personally, we think that the problem should be, as it readily can be, taken out of the realm of controversy. This is easily accomplished. Trial judges before sentencing should, as a matter of good judicial administration, unambiguously address themselves to the defendant. Hereafter trial judges should leave no room for doubt that the defendant has been issued a personal invitation to speak prior to sentencing.
In No. 179 petitioner contends that his sentence was rendered illegal because the district judge, after sentencing him to twenty years for bank robbery under Count 2, proceeded under Count 3 to sentence him to twenty-five years for the aggravated version of the same crime. The claim is that since the two counts did not charge separate offenses, the judge’s power to sentence expired with the imposition of sentence under Count 2 and that five years should be remitted from petitioner’s concurrent sentence.
The Government concedes that Count 3 did not charge a separate offense, see Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U. S. 342, 349, and there is every indication that the district judge was of this view. In his charge to the jury he stated:
"The third count is a different type of count. That is not a separate offense. I will speak to you later of the manner in which you will handle the third count. That is not a separate offense .... That is not a separate count, to repeat, that is an aggravation of the second count, robbing the bank.”
Although petitioner is technically correct that sentences should not have been imposed on both counts, the remedy which he seeks does not follow. This is not a case where sentence was passed on two counts stating alternative means of committing one offense; rather, the third count involved additional characteristics which made the offense an aggravated one — namely, putting persons in jeopardy of life by use of a dangerous weapon. Plainly enough, the intention of the district judge was to impose the maximum sentence of twenty-five years for aggravated bank robbery, and the formal defect in his procedure should not vitiate his considered judgment.
Affirmed.
Rule 32 (a) in pertinent part provides:
“Before imposing sentence the court shall afford the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf and to present any information in mitigation of punishment.”
“Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or both.” 18 U. S. C. §2113 (d).
Petitioner further complains of an improper charge to the jury on Count 3. Rule 35 does not encompass all claims that could be made by direct appeal attacking the conviction, but rather is limited to challenges that involve the legality of the sentence itself.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to determine whether a health care provider may bring an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1982 ed.) to challenge the method by which a State reimburses health care providers under the Medicaid Act (Act), 79 Stat. 343, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §1396 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. V). More specifically, the question presented is whether the Boren Amendment to the Act, which requires reimbursement according to rates that a “State finds, and makes assurances satisfactory to the Secretary, are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities,” 42 U. S. C. § 1396a(a)(13)(A) (1982 ed., Supp. V), is enforceable in an action pursuant to § 1983.
I
A
Medicaid is a cooperative federal-state program through which the Federal Government provides financial assistance to States so that they may furnish medical care to needy individuals. § 1396. Although participation in the program is voluntary, participating States must comply with certain requirements imposed by the Act and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary). To qualify for federal assistance, a State must submit to the Secretary and have approved a “plan for medical assistance,” § 1396a(a), that contains a comprehensive statement describing the nature and scope of the State’s Medicaid program. 42 CFR §430.10 (1989). The state plan is required to establish, among other things, a scheme for reimbursing health care providers for the medical services provided to needy individuals.
Section 1902(a)(13) of the Act sets out the requirements for reimbursement of health care providers. As amended in 1980 (Boren Amendment), the section provides that
“a State plan for medical assistance must—
“provide... for payment... of the hospital services, nursing facility services, and services in an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded provided under the plan through the use of rates (determined in accordance with methods and standards developed by the State...) which the State finds, and makes assurances satisfactory to the Secretary, are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable State and Federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to assure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable access... to inpatient hospital services of adequate quality.” 42 U. S. C. § 1396a(a) (13)(A) (1982 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added).
The Commonwealth of Virginia’s State Plan for Medical Assistance was approved by the Secretary in 1982 and again in 1986 after an amendment was made. Complaint, ¶ 11, App. 11. Under the plan, health care providers are reimbursed for services according to a prospective formula—that is, reimbursement rates for various types of medical services and procedures are fixed in advance. Specifically, providers are divided into “peer groups” based on their size and location and reimbursed according to a formula based on the median cost of medical care for that peer group.
In 1986, respondent Virginia Hospital Association (VHA), a nonprofit corporation composed of both public and private hospitals operating in Virginia, id., at ¶ 3, App. 4-5, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against several state officials including the Governor, the Secretary of Human Resources, and the members of the State Department of Medical Assistance Services (the state agency that administers the Virginia Medicaid system). Respondent contends that Virginia’s plan for reimbursement violates the Act because the “rates are not reasonable and adequate to meet the economically and efficiently incurred cost of providing care to Medicaid patients in hospitals and do not assure access to inpatient care.” Id., at ¶ 1, App. 4; see also id., at ¶ 17, App. 13 (“The per diem reimbursement rates... have not reasonably nor adequately met the costs incurred by efficiently and economically operated hospitals in providing care and services in conformity with applicable state and federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards”). Respondent seeks declaratory and injunctive relief including an order requiring petitioners to promulgate a new state plan providing new rates and, in the interim, to reimburse Medicaid providers at rates commensurate with payments under the Medicare program. Id., at ¶¶ 34-39, App. 20-22.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative a motion for summary judgment on the ground that 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1982 ed.) does not afford respondent a cause of action to challenge the Commonwealth’s compliance with the Medicaid Act. 2 Record, Exh. 36, p. 1. The District Court denied the motion. App. to Pet. for Cert. D—4—D—6. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding that health care providers may sue state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief under § 1983 to ensure compliance with the Act. More specifically, the court held that the language and legislative history of the Boren Amendment demonstrate that it creates “enforceable rights” and that Congress did not intend to foreclose a private remedy for the enforcement of those rights. Virginia Hospital Assn. v. Baliles, 868 F. 2d 653, 656-660 (1989). We granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 808 (1989).
B
In order to determine whether the Boren Amendment is enforceable under § 1983, it is useful first to consider the history of the reimbursement provision. When enacted in 1965, the Act required States to provide reimbursement for the “reasonable cost” of hospital services actually provided, measured according to standards adopted by the Secretary. Pub. L. 89-97, § 1902(13)(B), 79 Stat. 346. Congress became concerned, however, that the Secretary wielded too much control over reimbursement rates. See H. R. Rep. No. 92-231, p. 100 (1971). Congress therefore amended the Act in 1972 to give States more flexibility to develop methods and standards for reimbursement, but Congress retained the ultimate requirement that the rates reimburse the “reasonable cost” of the services provided. The new law required States to pay “the reasonable cost of inpatient hospital services... as determined in accordance with methods and standards which shall be developed by the State and reviewed and approved by the Secretary.” Pub. L. 92-603, § 232(a), 86 Stat. 1410-1411.
In response to rapidly rising Medicaid costs, Congress in 1981 extended the Boren Amendment to hospitals, as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 808. Congress blamed mounting Medicaid costs on the complexity and rigidity of the Secretary’s reimbursement regulations. See H. R. Rep. No. 97-158, Vol. 2, pp. 292-293 (1981); S. Rep. No. 96-471, pp. 28-29 (1979). Although the previous version of the Act in theory afforded States some degree of flexibility to adopt their own methods for determining reimbursement rates, Congress found that, in fact, the regulations promulgated by the Secretary had essentially forced States to adopt Medicaid rates based on Medicare “reasonable cost” principles. Congress “recognize[d] the inflationary nature of the [then] current cost reimbursement system and intended] to give States greater latitude in developing and implementing alternative reimbursement methodologies that promote the efficient and economical delivery of such services.” H. R. Rep. No. 97-158, Vol. 2, supra, at 293. The amendment “delete[d] the current provision requiring States to reimburse hospitals on a reasonable cost basis [and] substitute[d] a provision requiring States to reimburse hospitals at rates... that are reasonable and adequate to meet the cost which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to meet applicable laws and quality and safety standards.” S. Rep. No. 97-139, p. 478 (1981). Thus, while Congress affirmed its desire that state reimbursement rates be “reasonable,” it afforded States greater flexibility in calculating those “reasonable rates.” For example, Congress explained that States would be free to establish statewide or classwide rates, establish rates based on a prospective cost, or include incentive provisions to encourage efficient operation. See H. R. Rep. No. 97-158, Vol. 2, supra, at 292-293; S. Rep. No. 96-471, supra, at 29. Flexibility was ensured by limiting the oversight role of the Secretary. See S. Rep. No. 97-139, supra, at 478. Thus, the Boren Amendment provides that a State must reimburse providers according to rates that it “finds, and makes assurances satisfactory to the Secretary,” are “reasonable and adequate” to meet the costs of “efficiently and economically operated facilities.” The State must also assure the Secretary that individuals have “reasonable access” to facilities of “adequate quality.”
The Act does not define these terms, and the Secretary has declined to adopt a national definition, concluding that States should determine the factors to be considered in determining what rates are “reasonable and adequate” to meet the costs of “efficiently and economically operated facilit[ies].” See 48 Fed. Reg. 56049 (1983). The regulations require a State to make a finding at least annually that its rates are “reasonable and adequate,” see 42 CFR § 447.253(b)(1) (1989), though the State is required to submit assurances to that effect to the Secretary only when it makes a change in its reimbursement rates. See § 447.253(a); 48 Fed. Reg. 56047 (1983). According to the Secretary, the Boren Amendment “places the responsibility for the development of reasonable and adequate payment rates with the States.” Id., at 56050. Thus, he reviews only the reasonableness of the assurances provided by a State and not the State’s findings themselves. See 42 CFR §447.256(2) (1989). The Secretary’s review focuses “on the assurances which attest to the fact that States’ findings do indeed indicate that the payment rates are reasonable” and judges “whether the assurances are satisfactory.” 48 Fed. Reg. 56051 (1983). Therefore the Secretary does not require States to submit the findings themselves or the underlying data.
II
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. In Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U. S. 1, 4 (1980), we held that § 1983 provides a cause of action for violations of federal statutes as well as the Constitution. We have recognized two exceptions to this rule. A plaintiff alleging a violation of a federal statute will be permitted to sue under § 1983 unless (1) “the statute [does] not create enforceable rights, privileges, or immunities within the meaning of § 1983,” or (2) “Congress has foreclosed such enforcement of the statute in the enactment itself.” Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 479 U. S. 418, 423 (1987). Petitioners argue first that the Boren Amendment does not create any “enforceable rights” and second, that Congress has foreclosed enforcement of the Act under § 1983. We address these contentions in turn.
A
“Section 1983 speaks in terms of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities,’ not violations of federal law.” Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U. S. 103, 106 (1989) (emphasis added). We must therefore determine whether the Boren Amendment creates a “federal right” that is enforceable under § 1983. Such an inquiry turns on whether “the provision in question was intend[ed] to benefit the putative plaintiff.” Ibid. (citations and internal quotations omitted). If so, the provision creates an enforceable right unless it reflects merely a “congressional preference” for a certain kind of conduct rather than a binding obligation on the governmental unit, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 19 (1981), or unless the interest the plaintiff asserts is “‘too vague and amorphous’” such that it is “‘beyond the competence of the judiciary to enforce.’” Golden State, supra, at 106 (quoting Wright, supra, at 431-432). Under this test, we conclude that the Act creates a right enforceable by health care providers under § 1983 to the adoption of reimbursement rates that are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs of an efficiently and economically operated facility that provides care to Medicaid patients. The right is not merely a procedural one that rates be accompanied by findings and assurances (however perfunctory) of reasonableness and adequacy; rather the Act provides a substantive right to reasonable and adequate rates as well.
There can be little doubt that health care providers are the intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment. The provision establishes a system for reimbursement of providers and is phrased in terms benefiting health care providers: It requires a state plan to provide for “payment... of the hospital services, nursing facility services, and services in an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded provided under the plan.” 42 U. S. C. § 1396a(a)(13)(A) (1982 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added). See Wright, supra, at 430. The question in this case is whether the Boren Amendment imposes a “binding obligation” on the States that gives rise to enforceable rights.
In Pennhurst, supra, the Court held that § 111 of the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. §6010 (1976 ed. and Supp. III), did not create rights enforceable under § 1983. Section 6010, the “bill of rights” provision, declared that Congress had made certain “findings respecting the rights of persons with developmental disabilities,” namely, that such persons have a right to “appropriate treatment’ ” in the least restrictive environment and that federal and state governments have an obligation to ensure that institutions failing to provide “appropriate treatment” do not receive federal funds. 451 U. S., at 13. The Court concluded that the context of the entire statute and its legislative history revealed that Congress intended neither to create new substantive rights nor to require States to recognize such rights; instead, Congress intended only to indicate a preference for “appropriate treatment.” Id., at 22-24. The Court examined the language of the provision and determined that a general statement of “findings” was “too thin a reed to support” a creation of rights and obligations. Id., at 19. Moreover, since neither the statute nor the corresponding regulations made compliance with the provision a condition of receipt of federal funding, the Court reasoned that “the provisions of § 6010 were intended to be hortatory, not mandatory.” Id., at 24. The Court refused to infer congressional intent to condition federal funding on compliance because “Congress must express clearly its intent to impose conditions on the grant of federal funds so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” Ibid.
More recently, in Wright, however, we found that the Brooke Amendment to the Housing Act of 1937, 42 U. S. C. § 1437a (1982 ed. and Supp. III), and its implementing regulations did create rights enforceable under § 1983. The Brooke Amendment limits the amount of rent a public housing tenant can be charged, and the regulations adopted pursuant to the statute require inclusion of a “reasonable” allowance for utilities in the rent. 479 U. S., at 420. We reasoned that both the statute and the regulations were “mandatory limitation[s] focusing on the individual family and its income.” Id., at 430. In addition, we rejected the argument that the provision for a reasonable utility allotment was too vague to create an enforceable right. Because the regulations set out guidelines for the housing authorities to follow in determining the utility allowance, the right was “sufficiently specific and definite to qualify as [an] enforceable righ[t] under Pennhurst and § 1983 [and was] not... beyond the competence of the judiciary to enforce.” Id., at 432.
In light of Pennhurst and Wright, we conclude that the Boren Amendment imposes a binding obligation on States participating in the Medicaid program to adopt reasonable and adequate rates and that this obligation is enforceable under § 1983 by health care providers. The Boren Amendment is cast in mandatory rather than precatory terms: The state plan “must” “provide for payment... of hospitals]” according to rates the State finds are reasonable and adequate. 42 U. S. C. § 1396a(a)(13)(A) (1982 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added). Moreover, provision of federal funds is expressly conditioned on compliance with the amendment and the Secretary is authorized to withhold funds for noncompliance with this provision. 42 U. S. C. § 1396c (1982 ed.). The Secretary has expressed his intention to withhold funds if the state plan does not comply with the statute or if there is “noncompliance in practice.” See 42 CFR §430.35 (1989) (“A question of noncompliance in practice may arise from the State’s failure to actually comply with a Federal requirement, regardless of whether the plan itself complies with that requirement”). “The [Boren Amendment’s] language succinctly sets forth a congressional command, which is wholly uncharacteristic of a mere suggestion or ‘nudge.’” West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 885 F. 2d 11, 20 (CA3 1989) (quoting Pennhurst, 451 U. S., at 19), cert. granted, 494 U. S. 1003 (1990).
Petitioners concede that the Boren Amendment requires a State to provide some level of reimbursement to health care providers and that a cause of action would lie under § 1983 if a State failed to adopt any reimbursement provision whatsoever. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12. Petitioners also concede, as they must, that a State is required to find that its rates are reasonable and adequate and to make assurances to that effect to the Secretary. Reply Brief for Petitioners 3. The dissent, although acknowledging that the State has these obligations, apparently would hold that the only right enforceable under § 1983 is the right to compel compliance with these bare procedural requirements. See post, at 527-528. We think the amendment cannot be so limited. Any argument that the requirements of findings and assurances are procedural requirements only and do not require the State to adopt rates that are actually reasonable and adequate is nothing more than an argument that the State’s findings and assurances need not be correct.
We reject that argument because it would render the statutory requirements of findings and assurances, and thus the entire reimbursement provision, essentially meaningless. It would make little sense for Congress to require a State to make findings without requiring those findings to be correct. In addition, there would be no reason to require a State to submit assurances to the Secretary if the statute did not require the State’s findings to be reviewable in some manner by the Secretary. We decline to adopt an interpretation of the Boren Amendment that would render it a dead letter. See Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 412-415 (1970); see also 2A C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutory Construction §45.12 (4th ed. 1984).
Petitioners acknowledge that a State may not make, or submit assurances based on, a patently false finding, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 7, but insist that Congress left it to the Secretary, and not the federal courts, to ensure that the State’s rates are not based on such false findings. To the extent that this argument bears on the question whether the Boren Amendment creates enforceable rights (as opposed to whether Congress intended to foreclose private enforcement of the statute pursuant to § 1983, see infra, at 520-523), it supports the conclusion that the provision does create enforceable rights. If the Secretary is entitled to reject a state plan upon concluding that a State’s assurances of compliance are unsatisfactory, see supra, at 512, a State is on notice that it cannot adopt any rates it chooses and that the requirement that it make “findings” is not a mere formality. Cf. Pennhurst, supra, at 24. Rather, the only plausible interpretation of the amendment is that by requiring a State to find that its rates are reasonable and adequate, the statute imposes the concomitant obligation to adopt reasonable and adequate rates.
Any doubt that Congress intended to require States to adopt rates that actually are reasonable and adequate is quickly dispelled by a review of the legislative history of the Boren Amendment. The primary objective of the amendment was to free States from reimbursement according to Medicare “reasonable cost” principles as had been required by prior regulation. The amendment “delete[d] the... provision requiring States to reimburse hospitals on a reasonable cost basis. It substitute[d] a provision requiring States to reimburse hospitals at rates... that are reasonable and adequate to meet the cost which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to meet applicable laws and quality and safety standards.” S. Rep. No. 97-139, at 478 (emphasis added). In passing the Boren Amendment, Congress sought to decentralize the method for determining rates, but not to eliminate a State’s fundamental obligation to pay reasonable rates. See S. Rep. No. 96-471, at 29 (flexibility given to States “not intended to encourage arbitrary reductions in payment that would adversely affect the quality of care”). In other words, while Congress gave States leeway in adopting a method of computing rates — they can choose between retrospective and prospective rate-setting methodologies, for example—Congress retained the underlying requirement of “reasonable and adequate” rates.
By reducing the Secretary’s role in establishing the rates, Congress intended only that the primary responsibility for developing rates be transferred to the States; the Secretary was still to ensure compliance with the provision. See S. Rep. No. 97-139, at 478 (“The committee expects that the Secretary will keep regulatory and other requirements to the minimum necessary to assure proper accountability, and not to overburden the States and facilities with unnecessary and burdensome paperwork requirements”) (emphasis added); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-1479, p. 154 (1980) (“[T]he Secretary retains final authority to review the rates and to disapprove [them] if they do not meet the requirements of the statute”). If petitioners were right that state findings were not required to be correct, there would be little point in requiring the Secretary to review the State’s assurances.
Moreover, it is clear that prior to the passage of the Boren Amendment, Congress intended that health care providers be able to sue in federal court for injunctive relief to ensure that they were reimbursed according to reasonable rates. During the 1970’s, provider suits in the federal courts were commonplace. In addition, in response to several States freezing their Medicaid payments to health care providers, Congress amended the Act in 1975 to require States to waive any Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for violations of the Act. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1122, p. 4 (1976); see also 121 Cong. Rec. 42259 (1975) (remarks of Sen. Taft). Congress believed the waiver necessary because the existing means of enforcement—noncompliance procedures instituted by the Secretary or suits for injunctive relief by health care providers—were insufficient to deal with the problem of outright noncompliance because they included no compensation for past underpayments. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1112, supra, at 4. The amendment required the Secretary to withhold 10% of federal Medicaid funds from any State that had not executed a waiver of its immunity by March 31, 1976. Pub. L. 94-182, § 111, 89 Stat. 1054. The provision generated a great deal of opposition from the States and was repealed in the next session of Congress. Pub. L. 94-552, 90 Stat. 2540; see H. R. Rep. No. 94-1122, supra, at 4; S. Rep. No. 94-1240, pp. 3-4 (1976); 122 Cong. Rec. 13492 (1976) (remarks of Rep. Rogers). But Congress explained that it did not intend the repeal to “be construed as in any way contravening or constraining the rights of the providers of Medicaid services, the State Medicaid agencies, or the Department to seek prospective, injunctive relief in a federal or state judicial forum. Neither should the repeal of [the waiver section] be interpreted as placing constraints on the rights of the parties involved to seek such prospective, injunctive relief.” S. Rep. No. 94-1240, at 4.
This experience demonstrates clearly that Congress and the States both understood the Act to grant health care providers enforceable rights both before and after repeal of the ill-fated waiver requirement. Given this background, it is implausible to conclude that by substituting the requirements of “findings” and “assurances,” Congress intended to deprive health care providers of their right to challenge rates under §1983. Instead, as the legislative history shows, the requirements of “findings” and “assurances” prescribe the respective roles of a State and the Secretary and do not, as petitioners suggest, eliminate a State’s obligation to adopt reasonable rates.
Nevertheless, petitioners argue that because the Boren Amendment gives a State flexibility to adopt any rates it finds are reasonable and adequate, the obligation imposed by the amendment is too “vague and amorphous” to be judicially enforceable. We reject this argument. As in Wright, the statute and regulation set out factors which a State must consider in adopting its rates. In addition, the statute requires the State, in making its findings, to judge the reasonableness of its rates against the objective benchmark of an “efficiently and economically operated facilit[y]” providing care in compliance with federal and state standards while at the same time ensuring “reasonable access” to eligible participants. That the amendment gives the States substantial discretion in choosing among reasonable methods of calculating rates may affect the standard under which a court reviews whether the rates comply with the amendment, but it does not render the amendment unenforceable by a court. While there may be a range of reasonable rates, there certainly are some rates outside that range that no State could ever find to be reasonable and adequate under the Act. Although some knowledge of the hospital industry might be required to evaluate a State’s findings with respect to the reasonableness of its rates, such an inquiry is well within the competence of the Judiciary.
B
Petitioners also argue that Congress has foreclosed enforcement of the Medicaid Act under § 1983. We find little merit in this argument. “‘We do not lightly conclude that Congress intended to preclude reliance on § 1983 as a remedy’ for the deprivation of a federally secured right.” Wright, 479 U. S., at 423-424 (quoting Smith v. Robinson, 468 U. S. 992, 1012 (1984)). The burden is on the State to show “by express provision or other specific evidence from the statute itself that Congress intended to foreclose such private enforcement.” Wright, supra, at 423. Petitioners concede that the Act does not expressly preclude resort to § 1983. In the absence of such an express provision, we have found private enforcement foreclosed only when the statute itself creates a remedial scheme that is “sufficiently comprehensive... to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under § 1983.” Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn., 453 U. S. 1, 20 (1981).
On only two occasions have we found a remedial scheme established by Congress sufficient to displace the remedy provided in § 1983. In Sea Clammers, supra, we held that the comprehensive enforcement scheme found in the the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U. S. C. §1251 et seq.— which granted the Environmental Protection Agency considerable enforcement power through the use of noncompliance orders, civil suits, and criminal penalties, and which included two citizen-suit provisions—evidenced a congressional intent to foreclose reliance on § 1983. See 453 U. S., at 13. Similarly in Smith v. Robinson, supra, at 1010-1011, we held that the elaborate administrative scheme set forth in the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq., manifested Congress' desire to foreclose private reliance on § 1983 as a remedy. The EHA contained a “carefully tailored administrative and judicial mechanism,” 468 U. S., at 1009, that included local administrative review and culminated in a right to judicial review. Id., at 1011 (citing 20 U. S. C. §§ 1412(4), 1414(a)(5), 1415).
The Medicaid Act contains no comparable provision for private judicial or administrative enforcement. Instead, the Act authorizes the Secretary to withhold approval of plans, 42 U. S. C. § 1316(a) (1982 ed. and Supp. V), or to curtail federal funds to States whose plans are not in compliance with the Act. 42 U. S. C. § 1396c (1982 ed.). In addition, the Act requires States to adopt a procedure for postpayment claims review to “ensure the proper and efficient payment of claims and management of the program.” 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (a)(37) (1982 ed.). By regulation, the States are required to adopt an appeals procedure by which individual providers may obtain administrative review of reimbursement rates. 42 CFR § 447.253(c) (1989). The Commonwealth of Virginia has adopted a three-tiered administrative scheme within the state Medicaid agency to comply with these regulations. App. 32-43.
This administrative scheme cannot be considered sufficiently comprehensive to demonstrate a congressional intent to withdraw the private remedy of § 1983. In Wright, we concluded that the “generalized powers” of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to audit and cut off federal funds were insufficient to foreclose reliance on §1983 to vindicate federal rights. 479 U. S., at 428. We noted that HUD did not exercise its auditing power frequently, and the statute did not require, nor did HUD provide, any mechanism for individuals to bring problems to the attention of HUD. Ibid.; see also Rosado, 397 U. S., at 420-423. Such a conclusion is even more appropriate in the context of the Medicaid Act, since as explained above, see supra, at 515-518, a primary purpose of the Boren Amendment was to reduce the role of the Secretary in determining methods for calculating payment rates. It follows that the Secretary’s limited oversight is insufficient to demonstrate an intent to foreclose relief altogether in the courts under §1983.
We also reject petitioners’ argument that the existence of administrative procedures whereby health care providers can obtain review of individual claims for payment evidences an intent to foreclose a private remedy in the federal courts. The availability of state administrative procedures ordinarily does not foreclose resort to § 1983. See Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U. S. 496, 516 (1982). Nor do we find any indication that Congress specifically intended that this.administrative procedure replace private remedies available under § 1983. The regulations allow States to limit the issues that may be raised in the administrative proceeding. 42 CFR § 447.253(c) (1989). Most States, including Virginia, do not allow health care providers to challenge the overall method by which rates are determined. See Brief for American Health Care Association et al. as Amici Curiae 20-24, and App. A and B. Such limited state administrative procedures cannot be considered a “comprehensive” scheme that manifests a congressional intent to foreclose reliance on § 1983. See Wright, 479 U. S., at 429 (availability of grievance procedure did not prevent resort to § 1983). Thus, we conclude that Congress did not foreclose a private judicial remedy under § 1983.
III
The Boren Amendment to the Act creates a right, enforceable in a private cause of action pursuant to § 1983, to have the State adopt rates that it finds are reasonable and adequate rates to meet the costs of an efficient and economical health care provider. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Affirmed.
Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities, secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
In 1980, Congress enacted the Boren Amendment which changed the standard for reimbursement of nursing and intermediate care facilities. Pub. L. 96-499, § 962(a), 94 Stat. 2650. The following year Congress extended the Boren Amendment’s standard for reimbursement to hospitals. Pub. L. 97-35, § 2173, 95 Stat. 808. Since then the reimbursement standard has been applied to payments made to intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded. Pub. L. 100-203, § 4211(h)(2)(A), 101 Stat. 1330-205.
Virginia’s current formula for reimbursement rates takes the median cost of care for each peer group as computed for 1982 and adjusts the costs annually to account for inflation. The figures for the median cost of care in 1982 were calculated by determining the per diem median cost of care for a Medicaid patient in the year 1981 and then adjusting for inflation through the use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Until 1986, to determine the annual reimbursment rates, the 1982 baseline figures were adjusted by the CPI. In 1986, however, the plan was amended so that these baseline figures are adjusted by an inflation index that is tied to medical care costs. App. 24-26.
Respondent argues that this method of calculating the payment rates is not tied to the costs incurred by an efficient and economical hospital. More specifically, respondent challenges: (1) the method of computing the baseline median costs for 1982; (2) the use of the CPI rather than an index tied to medical care costs to adjust the rates in the years 1982-1986; and (3) the way in which the medical care cost index was used after 1986. Complaint, ¶¶ 20-26, App. 14-16. In addition, respondent contends that the appeals procedure established by the state plan is inadequate under the Act in part because it excludes challenges to the principles of reimbursement. Id., 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: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for certiorari in this case was granted because it was thought to present important questions involving the definition of “income” and “ordinary and necessary” business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code. 368 U. S. 913. An insurance company provided a trip from its home office in Dallas, Texas, to New York City for a group of its agents and their wives. Rudolph and his wife were among the beneficiaries of this trip, and the Commissioner assessed its value to them as taxable income. It appears to be agreed between the parties that the tax consequences of the trip turn upon the Rudolphs’ “dominant motive and purpose” in taking the trip and the company’s in offering it. In this regard the District Court, on a suit for a refund, found that the trip was provided by the company for “the primary purpose of affording a pleasure trip ... in the nature of a bonus, reward, and compensation for a job well done” and that from the point of view of the Rudolphs it “was primarily a pleasure trip in the nature of a vacation . . . .” 189 P. Supp. 2, 4-5. The Court of Appeals approved these findings. 291 F. 2d 841. Such ultimate facts are subject to the “clearly erroneous” rule, cf. Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U. S. 278, 289-291 (1960), and their review would be of no importance save to the litigants themselves. The appropriate disposition in such a situation is to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. See Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, 349 U. S. 70, 78 n. 2 (1955).
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Separate opinion of
Mr. Justice Harlan.
Although the reasons given by the Court for dismissing the writ as improvidently granted should have been persuasive against granting certiorari, now that the case is here I think it better to decide it, two members of the Court having dissented on the merits.
The courts below concluded (1) that the value of this “all expense” trip to the company-sponsored insurance convention constituted “gross income” to the petitioners within the meaning Qf § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and (2) that the amount reflected was not deductible as an “ordinary and necessary” business expense under § 162 of the Code. Both conclusions are, in my opinion, unassailable unless the findings of fact on which they rested are to be impeached by us as clearly erroneous. I do not think they can be on this record, especially in light of the “seasoned and wise rule of this Court” which “makes concurrent findings of two courts below final here in the absence of very exceptional showing of error.” Comstock v. Group of Institutional Investors, 335 U. S. 211, 214.
The basic facts, found by the District Court, are as follows. Petitioners, husband and wife, reside in Dallas, Texas, where the home office of the husband’s employer, the Southland Life Insurance Company, is located. By having sold a predetermined amount of insurance, the husband qualified to attend the company’s convention in New York City in 1956 and, in line with company policy, to bring his wife with him. The petitioners, together with 150 other employees and officers of the insurance company, and 141 wives, traveled to and from New York City on special trains, and were housed in a single hotel during their two-and-one-half-day visit. One morning was devoted to a “business meeting” and group luncheon, the rest of the time in New York City to “travel, sightseeing, entertainment, fellowship or free time.” The entire trip lasted one wyeek.
The company paid all the expenses of the convention-trip which amounted to $80,000; petitioners' allocable share being $560. When petitioners did not include the latter amount in their joint income .tax return, the Commissioner assessed a deficiency which was sustained by the District Court, 189 F. Supp. 2, and also by the Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, in a per curiam opinion, 291 F. 2d 841, citing its recent decision in Patterson v. Thomas, 289 F. 2d 108, where the same result had been reached. The District Court held that the value of the trip being “in the nature .of a bonus, reward, and compensation for a job well done,” was income to Rudolph, but being “primarily a pleasure trip in the nature of a vacation,” the costs were personal and nondeductible.
I.
Under § 61 of the 1954 Code was the value of the trip to the taxpayer-husband properly includible in gross income? That section defines gross income as “all income from -whatever source derived,” including, among other items, “compensation for services.” Certain sections of the 1954 Code enumerate particular receipts which are included in the concept of “gross income,” including prizes and awards (with certain exceptions); while other sections, §§ 101-121, specifically exclude certain receipts from “gross income,” including, for example, gifts and inheritances (see Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U. S. 278), and meals or lodgings furnished for the convenience of the employer. The Treasury Regulations emphasize the inclusiveness of the concept of “gross income.”
In light of the sweeping scope of § 61 taxing “all gains except those specifically exempted,” Commissioner v. Clenshaw Class Co., 348 U. S. 426, 430; see Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U. S. 243, 246; James v. United States, 366 U. S. 213, 219, and its purpose to include as taxable income “any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected,” Commissioner v. Smith, 324 U. S. 177, 181, it seems clear that the District Court’s findings, if sustainable, bring the value of the trip within the reach of the statute.
Petitioners do not claim that the value of the trip is within one of the statutory exclusions from “gross income” (see notes 4 and 5, supra) as did the taxpayer in Patterson v. Thomas, 289 F. 2d 108, 111-112; rather they characterize the amount as a “fringe benefit” not specifically excluded from § 61 by other sections of the statute, yet not intended to be encompassed by its reach. Conceding that the statutory exclusions from “gross income” are not exhaustive, as the Government seems to recognize is so under Glenshaw, it is not now necessary to explore the extent of any such nonstatutory exclusions. For it was surely within the Commissioner’s competence to consider as “gross income” a “reward, or a bonus given to . . . employees for excellence in service,” which the District Court found was the employer’s primary purpose in arranging this trip. I cannot say that this finding, confirmed as it has been by the Court of Appeals, is inadequately supported by this record.
II.
There remains the question whether, though income, this outlay for transportation, meals, and lodging was deductible by petitioners as an “ordinary and necessary” business expense under § 162. The relevant factors on this branch of the case are found in Treas. Reg. § 1.162-2. In summary, the regulation in pertinent part provides:
Traveling expenses, including meals, lodgings and other incidentals, reasonable and necessary in the conduct of the taxpayer's business and directly attributable to it are deductible, but expenses of a trip “undertaken for other than business purposes” are “personal expenses” and the meals and lodgings are “living expenses.” Treas. Reg. § 1.162-2 (a).
If a taxpayer who travels to a destination engages in both “business and personal activities,” the traveling expenses are deductible only if the trip is “related primarily” to the taxpayer’s business; if “primarily personal,” the traveling expenses are not deductible even though the taxpayer engages in some business there; yet expenses allocable to the taxpayer’s trade or business there are deductible even though the travel expenses to and frq are not. Id., § 1.162-2 (b)(1).
Whether a trip is related primarily to the taxpayer’s business or is primarily personal in nature “depends on the facts and circumstances in each case.” Id., § 1.162-2 (b) (2); so too with expenses paid or incurred in attending a convention. Id., § 1.162-2 (d).
Finally, the deductibility of the expenses of a taxpayer’s wife who accompanies her husband depends, first, on whether his trip is a “business trip.” Id., § 1.162-2 (c); if so, it must further be shown that the wife’s presence on the trip also had a bona fide business purpose. Ibid.
Where, as here,., it may be arguable that the trip was both for business and personal reasons, the crucial question is whether, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, the purpose of the trip was “related primarily to business” or was, rather, “primarily personal in nature.” That other trips to other conventions or meetings by other taxpayers were held to be primarily related to business is of no relevance here; that certain doctors, lawyers, clergymen, insurance agents or others have or have not been permitted similar deductions only shows that in the circumstances of those cases, the courts thought that the expenses were or were not deductible as “related primarily to business.”
The husband places great emphasis on the fact that he is an entrapped “organization man,” required to attend such conventions, and that his future promotions depend on his presence. Suffice it to say that the District Court did not find any element of compulsion; to the contrary, it found that the petitioners regarded the convention in New York City as a pleasure trip in the nature of .a vacation. Again, I cannot say that these findings are without adequate evidentiary support. Supra, pp. 273-274.
The trip not having been primarily a business trip, the wife’s expenses are not deductible. It is not necessary, therefore, to examine whether they would or would not be deductible if, to the contrary, the husband’s trip was reláted primarily to business.
Where, as here, two courts below have resolved the determinative factual issues against the taxpayers, according to the rules of law set forth in the statute and regulations, it is not for this Court to re-examine the evidence, and disturb their findings, unless “clearly erroneous.” That is not the situation here.
I would affirm.
A joint return had been filed.
As I see this case, there is no need to explore whether the proper reporting procedure for a deductible expense is not to include it in income in the first place, cf. Treas. Reg. § 1.162-17 (b), or to “run it through” the taxpayer’s income with an offsetting deduction in the same amount.
E. g., §71 (Alimony and separate maintenance payments), §72 (Annuities; certain proceeds of endowment and life insurance contracts), §73 (Services of child).
§ 74: “(a) General Rule. — Except as provided in subsection (b) and in section 117 (relating to scholarships and fellowship grants), gross income includes amounts received as prizes and awards.
“(b) Exception. — Gross income does not include amounts received as prizes and awards made primarily in recognition of religious, charitable, scientific, educational, artistic, literary, or civic achievement, but only if — ■
“(1) the recipient was selected without any action on his part to enter the contest or proceeding; and
“(2) the recipient is not required to render substantial future services as a condition to receiving the prize or award."
§ 102.
§ 119. Some of the other exclusions are § 101 (Certain death payments), §103 (Interest on certain governmental obligations), §104 (Compensation for injuries or sickness), § 105 (Amounts received under accident and health plans), §113 (Mustering-out payments for members of the Armed Forces), § 117 (Scholarship and fellowship grants).
Treas. Reg. §1.61-1 (a) provides:
“Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law. Gross income includes income realized in any form, whether in money, property, or services. Income may be realized, therefore, in the form of services, meals, accommodations, stock, or other property, as well as in cash.” See also Treas. Reg. §1.61-2 (a)(1), (d) and §1.74-1 (a).
Petitioners rely on § 3401 of the 1954 Code, relating to withholding taxes, and more especially on Treas. Reg. § 31.3401 (a)-l (b) (10) providing that certain fringe benefits are not considered “wages” subject to withholding. The Government admits that not all "fringe benefits” have been taxed as income, but it is enough to point out here that the withholding tax analogy is not perfect, for payments to laid-off employees from company-financed supplemental unemployment benefit plans are “taxable income” to the employees although not “wages” subject to withholding. Rev. Rul. 56-249, 1956-1 Cum. Bull. 488, as amplified by Rev. Rul. 60-330, 1960-2 Cum. Bull. 46.
The District Court said (189 F. Supp., .at 4r-5):
“All of the evidence considered, we think it irrefutably leads to this conclusion: That the insurance company was just doing a gracious magnanimous thing of awarding those leading agents a trip just as much as if it had awarded them an automobile, or suit of clothes ....
“. . . [W]e conclude, that the trip was earned by . . . Rudolph, and was in the nature of a bonus, reward, and compensation for a job well done.”
It is pertinent to note that in addition to the facts referred to on p. 271, supra, the record shows that company-sponsored conventions of the same kind have in recent years been held in Canada, Mexico City, Havana, Colorado and California, places well known for their appeal to tourists, and far removed from the home office in Dallas. While this factor alone does not render the expenses nondeductible, see I. R. S. News Rel. No. IR-394, August 3, 1961, it certainly was a relevant circumstance for the District Court to consider.
“(a) In General. — There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including—
“(2) traveling expenses (including the entire amount expended for meals and lodging) while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business
No question is raised in this case as to whether the $80,000 paid by the company for the total convention expense is deductible by the corporation.
There is no need to explore the lack of symmetry in certain “income” and “deductibility” areas in the 1954 Code permitting employers to provide certain “fringe benefits” to employees — such as parking facilities, swimming pools, medical services — which have not generally been considered income to the employee, but which, if paid for by the employee with his own funds, would not be a deductible expense. The practicalities of a tax system do not demand hypothetical or theoretical perfection, and these workaday problems are properly the concern of the Commissioner, not of the Courts.
Although this Regulation is part of those promulgated on April 3, 1958, it is applicable to this 1956 transaction. The power to make the Regulations prospective only, Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 7805 (b), was not exercised, and they were made applicable to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1953. T. D. 6291, 1958-1 Cum. Bull. 63. Moreover, the result here would not be different under the prior comparable Regulation. Treas. Reg. 118, §39.23 (a)-2 (a).
No claim has been made by the husband in this case that specific business expenses which may have been incurred at the convention in New York are deductible. The only issue is the deductibility of the entire trip expense. Compare Patterson v. Thomas, 289 F. 2d 108, 114 and n. 13.
Deductions allowed: Coffey v. Commissioner, 21 B. T. A. 1242 (doctor); Coughlin v. Commissioner, 203 F. 2d 307 (lawyer); Shutter v. Commissioner, 2 B. T. A. 23 (clergyman); Callinan v. Commissioner, 12 T. C. M. 170 (legal secretary); see Rev. Rul. 59-316, 1959-2 Cum. Bull. 57; Rev. Rui. 60-16, 1960-1 Cum. Bull. 58.
Deductions not allowed: Duncan v. Commissioner, 30 T. C. 386 (doctor); Ellis v. Burnet, 60 App. D. C. 193, 50 F. 2d 343 (lawyer); Reed v. Commissioner, 35 T. C. 199 (lawyer); Patterson v. Thomas, 289 F. 2d 108 (insurance agent); Russell v. Commissioner, 11 T. C. M. 334 (railroad fireman).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The individual petitioners are 15 employees of the Department of Sanitation of New York City. Claiming they were wrongfully dismissed from employment in violation of their rights under the United States Constitution, they commenced this action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That court dismissed the action and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 383 F. 2d 364 (1967). We granted certiorari. 390 U. S. 919 (1968).
Sometime in 1966, the Commissioner of Investigation of New York City began an investigation of charges that employees of the Department of Sanitation were not charging private cartmen proper fees for use of certain city facilities and were diverting to themselves the proceeds of fees that they did charge. The Commissioner obtained an order from the Supreme Court in New York County authorizing him to tap a telephone leased by the Department of Sanitation for the transaction of official business at the city facilities in question.
In November 1966 each of the petitioners was summoned before the Commissioner. Each was advised that, in accordance with § 1123 of the New York City Charter, if he refused to testify with respect to his official conduct or that of any other city employee on the grounds of self-incrimination, his employment and eligibility for other city employment would terminate.
Twelve of the petitioners, asserting the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, refused to testify. After a disciplinary hearing held pursuant to § 75 of the New York Civil Service Law, they were dismissed by the Commissioner of Sanitation on the explicit ground provided by § 1123 of the City Charter that they had refused to testify.
Three of the petitioners answered the questions put to them, denying the charges made. They were thereafter suspended by the Commissioner of Sanitation on the basis of “information received from the Commissioner of Investigation concerning irregularities arising out of [their] employment in the Department of Sanitation.” Subsequently, they were summoned before a grand jury and asked to sign waivers of immunity. They refused. Administrative hearings were held pursuant to § 75 of the Civil Service Law, and they were dismissed from employment on the sole ground that they had violated § 1123 of the City Charter by refusing to sign waivers of immunity. We consider only the dismissal, rather than the suspension, of these petitioners.
Relying upon the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Gardner v. Broderick, 20 N. Y. 2d 227, 229 N. E. 2d 184 (1967) (reversed this day, ante, p. 273), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the dismissal of petitioners did not offend the Federal Constitution. For the reasons which we elaborate in our opinion reversing the New York court’s decision in Gardner v. Broderick, supra, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred.
Petitioners were not discharged merely for refusal to account for their conduct as employees of the city. They were dismissed for invoking and refusing to waive their constitutional right against self-incrimination. They were discharged for refusal to expose themselves to criminal prosecution based on testimony which they would give under compulsion, despite their constitutional privilege. Three were asked to sign waivers of immunity before the grand jury. Twelve were told that their answers to questions put to them by the Commissioner of Investigation could be used against them in subsequent proceedings, and were discharged for refusal to answer the questions on this basis. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967), in which we held that testimony compelled by threat of dismissal from employment could not be used in a criminal prosecution of the witness, had not been decided when these 12 petitioners were put to their hazardous choice. In any event, we need not decide whether these petitioners would have effectively waived this constitutional protection if they had testified following the warning that their testimony could be used against them. They were entitled to remain silent because it was clear that New York was seeking, not merely an accounting of their use or abuse of their public trust, but testimony from their own lips which, despite the constitutional prohibition, could be used to prosecute them criminally.
As we stated in Gardner v. Broderick, supra, if New York had demanded that petitioners answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of their official duties on pain of dismissal from public employment without requiring relinquishment of the benefits of the constitutional privilege, and if they had refused to do so, this case would be entirely different. In such a case, the employee’s right to immunity as a result of his compelled testimony would not be at stake. But here the precise and plain impact of the proceedings against petitioners as well as of § 1123 of the New York Charter was to present them with a choice between surrendering their constitutional rights or their jobs. Petitioners as public employees are entitled, like all other persons, to the benefit of the Constitution, including the privilege against self-incrimination. Gardner v. Broderick, supra; Garrity v. New Jersey, supra. Cf. Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S. 52, at 79 (1964). At the same time, petitioners, being public employees, subject themselves to dismissal if they refuse to account for their performance of their public trust, after proper proceedings, which do not involve an attempt to coerce them to relinquish their constitutional rights.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
Section 803, subd. 2, of the New York City Charter provides that the Commissioner “[i]s authorized and empowered to make any study or investigation which in his opinion may be in the best interests of the city, including but not limited to investigations of the affairs, functions, accounts, methods, personnel or efficiency of any agency.”
This order was pursuant to § 813-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure of New York. See Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41 (1967).
Section 1123 of the New York City Charter provides:
“If any councilman or other officer or employee of the city shall, after lawful notice or process, wilfully refuse or fail to appear before any court or judge, any legislative committee, or any officer, board or body authorized to conduct any hearing or inquiry, or having appeared shall refuse to testify or to answer any question regarding the property, government or affairs of the city or of any county included within its territorial limits, or regarding the nomination, election, appointment or official conduct of any officer or employee of the city or of any such county, on the ground that his answer would tend to incriminate him, or shall refuse to waive immunity from prosecution on account of any such matter in relation to which he may be asked to testify upon any such hearing or inquiry, his term or tenure of office or employment shall terminate and such office or employment shall be vacant, and he shall not be eligible to election or appointment to any office or employment under the city or any agency.”
The Commissioner said:
“Mr. [name of witness], this is a private hearing being conducted by the Department of Investigation of the City of New York, pursuant to Chapter 34, of the New York City Charter. The investigation in which you are about to testify relates particularly to the affairs, functions, accounts, methods, personnel and efficiency of the Department of Sanitation of the City of New York. I wish to advise you that you have all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws of the State of New York and the Constitutions of this State and of the United States, including the right to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to be a witness against yourself. I wish further to advise you that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present at this hearing, if you wish, and I understand that you are represented by counsel in the person of [name of attorney], is that correct?” (Emphasis added.)
As we noted in Gardner v. Broderick, supra, at 278-279, the possible ineffectiveness of this waiver does not change the fact that the State attempted to force petitioners, upon penalty of loss of employment, to relinquish a right guaranteed them by the Constitution.
In view of our disposition of the ease, we do not reach the issues raised by petitioners with respect to the wiretap.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a civil antitrust case brought by the United States charging a violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 64 Stat. 1125, 15 U. S. C. § 18. The main thrust of the case involves the acquisition by Greater Buffalo Press, Inc. (Greater Buffalo), of all the stock of International Color Printing Co. (International). The complaint, at the secondary level, charged that Greater Buffalo, Hearst Corp., through its unincorporated division King Features Syndicate (King), Newspaper Enterprise Association, Inc. (NEA), and others had conspired to restrain the sale to newspapers of the printing of comic supplements in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. § 1. It also charged that Hearst and NEA were violators of certain tying arrangements involving the licensing of comic features and the sale of comic supplements.
Before trial a consent decree was entered against Hearst, enjoining King from entering into any agreement limiting competition in the printing of color comic supplements and barring any tying arrangement.
After full trial the District Court dismissed the complaint. The case came here under § 2 of the Expediting Act, as amended, 32 Stat. 823, 15 U. S. C. § 29. We noted probable jurisdiction, 400 U. S. 990. We reverse the judgment below.
The case involves the comic supplement business used weekends by most newspapers. Some papers print their own comic supplements; others purchase them.
Greater Buffalo prints color supplements for newspapers and sells them.
International prints color comic supplements for King only.
Most color comic supplements are printed by companies like Greater Buffalo and sold to newspapers. But individual newspapers contract for the purchase of comic features and it is those comics that Greater Buffalo prints for the particular papers.
The most popular comic features used by major metropolitan papers are controlled by King.
Greater Buffalo has no control over the ownership of features and therefore does not license them. As noted, however, King is a licensor; and moreover, it prints “ready-print” supplements which are preprinted and supplied to many newspapers only with masthead change.
The District Court declared that the acquisition of International by Greater Buffalo has not, and will not, result in a substantial lessening of competition in the color comic supplement industry, and therefore did not constitute a violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act.
The basic error of the District Court, in our view, was in its finding that the significant lines of commerce involved in this action should be divided into “two distinct and separate categories: (1) the printing of color comic supplements for newspapers which do not print their own, and (2) the printing of color comic supplements for syndicates engaged in the sale of copyrighted comic features to newspapers. These are the lines of commerce — to treat them together as one line of commerce, i. e., the printing and sale of color comic supplements, would be to ignore the tremendous leverage of the syndicates which control the copyrighted features.”
As we read the record, the printing of color comic supplements and their sale are component parts of the color comic supplement printing business. One firm or company may both print and sell; another may print yet sell through a third organization, as does International through King. The “area of effective competition,” Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 299-300 n. 5, comprises the business of Greater Buffalo, International, and King. There may be submarkets within this broad market for antitrust purposes (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 325), but, as we said in United States v. Pkillipsburg National Bank, 399 U. S. 350, 360, “submarkets are not a basis for the disregard of a broader line of commerce that has economic significance.”
The District Court, proceeding from its premise as to the relevant market, analyzed the effects on the competition between Greater Buffalo and International resulting from the purchase of the stock of the latter. The true import would include not only that but also the effect on competition of the alliance with King, through the acquisition of King’s client, International. The three of them were engaged in the single line of commerce consisting of the printing and distribution of color comic supplements. The printing of color comics is the same no matter for whom it is done or through whom they are distributed. The combination of those who print and sell comic supplements with those who sell comic supplements printed by others fastens more tightly the hold of the group on the side of supplement printing business. As a result of the acquisition, King has become dependent on Greater Buffalo for most of the printing which it sells in competition with Greater Buffalo. Greater Buffalo, it is said, had no long-term contract for King’s business following the acquisition. Yet it had the almost certain right to print for King, its principal selling competitor, and a 10-year contract was entered into in the summer after the acquisition. There is evidence that Greater Buffalo has taken accounts from King since the acquisition. But existing competition between them is naturally restricted to sales at a price higher than Greater Buffalo charges King for printing; and it is not that fuller competition that could exist if King had an independent printing source.
King’s executive officer proposed, after the stock acquisition of International, that King acquire its own color supplement printing capacity.
“Even if it cost money to do this and diminished profits, wouldn’t that be better than the eventual loss of most, if not all, of our readyprint business?
“The Syndicate which for more than a quarter of a century has been number one in the readyprint field is now at best number two, and quite helpless. Newspaper history clearly emphasizes the difficulty, in fact hopelessness of regaining a lost position. There is plenty of current evidence to substantiate this.
“If Koessler [head of Greater Buffalo], because of what he has done the past few years, were to be attacked, in my opinion he would lose, but there is the danger, I suppose, of our becoming an accessory. Here is another reason why I think that if we were in the readyprint field with plants of our own it would restore a competitive aspect and certainly that wouldn’t be discouraged in Washington.”
Prior to the acquisition, King put pressure on International to construct a southern plant to meet Greater Buffalo’s proposed expansion there. Prior to the acquisition King also induced International to cut its price to meet competition and actually transferred a few contracts from International to Greater Buffalo because of prices.
Those practices ceased after the acquisition. Greater Buffalo acquired control of about 75% of independent color comic supplement printing, leaving King no reliable alternative supply. Greater Buffalo and International which had been competitors ceased to be such. The threat that newspaper customers will do their own printing is of course a factor in the competitive situation. But, according to the record, color comic supplement printing requires exacting mechanical techniques performed by specially trained personnel, and independent printers specializing in supplement printing and handling a high volume of business can produce a high quality product more economically than most newspapers.
The test of § 7 is whether the effect of an acquisition “may be substantially to lessen competition.” The concentration of 75% of the independent color comic supplement printing business in one firm points firmly to the conclusion that the difficulties of new entrants becoming real competitors of Greater Buffalo are greatly increased.
We also disagree with the District Court that the acquisition of International by Greater Buffalo was within the “failing company” exception to § 7 of the Clayton Act.
That test is met only if two requirements are satisfied: (1) that the resources of International were “so depleted and the prospect of rehabilitation so remote that it faced the grave probability of a business failure . . . ,” International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 280 U. S. 291, 302, and (2) that there was no other prospective purchaser for it. Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U. S. 131, 138.
It is true that its owners wished to sell rather than raise the capital needed for modernization and expansion, and that King, its sole customer, was threatening to place some of its business elsewhere. Yet King had not threatened to invoke, nor had it invoked, the six-month cancellation provision in the contract. Its expansion plans were being actively pursued and it continued to pay dividends to its owners. Indeed in the year of the sale it had shown a substantial increase in profits.
Moreover, only King and Greater Buffalo were considered as prospective purchasers; the numerous other smaller color comic supplement printers were never even approached.
Since the District Court found no violation of § 7, it naturally did not reach the question of remedy though it said that if there were a violation, it would not warrant “a court’s exercising its discretion to order a divestiture fifteen years after the occurrence of the alleged illegal conduct.” That is not the law; the passage of time per se is no barrier to divestiture of stock illegally acquired. United States v. Du Pont, 353 U. S. 586, 590; 366 U. S. 316. Divestiture performs several functions, the foremost being the liquidation of the illegally acquired market power. Schine Chain Theatres v. United States, 334 U. S. 110, 127-129.
We do not, however, reach the question of divestiture. A majority of the Court is of the view that the nature of the decree to be fashioned should be initially considered by the District Court. In that connection two additional questions will need to be passed on by the District Court.
First is the question of the consent decree entered with Hearst. As to it the District Court said: “King Features may continue to engage in the practice of combining the sale of features and printing until the court shall determine the antitrust issue as to Greater Buffalo. The decree also provided that Hearst shall obey the antitrust laws during the pendency of the action.”
We do not have enough information about the consent decree and its operation and the related facts to know how it should now be integrated into a decree.
Second. In the fifties Greater Buffalo erected a printing plant at Lufkin, Texas, to improve its market in that area by saving transportation costs. There is some evidence that in 1950 Greater Buffalo made a moral commitment to certain newspapers to build a plant in the Deep South. A plant was constructed at Sylacauga, Alabama, after the acquisition of International.
There are cross-currents in the record which suggest that the Sylacauga plant was the product of International’s wishes, rather than Greater Buffalo’s, and that the primary motive for Greater Buffalo’s acquisition of International stock was to eliminate International’s planned expansion in the South as a competitive threat.
The status of the Sylacauga plant is a matter to be considered by the District Court under the controlling precedents. See, e. g., United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 247 F. Supp. 308, aff’d, 382 U. S. 12.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the drafting of a decree and the making of such additional findings both as respects the consent decree and the Sylacauga plant as may be appropriate or necessary for an effective remedy.
Reversed and remanded.
Section 7 provides in part:
“That no corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.”
A monopolization charge against Greater Buffalo was eliminated by an amended complaint.
The United States did not appeal from the dismissal against NEA.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In administrative proceedings, the Securities and Exchange Commission applies a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard of proof in determining whether the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws have been violated. The question presented is whether such violations must be proved by clear and convincing evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence.
I
In June 1971, the Commission initiated a disciplinary proceeding against petitioner and certain of his wholly owned companies. The proceeding against petitioner was brought pursuant to § 9 (b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and § 203 (f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Commission alleged that petitioner had violated numerous provisions of the federal securities laws in his management of several mutual funds registered under the Investment Company Act.
After a lengthy evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge and review by the Commission in which the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard was employed, the Commission held that between December 1965 and June 1972, petitioner had violated antifraud, reporting, conflict of interest, and proxy provisions of the federal securities laws. Accordingly, it entered an order permanently barring petitioner from associating with any investment adviser or affiliating with any registered investment company, and suspending him for one year from associating with any broker or dealer in securities.
Petitioner sought review of the Commission’s order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on a number of grounds, only one of which is relevant for our purposes. Petitioner challenged the Commission’s use of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard of proof in determining whether he had violated antifraud provisions of the securities laws. He contended that, because of the potentially severe sanctions that the Commission was empowered to impose and because of the circumstantial and inferential nature of the evidence that might be used to prove intent to defraud, the Commission was required to weigh the evidence against a clear-and-convincing standard of proof. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s argument, holding that in a disciplinary proceeding before the Commission violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws may be established by a preponderance of the evidence. 603 F. 2d 1126, 1143 (1979). See n. 8, supra. Because this was contrary to the position taken by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, see Whitney v. SEC, 196 U. S. App. D. C. 12, 604 F. 2d 676 (1979); Collins Securities Corp. v. SEC, 183 U. S. App. D. C. 301, 562 F. 2d 820 (1977), we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 446 U. S. 917 (1980). We affirm.
II
Where Congress has not prescribed the degree of proof which must be adduced by the proponent of a rule or order to carry its burden of persuasion in an administrative proceeding, this Court has felt at liberty to prescribe the standard, for “[i]t is the kind of question which has traditionally been left to the judiciary to resolve.” Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 284 (1966). However, where Congress has spoken, we have deferred to “the traditional powers of Congress to prescribe rules of evidence and standards of proof in the federal courts” absent countervailing constitutional constraints. Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252, 265 (1980). For Commission disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to 15 U. S. C. § 80a-9 (b) and § 80b-3 (f), we conclude that Congress has spoken, and has said that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard should be applied.
The securities laws provide for judicial review of Commission disciplinary proceedings in the federal courts of appeals and specify the scope of such review. Because they do not indicate which standard of proof governs Commission adjudications, however, we turn to § 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 554, which “applies ... in every case of adjudication required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing,” except in instances not relevant here. Section 5 (b), 5 U. S. C. § 554 (c)(2), makes the provisions of § 7, 5 U. S. C. § 566, applicable to adjudicatory proceedings. The answer to the question presented in this case turns therefore on the proper construction of § 7.
The search for congressional intent begins with the language of the statute. Andrus v. Allard, 444 U. S. 51, 56 (1979); Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 337 (1979); 62 Cases of Jam v. United States, 340 U. S. 593, 596 (1951). Section 7 (c), 5 U. S. C. § 556 (d), states in pertinent part:
“Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.” (Emphasis added.)
The language of the statute itself implies the enactment of a standard of proof. By allowing sanctions to be imposed only when they are “in accordance with . . . substantial evidence,” Congress implied that a sanction must rest on a minimum quantity of evidence. The word “substantial” denotes quantity. The phrase “in accordance with . . . substantial evidence” thus requires that a decision be based on a certain quantity of evidence. Petitioner’s contention that the phrase “reliable, probative, and substantial evidence” sets merely a standard of quality of evidence is, therefore, unpersuasive.
The phrase “in accordance with” lends further support to a construction of § 7 (c) as establishing a standard of proof. Unlike § 10 (e), the APA’s explicit “Scope of review” provision that declares that agency action shall be held unlawful if “unsupported by substantial evidence,” § 7 (c) provides that an agency may issue an order only if that order is “supported by and in accordance with . . . substantial evidence” (emphasis added). The additional words “in accordance with” suggest that the adjudicating agency must weigh the evidence and decide, based on the weight of the evidence, whether a disciplinary order should be issued. The language of § 7 (c), therefore, requires that the agency decision must be “in accordance with” the weight of the evidence, not simply supported by enough evidence “ ‘to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.’ ” Consolo v. FMC, 383 U. S. 607, 620 (1966), quoting NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U. S. 292, 300 (1939). Obviously, weighing evidence has relevance only if the evidence on each side is to be measured against a standard of proof which allocates the risk of error. See Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 423 (1979). Section 10 (e), by contrast, does not permit the reviewing court to weigh the evidence, but only to determine that there is in the record “ ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,’ ” Consolo v. FMC, supra, at 620, quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197, 229 (1938). It is not surprising, therefore, in view of the entirely different purposes of § 7 (c) and § 10 (e), that Congress intended the words “substantial evidence” to have different meanings in context. Thus, petitioner’s argument that § 7 (c) merely establishes the scope of judicial review of agency orders is unavailing.
While the language of § 7 (c) suggests, therefore, that Congress intended the statute to establish- a standard of proof, the language of the statute is somewhat opaque concerning the precise standard of proof to be used. The legislative history, however, clearly reveals the Congress’ intent. The original Senate version of § 7 (c) provided that “no sanction shall be imposed .. . except as supported by relevant, reliable, and probative evidence.” S. 7, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. (1945). After the Senate passed this version, the House passed the language of the statute as it reads today, and the Senate accepted the amendment. Any doubt as to the intent of Congress is revived by the House Report, which expressly adopted a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard:
“[W]here a party having the burden of proceeding has come forward with a prima facie and substantial case, he will prevail unless his evidence is discredited or rebutted. In any case the agency must decide 'in accordance with the evidence.’ Where there is evidence pro and con, the agency must weigh it and decide in accordance with the preponderance. In short, these provisions require a conscientious and rational judgment on the whole record in accordance with the proofs adduced.” H. R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 37 (1946) (emphasis added).
Nor is there any suggestion in the legislative history that a standard of proof higher than a preponderance of the evidence was ever contemplated, much less intended. Congress was primarily concerned with the elimination of agency decision-making premised on evidence which was of poor quality— irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, and nonprobative — and of insufficient quantity — less than a preponderance. See id., at 36-37 and 46; S. Doc. No. 248, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 320-322 and 376-378 (1946); n. 21, supra.
The language and legislative history of § 7 (c) lead us to conclude, therefore, that § 7 (c) was intended to establish a standard of proof and that the standard adopted is the traditional preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
III
Our view of congressional intent is buttressed by the Commission’s longstanding practice of imposing sanctions according to the preponderance of the evidence. As early as 1938, the Commission rejected the argument that in'a proceeding to determine whether to suspend, expel, or otherwise sanction a brokerage firm and its principals for, inter alia, manipulation of security prices in violation of § 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78i, a standard of proof greater than the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard was required. In re White, 3 S. E. C. 466, 539-540 (1938). Use of the preponderance standard continued after passage of the APA, and persists today. E. g., In re Cea, 44 S. E. C. 8, 25 (1969); In re Pollisky, 43 S. E. C. 458, 459-460 (1967). The Commission’s consistent practice, which is in harmony with § 7 (c) and its legislative history, is persuasive authority that Congress intended that Commission disciplinary proceedings, subject to § 7 of the APA, be governed by a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. See Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U. S. 347, 358 (1979); United States v. National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 422 U. S. 694, 719 (1975); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944).
In Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 524 (1978), we stated that § 4 of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 553, established the “maximum procedural requirements which Congress was willing to have the courts impose upon agencies in conducting rulemaking procedures.” In § 7 (c), Congress has similarly expressed its intent that adjudicatory proceedings subject to the APA satisfy the statute where determinations are made according to the preponderance of the evidence. Congress was free to make that choice, Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S., at 265-266, and, in the absence of countervailing constitutional considerations, the courts are not free to disturb it.
Affirmed.
Section 9 (b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U. S. C. §80a-9 (b), empowers the Commission, in specified circumstances, “after notice and opportunity for hearing . . . [to] prohibit, conditionally or unconditionally, either permanently or for such period of time as it in its discretion shall deem appropriate in the public interest, any person from serving or acting as an employee, officer, director, member of an advisory board, investment adviser or depositor of, or principal underwriter for, a registered investment company or affiliated person of such investment adviser, depositor, or principal underwriter . . .
Section 203 (f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U. S. C. §80b-3 (f), empowers the Commission, in specified circumstances, after notice and opportunity for hearing “on the record” to “censure or place limitations on the activities of any person associated or seeking to become associated with an investment adviser, or suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months or bar any such person from being associated with an investment adviser . . .
Disciplinary proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission are governed by the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 CFR § 201.1 et seq. (1980), which enlarge, in certain respects, protections afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 551 et seq. Cf. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 524 (1978) (as to 5 U. S. C. § 553, “[a]gencies are free to grant additional procedural rights in the exercise of their discretion, but reviewing courts are generally not free to impose them if the agencies have not chosen to grant them”). A respondent in a disciplinary proceeding is entitled to receive timely notice of the charges against him and the questions of fact and law to be determined. 17 CFR § 201.6 (a) (1980). He may retain counsel to represent him in connection with the proceeding, § 201.2(b), file an answer to the charges against him and move for a more definite statement of those charges, §§201.7 (a) and (d), and have a trial-type hearing presided over by an impartial administrative law judge, other duly-appointed officer, or a Commission member, §§ 201.11 (b)-(c). The respondent may present oral or documentary evidence, cross-examine adverse witnesses, and object to the admission or exclusion of evidence. §201.14 (a). A respondent may compel production of evidence by subpoena, § 201.14(b), and may obtain witness statements in the possession of the Commission’s staff for cross-examination purposes, §201.11.1. At the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent has the right to submit briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. §201.16 (d). The initial decision of the administrative law judge must include findings of fact and conclusions of law, wdth supporting reasons, on all material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record. §201.16 (a). A respondent may seek review by the Commission, which may affirm, reverse, or modify the initial decision based on its independent review of the record. §§ 201.17 (g) (2), 201.21.
Section 17 (a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. § 77q (a) ; § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. §78j (b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 CFR § 240.10b-5 (1980); §§ 206 (l)-(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U. S. C. §§80b-6 (l)-(2).
Section 17 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78q (a), and Rule 17a-5 thereunder, 17 CFR §240.17a-5 (1980); §§30 (a) and 34 (b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U. S. C. §§ 80a-29 (a) and 80a-33 (b).
Sections 15 (a) (1), 17 (a), and 17 (e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U. S. C. §§ 80a-15 (a)(1), 80a-17 (a), and 80a-17 (e).
Section 20 (a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U. S. C. § 80a-20 (a).
Petitioner was allowed 90 days in which to sell his stock in Steadman Securities Corp. Compliance with the Commission’s order has been stayed pending completion of judicial review.
Because the Commission imposed severe sanctions on petitioner, the Court of Appeals remanded to the Commission “to articulate carefully the grounds for its decision, including an explanation of why lesser sanctions will not suffice.” 603 F. 2d 1126, 1143 (CA5 1979).
There is no reason to accord less deference to congressionally prescribed standards of proof and rules of evidence in administrative proceedings than in federal courts. See Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S., at 284 (ascertaining first that Congress had not legislated a standard of proof for administrative deportation proceedings before determining appropriate standard).
Because the task of determining the appropriate standard of proof in the instant case is one of discerning congressional intent, many of petitioner’s arguments are simply inapposite. He contends, for example, that as a matter of policy, the potentially severe consequences to a respondent-in a Commission proceeding involving allegations of fraud demand that his burden of risk of erroneous factfinding should be reduced by requiring the Commission to prove violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws by clear and convincing evidence. This argument overlooks, however, Congress’ “traditional powers ... to prescribe . . . standards of proof . . . .” Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252, 265 (1980). It is not for this Court to determine the wisdom of Congress’ prescription.
Title 15 U. S. C. §§ 77i, 78y, 80a-42, and 80b-13 provide for judicial review of Commission orders in the courts of appeals.
Commission findings of fact are conclusive for a reviewing court “if supported by substantial evidence.” 15 U. S. C. §§ 78y, 80a-42, and 80b-13; cf. § 77i (Commission findings conclusive “if supported by evidence”).
This disciplinary proceeding, brought by the Commission pursuant to 15 U. S. C. § 80a-9 (b) and § 80b-3 (f), is clearly a "case of adjudication” within 5 U. S. C. § 554. See International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. Electrical Workers, 419 U. S. 428, 445 (1975). Both § 80a-9 (b) and § 80b-3 (f) also explicitly require an “opportunity for [an agency] hearing.” Moreover, the disciplinary proceeding must be conducted “on the record.” The phrase “on the record” appears in § 80b-3 (f), and while it does not appear in § 80a-9 (b), see n. 1, supra, the absence of the specific phrase from § 80a-9 (b)' does not make the instant proceeding not subject to § 554. See United States v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 410 U. S. 224, 238 (1973); United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corp., 406 U. S. 742, 757 (1972); Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle, 572 F. 2d 872, 876 (CA1), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 824 (1978). Rather, the “on the record” requirement for § 80a-9 (b) is satisfied by the substantive content of the adjudication. Title 15 U. S. C. § 80a-42 provides for judicial review of Commission orders issued pursuant to § 80a-9 (b). Substantial-evidence review by the Court of Appeals here required a hearing on the record. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 415 (1971); Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle, 572 F. 2d, at 877. Otherwise effective review by the Court of Appeals would have been frustrated. Ibid. In addition, the substantive violations to be proved pursuant to §§ 80a-9 (b) (l)-(3) are virtually identical to the substantive violations stated in §§ 80b-3 (e) (1), (4), and (5), which are incorporated by reference into § 80b-3 (f). The only substantive difference between § 80b-3 (f) and § 80a-9 (b) is that the former permits the Commission to impose sanctions on persons affiliated with an investment adviser and the latter on persons affiliated with an investment company. In both statutes, the Commission is required to prove violations of the securities law provisions enumerated, precisely the type of proceeding for which the APA’s adjudicatory procedures were intended. See generally 410 U. S., at 246.
Section 5 (b), 5 U. S. C. § 554 (c)(2), provides that “[t]he agency shall give all interested parties opportunity for . . . hearing and decision on notice and in accordance with sections 556 and 557 of this title.”
Petitioner makes no claim that the Federal Constitution requires application of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 10.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1976) defines “substantial” to mean “considerable in amount.”
Section 7 (c), of course, also sets minimum quality-of-evidence standards. For example, the provision directing agency exclusion of “irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence” and the further requirement that an agency sanction rest on “reliable” and “probative” evidence mandate that agency decisionmaking be premised on evidence of a certain level of quality. Thus, while the words “reliable” and “probative” may imply quality-of-evidence concerns, the word “substantial” implies quantity of evidence.
Section 10 (e) of the APA, 5 U. S. C § 706, is entitled “Scope of review” and provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.” § 706 (2) (E).
Section 10(e) expressly refers to §7. Addition of the words “in accordance with” could not have been inadvertent. See n. 18, supra. This is especially true in light of the House Report's discussion of the relationship between § 7 (c) and § 10 (e): “ ‘Substantial evidence’ [in § 10 (e)] means evidence which on the whole record is clearly substantial, plainly sufficient to support a finding or conclusion under the requirements of section 7 (c), and material to the issues.” H. R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 45 (1946).
It is true that the phrase “substantial evidence” is often used to denote the scope of judicial review. See n. 12, supra. But to conclude that the phrase “substantial evidence” in § 7 (c) defines the scope of judicial review would make the “substantial evidence” language of § 10 (e) redundant. Moreover, it is implausible to think that the drafters of the APA would place a scope-of-review standard in the middle of a statutory-provision designed to govern evidentiary issues in adjudicatory proceedings. Section 7 is entitled “Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision.” It “is made up almost entirely of a specification of the various elements of trial procedure.” 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 10:07, p. 332 (2d ed. 1979). More specifically, §7 (c) allocates the burden of proof (placing it on the proponent of a rule or order), provides for a broad rule governing admissibility of evidence, directs an agency to exclude “irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence,” and delineates the evidentiary basis on which a “sanction may ... be imposed.”
Petitioner’s argument overlooks the different functions of initial decision-making and judicial review of it. See Charlton v. FTC, 177 U. S. App. D. C. 418, 422, 543 F. 2d 903, 907 (1976); see generally 4 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§29.01-29.11 (1958). As we recognized in Consolo v. FMC, 383 U. S. 607 (1966), the reviewing court is not to weigh the evidence, which Consolo assumed had already been done.
Representative Walter of Pennsylvania, author of the House Report and a principal drafter of the legislation, speaking during the floor debate on the day the bill was passed by the House, stated as to the meaning of the phrase “in accordance with . . . substantial evidence” that “the accepted standards of proof, as distinguished from the mere admissibility of evidence, are to govern in administrative proceedings as they do in courts of law and equity.” S. Doc. No. 248, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 365 (1946). This statement suggests that the usual preponderance standard was contemplated. See Sea Island Broadcasting Corp. v. FCC, 200 U. S. App. D. C. 187, 190, 627 F. 2d 240, 243 (1980) (“The use of the ‘preponderance of evidence’ standard is the traditional standard in civil and administrative proceedings. It is the one contemplated by the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 556 (d)”), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 834 (1980); Collins Securities Corp. v. SEC, 183 U. S. App. D. C. 301, 304, 562 F. 2d 820, 823 (1977) (“The traditional standard of proof in a civil or administrative proceeding is the preponderance standard . . .”); 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2498 (3d ed. 1940); cf. Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S., at 288 (Clark, J., dissenting).
Moreover, during the floor debate, in the context of a discussion of § 10 (e), it was noted that the substantial-evidence test became the scope-of-review standard because of a desire to have courts review agency decisionmaking more carefully than under the then-prevalent scintilla-of-evidence test. It is clear from the debate that Congress intended agency decisionmaking to be done according to the preponderance of the evidence:
“Mr. Springer. . . . The gentleman from Iowa . . . has gone rather carefully over the provisions of the bill. I desire to call attention to only one .'. . relating to the question of reviewable acts, the review of the proceedings by the judiciary, and the scope of the review. Under the present procedure, in many cases where there is any evidence, even a scintilla of evidence, decisions have been rendered and predicated on that character of evidence before the hearing tribunal.
“Mr. Hancock. Even though contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.
“Mr. Springer. Yes, . . . that has been done in many cases even though it is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence introduced at the hearing.” S. Doc. No. 248, supra, at 376.
Petitioner’s reliance on Woodby v. INS, supra, is misplaced. There the Court required the Immigration and Naturalization Service to establish facts in deportation proceedings by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. The Court adopted this standard of proof because deportation proceedings were not subject to the APA, and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) did not prescribe a standard of proof, only the scope of judicial review. The Court reached this conclusion after examining the language, legislative history, and purpose of § 106 (a) (4) and § 242 (b) (4) of the INA. That both sections contained the words “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence” has little bearing on the construction of somewhat different language in an entirely different statute. The language, purpose, and legislative history of these sections of the INA differ in material respects from the language, purpose, and legislative history of §7 (c). Section 106 (a)(4) was explicitly labeled a judicial review provision. Section 242 (b) (4) was also construed by the Court to be “addressed to reviewing courts,” 385 U. S., at 283, in part because at the time that the provision was adopted, there was no other scope-of-judicial-review provision in the INA, id., at 284. The APA, by contrast, was passed with an explicit judicial review provision, § 10 (e), and with a provision explicitly governing evidentiary matters before the agency, § 7 (c). To the extent § 242 (b) (4) was viewed by the Court as representing a “yardstick for the administrative factfinder,” the Court concluded that the provision was directed at the quality of evidence upon which an order could be based. Id., at 283. The language of § 242 (b) (4) differs from the language of §7 (c), which includes the additional phrase “in accordance with.” Moreover, as explained above, the legislative history and purpose of §7 (c) make clear that it was not limited to quality-of-evidence. concerns or directed at all at judicial review.
We thus accept Justice Clark’s statement in dissent, with which the Court in Woodby did not disagree, that §§7 (c) and 10 (e) of the APA have “traditionally been held satisfied when the agency decides on the preponderance of the evidence.” Id., at 289, n. 1. Justice Clark’s understanding of § 7 (c), as expressed in Woodby, is entitled to particular respect. We have previously noted that the Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947) has been “¿ven some deference by this Court because of the role played by the Department of Justice in drafting the legislation,” Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S., at 546, and Justice Clark was Attorney General both when the APA was passed and when the Manual was published.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U. S. 512; Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Futrelle v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Deen v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 353 U. S. 925; Thomson v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 353 U. S. 926; Arnold v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co., 353 U. S. 360; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 354 U. S. 901; McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 354 U. S. 517; Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18; Honeycutt v. Wabash R. Co., 355 U. S. 424; Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 356 U. S. 41.
Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result for the reasons given in his memorandum in Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18, 19. See also his dissenting opinion in Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 356 U. S. 326, 332.
For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari was 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: | 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.
Pro se petitioner Michael Sindram seeks an extraordinary-writ pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1651 and requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court’s Rule 39. This is petitioner’s 25th filing before this Court in the October 1990 Term alone. Pursuant to our decision in In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989), we deny the motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis.
Petitioner is no stranger to this Court. In the last three years, he has filed 43 separate petitions and motions, including 21 petitions for certiorari, 16 petitions for rehearing, and 2 petitions for extraordinary writs. Without recorded dissent, the Court has denied all of his appeals, petitions, and motions. Petitioner has nonetheless persisted in raising essentially the same arguments in an unending series of filings. Like the majority of petitioner’s previous submissions to this Court, the instant petition relates to a speeding ticket that petitioner received on May 17, 1987, in Dorchester County, Maryland. Having already challenged his conviction for speeding in five different state and federal courts on 27 prior occasions, petitioner now requests that the Court issue a writ compelling the Maryland Court of Appeals to expedite consideration of his appeal in order that the speeding ticket may be expunged from his driving record. The petition for mandamus was filed less than three months after he filed his appeal with the Maryland court.
The mandamus petition alleges only that petitioner’s “appeal in the lower court remains pending and unacted upon,” and that “[a]s a direct and proximate cause of this dilatory action, Petitioner is unable to have his driving record expunged.” Pet. for Mandamus 2. The legal bases offered by petitioner for relief were presented in eight prior certiorari petitions and are identical to the claims unsuccessfully presented in at least 13 of petitioner’s rehearing petitions.
As we made clear in McDonald, the granting of an extraordinary writ is, in itself, extraordinary. 489 U. S., at 184-185; see Kerr v. United States District Court for Northern District of California, 426 U. S. 394, 402-403 (1976). On its face, this petition does not even remotely satisfy the requirements for issuance of an extraordinary writ. Petitioner has made no showing that “adequate relief cannot be had in any other form or from any other court” as required by this Court’s Rule 20.1. He identifies no “drastic” circumstance to justify extraordinary relief (see Ex parte Fahey, 332 U. S. 258, 259 (1947)). Instead, he merely recites the same claims that he has presented to this Court in over a dozen prior petitions. Petitioner’s request that we consider these claims yet again is both frivolous and abusive.
In McDonald, supra, we denied in forma pauperis status to a petitioner who filed a similarly nugatory petition for extraordinary writ. As we explained, the Court waives filing fees and costs for indigent individuals in order to promote the interests of justice. The goal of fairly dispensing justice, however, is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests. Pro se petitioners have a greater capacity than most to disrupt the fair allocation of judicial resources because they are not subject to the financial considerations — filing fees and attorney’s fees —that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions. Id., at 184. The risks of abuse are particularly acute with respect to applications for extraordinary relief, since such petitions are not subject to any time limitations and, theoretically, could be filed at any time without limitation. In order to prevent frivolous petitions for extraordinary relief from unsettling the fair administration of justice, the Court has a duty to deny in forma pauperis status to those individuals who have abused the system. Under the circumstances of this case, we find it appropriate to deny in forma pauperis status to petitioner in this and all future petitions for extraordinary relief.
Accordingly, if petitioner wishes to have his petition considered on its merits, he must pay the docketing fee required by this Court’s Rule 38(a) and submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 before January 28, 1991. The Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions from petitioner for extraordinary writs pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1651(a), 2241, and 2254(a), unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 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.
See Sindram v. Reading, No. 87-5734, cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1013, motion to file late petition for rehearing denied, 488 U. S. 935 (1988); Sindram v. W & W Associates, No. 87-6689, cert. denied, 486 U. S. 1024 (1988); Sindram v. Taylor, No. 88-5386, cert. denied, 488 U. S. 911, rehearing denied, 488 U. S. 987 (1988); Sindram v. Maryland, No. 89-5039, cert. denied, 493 U. S. 857 (1989); In re Sindram, No. 88-6538, petition for writ of habeas corpus denied, 489 U. S. 1064 (1989); Sindram v. Ahalt, No. 89-6755, cert. denied, 494 U. S. 1086 (1990); Sindram v. District of Columbia, No. 89-7266, cert. denied, 496 U. S. 940, rehearing denied, 497 U. S. 1047 (1990); Sindram v. N. Richard Kimmel Prop., No. 89-7847, cert. denied, ante, p. 843, rehearing denied, ante, p. 973; Sindram v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, No. 89-7848, cert. denied, ante, p. 843, rehearing denied, ante, p. 974; Sindram v. Garabedi, No. 90-5335, cert. denied, ante, p. 872, rehearing denied, ante, p. 974; Sindram v. Steuben Cty., No. 90-5351, cert. denied, ante, p. 873, rehearing denied, ante, p. 974; Sindram v. Consumer Protection Comm’n of Prince George’s County, No. 90-5371, cert. denied, ante, p. 874, rehearing denied, ante, p. 974; Sindram v. Abrams, No. 90-5373, cert. denied, ante, p. 874, rehearing denied, ante, p. 974; Sindram v. Nissan Motor Corp., No. 90-5374, cert. denied, ante, p. 891, rehearing denied, ante, p. 974; Sindram v. Ryan, No. 90-5410, cert. denied, ante, p. 901, rehearing denied, ante, p. 974; Sindram v. Sweeney, No. 90-5456, cert. denied, ante, p. 903, rehearing denied, ante, p. 974; Sindram v. Wallin, No. 90-5577, cert. denied, ante, p. 944, rehearing denied, ante, p. 973; Sindram v. McKenna, No. 90-5578, cert. denied, ante, p. 944, rehearing denied, ante, p, 973; Sindram v. Lustine Chevrolet, Inc., No. 90-5698, cert. denied, ante, p. 969; Sindram v. Montgomery Cty., No. 90-5699, cert. denied, ante, p. 948, rehearing denied, ante, p. 973; and Sindram v. Moran, No. 90-5885, cert. denied, ante, p. 988, pet. for rehearing pending. A response in Sindram v. Maryland, No. 90-5352, was received on November 19, 1990, and the petition for certiorari is presently pending.
We have permitted petitioner to proceed informa pauperis in each of these actions based upon his affidavit that he earns only $2,600 per year and has no assets of any value.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are “sit-in” cases that came here from the highest courts of South Carolina and Arkansas, respectively. Each of those courts affirmed convictions based upon state' trespass statutes against petitioners, who are Negroes, for participating in “sit-in” démonstrations in the luncheon facilities of retail stores in their respective States^ We granted certiorari in each of the cases, 377 U. S. 988, 989, and consolidated them for argument. The petitioners asserted both in the state courts and here the denial of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment; in addition, they claim here that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241, passed subsequent to their convictions and the affirmances thereof in the state courts, abated these actions.
1. The Facts.
In No. 2, Hamm v. Rock Hill, the petitioner, and a companion who is now deceased, entered McCrory’s variety store at Rock Hill, South Carolina. After making purchases in other parts of the store, they proceeded to the lunch counter and sought service. It was refused. The manager asked the petitioner and his associate to leave and when they refused he called the police. They were prosecuted and convicted under § 16-388 of the S. C. Code of Laws, making it an offense for anyone to enter a place of business after having been warned not to do so or to refuse to leave immediately after having entered therein. Petitioner’s companion died subsequently. The conviction of petitioner was affirmed by both the Court of General Sessions and the Supreme' Court of South Carolina, 24Í S. C. 420, 128 S. E. 2d 907 (1962).
Lupper v. Arkansas, No. 5, involves a group of Negroes who entered the department store of Gus Blass Company in Little Rock. The group went to the mezzanine tearoom of the store at the busy luncheon hour, seated themselves and requested service which was refused. Within a few minutes the group, including petitioners, was advised that Blass reserved the right to refuse service to anyone and was not prepared to serve them at that time. Upon being requested to leave, the petitioners refused. The police officers who were summoned located petitioners on the first floor of the store and arrested them. The officers’ testimony that petitioners admitted the whole affair was denied. The prosecutions in the Little Rock Municipal Court resulted in convictions -of petitioners based upon § 41-1433, Ark. Stat. Ann. (1964 Repl. Yol.), which prohibits a person from remaining on the premises of a business establishment after having been requested to leave by the owner or manager thereof. On appeal to the Pulaski Circuit Court, a trial de novo resulted in verdicts of guilty and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, 236 Ark. 596, 367 S. W. 2d 750 (1963), sub nom. Briggs v. State.
We hold that the convictions must be vacated and the prosecutions dismissed. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in places of public accommodation and removes peaceful attempts to be served on an equal basis from the category of punishable activities. Although the conduct, in the present cases occurréd prior to enactment of the Act, the still-pending convictions are abated by its passage.
2. Application of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Facts Here.
We treat these cases as involving' places of public accommodation covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under that statute, a place of public- accommodation is defined to include one which serves or offers to serve interstate travelers. Applying the rules of §§ 201 (b) (2), (c) we find that each of them offers to serve interstate travelers. In Hamm it is not denied that the lunch counter was in a McCrory’s 5-and-10-cent store, a large variety store at Rock Hill belonging to a national chain, which offers to • sell thousands of items to the public; that it invites all members of the public into its premises to do business and offers to serve all persons, except at its lunch counter which is restricted to white persons only. There is no contention here that it does not come within the Act. Likewise in Lupper the lunch counter area, called a tearoom, is located within and operated by the Gus Blass Company’s department store at Little Rock. It is a large department store dealing extensively in interstate commerce. It appears from the record that it also offered to serve all persons coming into its store but limited its lunch counter service to white persons. On argument it was frankly admitted that the lunch counter operation “probably would” come under the Act. Finally, neither respondent asks for a remand to determine the facts as to coverage of the respective lunch counters. In the light of such a record and the legislative history indicating that Congress intended to cover retail store lunch counters, See 110 Cong. Rec. 1519-1520, we hold that the Act covers both the McCrory and the Blass lunch counter operations.
3. The Provisions of the Act.
Under the Civil Rights Act, petitioners’ conduct could not be the subject of trespass prosecutions, federal or state, if it had occürred after the enactment of the statuté.
Title II includes several sections, some of which are relevant here, that create federal statutory rights. The first is § 201 (a) declaring that “[a]ll persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoymént of the goods, services, fácilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,” which, as we have found includes the establishments here involved. Next, § 203 provides:
“No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to. withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate,, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.” (Emphasis supplied.)
On its face, this language prohibits prosecution of any person for seeking service in a covered establishment, because of his race or color. It has been argued, however, that victims of discrimination must make use of the exclusive statutory mechanisms for the redress of grievances, and not resort to extralegal means. Although we agree that the law generally condemns self-help, the language of § 203 (c) supports a conclusion that nonforcible attempts to gain admittance to or remain in establishments covered by the Act, are immunized from prosecution, for the statute speaks of exercising or attempting to exercise a “right or privilege” secured by its earlier provisions. The availability of the Act as a defense against punishment is not limited solely to those who pursue the statutory remedies. The legislative history specifically notes that the Act would be a defense to criminal trespáss, breach of the peace and similar prosecutions. Senator Humphrey, floor manager of the bill in the Senate, said in explaining the bill:
“This plainly means that a defendant in a criminal trespass, breach of the peace, or other similar case can assert the rights created by 201 and 202 and that State courts must entertain defenses grounded upon these provisions. . . .” 110 Cong. Rec. 9767.
In effect the Act prohibits the application of state laws in a way that would deprive any person of the rights granted under the Act. The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, requires this result where “there is a.clear collision” between state and federal law, Kesler v. Department of Safety, 369 U. S. 153, 172 (1962), or a conflict between. federal law and the application of an otherwise valid state enactment, Hill v. Florida, 325 U. S. 538 (1945). There can be no question that this was the intended result here in light of §203 (c). The present convictions and the command of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are clearly in direct conflict. The only remaining question is the effect, of the Act on judgments rendered, but not finalized, before its passage.
4. Effect of the Act upon the Prosecutions.
Last Term, in Bell v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 226, we noted the existence of a body of federal and state law to the effect that convictions on direct review at the time the conduct in question is rendered no longer unlawful by statute, must abate. We consider first the effect the Civil Rights Act would have on petitioners’ convictions if they had been federal convictions, and then,the import of the fact that these are state and not federal convictions. We think it is clear that the convictions, if federal, would abate.
The doctrine found its earliest expression in Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110 (1801):
“But if subsequent to the judgment and before the decision of the appellate court, a law intervenes and positively changes the rule which governs, the law must be obeyed, or its obligation denied. If the law be constitutional ... I know of no. court which' can contest its obligation. It is true that in mere private cases between individuals, a court will and ought to struggle hard against a construction which will, by a retrospective operation, , affect the rights of parties, but in great national concerns . . . [the law] ought always to receive a construction conforming to its manifest import .... In such a case the court must* decide according to existing laws, and if it be necessary to set aside a judgment, rightful when rendered, but which cannot be affirmed but in violation of law, the judgment must be set aside."
Although the decision in that case arguably rested on the premise that appeals in admiralty were trials de novo, and that prize litigation applied the law of the time of trial, see Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch 281, 283 (1809); Maryland v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 3 How. 534, 552 (1845); United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 95 (1871); United States v. Reisinger, 128 U. S. 398, 401 (1888); United States v. Chambers, 291 U. S. 217, 222-223 (1934); Massey v. United States, 291 U. S. 608 (1934), the later cases applied the rule in quite different contexts, see United States v. Tynen, supra; United States v. Reisinger, supra. The reason for the rule was stated by Chief Justice Hughes, in United States v. Chambers: “Prosecution for crimes is but an application or enforcement of the law, and if the prosecution continues the law must continue to vivify it.” 291 U. S. 217, at 226. Although Chambers specifically left open the question of the effect of its rule on cases where final judgment was rendered prior to ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, and petition for certiorari sought thereafter, such an extension of the rule was taken for granted in the per curiam decision in Massey v. United States, supra, handed down shortly after Chambers.
It is apparent that the rule exemplified by Chambers does not depend on the imputation of a specific intention to Congress in any particular statute. None of the cases cited drew on any reference to the problem in the legislative history or the language of the statute. Rather, the principle takes the more general form of imputing to Congress an intention to avoid inflicting punishment at a time when it can no longer further any legislative purpose, and would be unnecessarily vindictive. This general principle, expressed in the rule, is to be read wherever applicable as part of the background against which Congress acts. Thus, we deem it irrelevant that Congress made no allusion to the problem in enacting the Civil Rights Aclt.
Nor do we believe that the provisions of the federal saving statute, 61 Stat. 635, 1 U. S. C. § 109 (1958 ed.), would nullify abatement of a federal conviction. In Chambers, a case where the cause for punishment was removed by a repeal of the constitutional basis for the punitive statute, the Court was quite certain as to this. See 291 Ü. S., at 224 and n. 2, involving.the identical statute. The federal saving statute was originally enacted in 1871, 16 Stat. 432. It was meant to obviate mere technical abatement, such as that illustrated by the application of the rule in Tynen decided in 1871. There a substitution of a new statute with a greater schedule of penalties was held to abate the previous prosecution. In contrast, the Civil Rights Act works no such technical abatement. It substitutes a right for a crime. So drastic a change is well beyond the narrow language of amendment and repeal. It is clear, therefore, that if the convictions were under a federal statute they would be' abated.
We believe the fact that the convictions were under state statutes is in these cases a distinction without a difference. We cannot believe the Congress, in enacting-such a far-reaching and comprehensive scheme, intended the Act to operate less effectively than the run-of-the-mill repealer. Since the provisions of the Act would abate all federal prosecutions it follows that the same rule must prevail under the Supremacy Clause which requires that a contrary state practice or state statute must give way. Here the Act intervened before either of the judgments under attack was finalized. Just as in federal cases abatement must follow in these state prosecutions. Rather than a retroactive intrusion into state criminal law this is but the application of a long-standing federal rule,.namely, that since the Civil Rights Act substitutes a right for a crime any state statute, or its application, to the contrary must by virtue of the Supremacy Clause give way under the normal abatement rule covering pending convictions arising out of a pre-enactment activity. The great purpose of the civil rights legislation was to obliter- . ate the effect of a distressing chapter of our history. This demands no less than the application of a normal rule, of statutory construction to strike down pending convictions inconsistent with the purposes of the Act.
Far from finding a bar to the application of the rule where a state statute is. involved, we find that our construction of the effect of the Civil Rights Act is more than statutory. It is required by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. See Kesler v. Department of Safety, 369 U. S. 153, 172 (1962); Hill v. Florida, 325 U. S. 538 (1945). Future state prosecutions under the Act being unconstitutional and there being no saving clause in the Act itself, convictions for pre-enactment violations would be equally unconstitutional and abatement necessarily follows.
Nor do we find persuasive reasons for. imputing to the Congress an intent to insulate such prosecutions. As we have said, Congress, as well as the two Presidents who recommended the legislation, clearly intended to eradicate an unhappy chapter in our history. The peaceful conduct for which petitioners were prosecuted was on.behalf of a principle since embodied in the law of the land. The convictions were based on the theory that the rights of a property owner had been violated. However, the supposed right to discriminate on the basis of race, at least in covered establishments, was nullified by the statute. Under such circumstances the actionable nature of the acts in question must be viewed in the light of the statute .and its legislative purpose.
We find yet another reason for applying the Chambers rule of construction. In our view Congress clearly had the power to extend immunity to pending prosecutions. Some might say that to permit these convictions to stand would have no effect on interstate commerce which we have held justified the adoption of the Act. But even if this be true, the principle of abatement is so firmly imbedded in our jurisprudence as to be a necessary and proper part of every statute working a repealer of criminal legislation. Where Congress sets out to regulate a situation within its power, the Constitution 'affords it a wide choice of remedies. This being true, the only question remaining is whether Congress exercised its power in the Act' to abate the prosecutions here. If we held that it did not we would then have to pass on the constitutional question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment, without the benefit of the Civil Rights Act, operates of its own force to bar criminal trespass convictions, where, as here, they are used to enforce a pattern of racial discrimination. As we have noted, some of the Justices joining this opinion believe that the Fourteenth Amendment does so operate; others are of the contrary opinion. Since this point is not free from, doubt, and since as we have found ■ Congress has ample power to extend the statute to pending convictions we avoid that question by favoring an interpretation of the statute which renders a constitutional decision unnecessary.
In short, now that Congress has exercised its constitutional power in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and declared that the public policy of our country is to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations as therein defined, there is no public interest to be served in the further prosecution of the petitioners. And in accordance with the long-established rule of our cases they must be abated and the judgment in each is therefore vacated and the charges are ordered dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Section 201:
“(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce . . .
“(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally ’ engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment . . .
“(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if ... it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers . . . .”
In Lupper the State’s brief says, “a remand of these cases would not reap any . . . benefits.” At 13.
Some of us believe that the substantive rights granted by the Act here, i: e., freedom from discrimination in places of public accommodation are also included in the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, see concurring opinions in Bell v. Maryland, 378 U. S. 226; others take the position that the Amendment creates no such substantive rights, see dissenting opinion in Bell v. Maryland, supra. No such question, is involved here, and we do not pass upon it in any manner. We deal only with the statutory rights created in the Act.
In Bell v. Maryland, supra, we dealt with the problem arising when a state enactment intervened prior to the finalizing of. státe criminal trespass convictions. Because we were dealing with the effect of a state statute on a state conviction prior to the Act’s passage we felt that the state courts should be allowed to pass on the question. Here, we have an intervening federal statute and in attempting to judge its effect on a state conviction we are faced with a federal not a state question. Because of this distinction we do not feel that remand is esquired or desirable.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered" the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may seek classwide relief under §706 (f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) without being certified as the class representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that certification was not required. 599 F. 2d 322 (1979). Because this is a recurring issue on which the federal courts are divided, we granted certiorari, 444 U. S. 989 (1979). We affirm the judgment.
I
Four employees of General Telephone Company of the Northwest, Inc. (General Telephone), filed charges with the EEOC complaining of sex discrimination in employment. After investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to suspect discrimination against women, and in April 1977 brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington under § 706 (f)(1) of Title VII, as amended, § 4, 86 Stat. 105, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (l). The EEOC named as defendants General Telephone and its subsidiary, West Coast Telephone Company of California, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as General Telephone), as well as the certified bargaining agent, Local Union No. 89, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The complaint alleged discrimination against female employees in General Telephone’s facilities in the States of California, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon, in the form of restrictions on maternity leave, access to craft jobs, and promotion to managerial positions; it sought injunctive relief and backpay for the women affected by the challenged practices.
The complaint did not mention Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and the EEOC did not seek class certification pursuant to that Rule. In August 1977, the EEOC moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 (b) “for an order bifurcating the issue of class liability from the issue of individual damages.” The District Court referred the motion to a Magistrate, see Title VII, §706 (f)(5), and General Telephone moved “for an order dismissing the class action aspects” of the complaint.
The Magistrate concluded that the EEOC was hot required to comply with Rule 23 and recommended that the motion be denied. The District Court adopted the recommendation, denied the motion to dismiss, and then certified the issue for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals accepted the appeal, see 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b), and affirmed the District Court’s ruling.
II
We agree with the Court of Appeals that Rule 23 is not applicable to an enforcement action brought by the EEOC in its own name and pursuant to its authority under § 706 to prevent unlawful employment practices. We rely on the language of Title VII, the legislative intent underlying the 1972 amendments to Title VII, and the enforcement procedures under Title VII prior to the amendments.
A
Title VII protects all employees of and applicants for employment with a covered employer, employment agency, labor organization, or training program against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Section 706 (a) empowers the EEOC “to prevent any person from engaging in any unlawful . . . practice” as set forth in the Title. Section 706 (f)(1) specifically authorizes the EEOC to bring a civil action against any respondent not a governmental entity upon failure to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement, the purpose of the action being to terminate unlawful practices and to secure appropriate relief, including “reinstatement or hiring . . . , with or without back pay,” for the victims of the discrimination. See § 706 (g).
Title VII thus itself authorizes the procedure that the EEOC followed in this case. Upon finding reasonable cause to believe that General Telephone.had discriminated against female employees, the EEOC filed suit seeking a permanent injunction against the discriminatory practices, remedial action to eradicate the effect of past discrimination, and “make whole” backpay, with interest, for persons adversely affected by the unlawful practices. Given the clear purpose of Title VII, the EEOC’s jurisdiction over enforcement, and the remedies available, the EEOC need look no further than § 706 for its authority to bring suit in its own name for the purpose, among others, of securing relief for a group of aggrieved individuals. Its authority to bring such actions is in no way dependent upon Rule 23, and the Rule has no application to a § 706 suit.
Of course, Title VII defendants do not welcome the prospect of backpay liability; but the law provides for such liability and the EEOC’s authority to sue for it. Moreover, the EEOC here requested relief only on behalf of “those persons adversely affected” and “in an amount to be proved at trial.” App. 11. There is no claim or suggestion of unjustified, windfall backpay awards. That backpay relief is authorized is no basis- for imposing the Rule 23 framework in an EEOC enforcement action. We do no more than follow a straightforward reading of the- statute, which seems to us to authorize the EEOC to sue in its own name to enforce federal law by obtaining appropriate relief for those persons injured by discriminatory practices forbidden by the Act.
B
This understanding of the statute is supported by the purpose of the 1972 amendments of providing the EEOC with enforcement authority. The purpose of the amendments, plainly enough, was to secure more effective enforcement of Title VII. As Title VII was originally enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC’s role in eliminating unlawful employment practices was limited to “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” Civil actions for enforcement upon the EEOC’s inability to secure voluntary compliance could be filed only by the aggrieved person. § 706 (e), 78 Stat. 260. Congress became convinced, however, that the “failure to grant the EEOC meaningful enforcement powers has proven to be a major flaw in the operation of Title VII.” S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 4 (1971). The 1972 amendments to § 706 accordingly expanded the EEOC’s enforcement powers by authorizing the EEOC to bring a civil action in federal district court against private employers reasonably suspected of violating Title VII. In so doing, Congress sought to implement the public interest as well as to bring about more effective enforcement of private rights. The amendments did not transfer all private enforcement to the EEOC and assign to that agency exclusively the task of protecting private interests. The EEOC’s civil suit was intended to supplement, not replace, the private action. Cf. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 45 (1974). The EEOC was to bear the primary burden of litigation, but the private action previously available under § 706 was not superseded. Under § 706 (f)(1), the aggrieved person may bring his own action at the expiration of the 180-day period of exclusive EEOC administrative jurisdiction if the agency has failed to move the case along to the party’s satisfaction, has reached a determination not to sue, or has reached a conciliation or settlement agreement with the respondent that the party finds unsatisfactory. The aggrieved person may also intervene in the EEOC’s enforcement action. These private-action rights suggest that the EEOC is not merely a proxy for the victims of discrimination and that the EEOC’s enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23. Although the EEOC can secure specific relief, such as hiring or reinstatement, constructive seniority, or damages for backpay or benefits denied, on behalf of discrimination victims, the agency is guided by “the overriding public interest in equal employment opportunity . . . asserted through direct Federal enforcement.” 118 Cong. Rec. 4941 (1972). When the EEOC acts, albeit at the behest of and for the benefit of specific individuals, it acts also to vindicate the public interest in preventing employment discrimination.
c
Prior to 1972, the only civil actions authorized other than private lawsuits were actions by the Attorney General upon reasonable cause to suspect “a pattern or practice” of discrimination. These actions did not depend upon the filing of a charge with the EEOC; nor were they designed merely to advance the personal interest of any particular aggrieved person. Prior to 1972, the Department of Justice filed numerous § 707 pattern-or-practice suits. 118 Cong. Rec. 4080 (1972) (remarks of Sen. Williams). In none was it ever suggested that the Attorney General sued in a representative capacity or that his enforcement suit must comply with the requirements of Rule 23; and this was true even though specific relief was awarded to individuals not parties to the suit.
The 1972 amendments, in addition to providing for a § 706 suit by the EEOC pursuant to a charge filed by a private party, transferred to the EEOC the Attorney General’s authority to bring pattern-or-practice suits on his own motion. In discussing the transfer, Senator Hruska described § 707 actions as “in the nature of class actions” 118 Cong. Rec. 4080 (1972). Senator Williams then noted that, upon the transfer, “[t]here will be no difference between the cases that the Attorney General can bring under section 707 as a 'pattern or practice’ charge and those which the [EEOC] will be able to bring.” Id., at 4081. Senator Javits agreed with both Senators: “The EEOC . . . has the authority to institute exactly the same actions that the Department of Justice does under pattern or practice.” Senator Javits further noted that “if [the EEOC] proceeds by suit, then it can proceed by class suit. If it proceeds by class suit, it is in the position of doing exactly what the Department of Justice does in pattern and practice suits. . . . [T] he power to sue . . . fully qualifies the [EEOC] to take precisely the action now taken by the Department of Justice.” Id., at 4081-4082. As we have said, the Department of Justice brought its suits in the name of the United States and without obtaining certification under Rule 23 — it did not sue as a representative of the persons aggrieved — and we must assume Congress’ familiarity with the procedure. It is clear that with the 1972 amendments Congress intended the EEOC to proceed in the same manner; and thus, given the context, it is similarly clear that the references in debate to “class” suits referred to the availability of relief and not the procedure that would be applicable in such actions.
Ill
It is also apparent that forcing EEOC civil actions into the Rule 23 model would in many cases distort the Rule as it is commonly interpreted and in others foreclose enforcement actions not satisfying prevailing Rule 23 standards but seemingly authorized by § 706 (f) (1). The undesirability of doing either supports our conclusion that the procedural requirements of the Rule do not apply.
A
Rule 23 (a), see n. 3, supra, imposes the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. When considered in the light of these requirements, it is clear that the Rule was not designed to apply to EEOC actions brought in its own name for the enforcement of federal law. Some of the obvious and more severe problems are worth noting.
The numerosity requirement requires examination of the specific facts of each case and imposes no absolute limitations. Title VII, however, applies to employers with as few as 15 employees. When judged by the size of the putative class in various cases in which certification has been denied, this minimum would be too small to meet the numerosity requirement. In such cases, applying Rule 23 would require the EEOC to join all aggrieved parties despite its statutory authority to proceed solely in its own name.
The typicality requirement is said to limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff’s claims. If Rule 23 were applicable to EEOC enforcement actions, it would seem that the Title VII counterpart to the Rule 23 named plaintiff would be the charging party, with the EEOC serving in the charging party’s stead as the representative of the class. Yet the Courts of Appeals have held that EEOC enforcement actions are not limited to the claims presented by the charging parties. Any violations that the EEOC ascertains in the course of a reasonable investigation of the charging party’s complaint are actionable. See, e. g., EEOC v. General Electric Co., 532 F. 2d 359, 366 (CA4 1976); EEOC v. McLean Trucking Co., 525 F. 2d 1007, 1010 (CA6 1975). The latter approach is far more consistent with the EEOC’s role in the enforcement of Title VII than is imposing the strictures of Rule 23, which would limit the EEOC action to claims typified by those of the charging party.
We note finally that the adequate-representation requirement is typically construed to foreclose the class action where there is a conflict of interest between the named plaintiff and the members of the putative class. In employment discrimination litigation, conflicts might arise, for example, between employees and applicants who were denied employment and who will, if granted relief, compete with employees for fringe benefits or seniority. Under Rule 23, the same plaintiff could not represent these classes. But unlike the Rule 23 class representative, the EEOC is authorized to proceed in a unified action and to obtain the most satisfactory overall relief even though competing interests are involved and particular groups may appear to be disadvantaged. The individual victim is given his right to intervene for this very reason. The EEOC exists to advance the public interest in preventing and remedying employment discrimination, and it does so in part by making the hard choices where conflicts of interest exist. We are reluctant, absent clear congressional guidance, to subject §706 (f)(1) actions to requirements that might disable the enforcement agency from advancing the public interest in the manner and to the extent contemplated by the statute.
B
We observe that General Telephone does not urge application of Rule 23 to EEOC enforcement actions in the expectation or hope that the agency could not comply and would be forced to drop its action against General Telephone. Indeed, petitioners urge that the EEOC, in proper cases, would be able to meet the Rule 23 requirements. Brief for Petitioners 16-22. As we understand, petitioners’ objective in seeking to invoke Rule 23 is aimed at securing a judgment in the EEOC’s suit that will be binding upon all individuals with similar grievances in the class or subclasses that might be certified. We are sensitive to the importance of the res judicata aspects of Rule 23 judgments, but we are not free to depart from what we believe the statutory design to be.
We have noted in a related context the interface between employment discrimination remedies under a collective-bargaining agreement and those under Title VII. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974), held that the employee did not forfeit Title VII relief by invoking the grievance and arbitration procedures under the collective-bargaining contract. We noted that "federal courts have been assigned plenary powers to secure compliance with Title VII.” Id., at 45. Similarly, the courts retain remedial powers under Title VII despite a finding by the EEOC of no reasonable cause to believe that Title VII has been violated. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 798-799 (1973). We have also stressed the strong congressional intent to provide “make whole” relief to Title VII claimants: “ ‘The provisions of this subsection are intended to give the courts wide discretion exercising their equitable powers to fashion the most complete relief possible. . . .’ 118 Cong. Rec. 7168 (1972).” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 421 (1975).
The 1972 amendments retained the private right of action as “an essential means of obtaining judicial enforcement of Title VII,” Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., supra, at 45, while also giving the EEOC broad enforcement powers. In light of the “general intent to accord parallel or overlapping remedies against discrimination,” 415 U. S., at 47, we are unconvinced that it would be consistent with the remedial purpose of the statutes to bind all “class” members with discrimination grievances against an employer by the relief obtained under an EEOC judgment or settlement against the employer. This is especially true given the possible differences between the public and private interests involved. Cf. Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355 (1977).
The courts, however, are not powerless to prevent undue hardship to the defendant and should perform accordingly. The employer may, by discovery and other pretrial proceedings, determine the nature and extent of the claims that the EEOC intends to pursue against it. Here, as we have noted, the EEOC moved to try initially the issue of liability, not to avoid proving individual claims, but merely to postpone such proof. It also goes without saying that the courts can and should preclude double recovery by an individual. Cf. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., supra, at 51, n. 14. Also, where the EEOC has prevailed in its action, the court may reasonably require any individual who claims under its judgment to relinquish his right to bring a separate private action. The Title VII remedy is an equitable one; a court of equity should adjust the relief accordingly.
IV
We hold, therefore, that the EEOC may maintain its § 706 civil actions for the enforcement of Title VII and may seek specific relief for a group of aggrieved individuals without first obtaining class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is accordingly
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Powell, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and Mr. Justice Stevens, for the reasons that are well stated by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in EEOC v. D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd., 556 F. 2d 787 (1977), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 962 (1978), would reverse the judgment in this case.
The Fifth Circuit previously addressed this same issue and held that certification was required. EEOC v. D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd., 556 F. 2d 787 (1977), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 962 (1978). The District Courts have decided the issue both ways.
Section 706 (f)(1) provides in pertinent part:
“If within thirty days after a charge is filed with the Commission . . . , the Commission has been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission may bring a civil action against any respondent not a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision named in the charge. . . . The person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the Commission .... If a charge filed with the Commission pursuant to subsection (b) is dismissed by the Commission, or if within one hundred and eighty days from the filing of such charge or the expiration of any period of reference under subsection (c) or (d), whichever is later, the Commission has not filed a civil action under this section ... or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the person aggrieved is a party, the Commission . . . shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge (A) by the person claiming to be aggrieved or (B) if such charge was filed by a member of the Commission, by any person whom the charge alleges was aggrieved by the alleged unlawful employment practice.”
Rule 23 provides in pertinent part:
“(a) Prerequisites to a Class Action.
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
"(b) Class Actions Maintainable.
An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:
“(1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of
“(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications' with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or
“(B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or
“(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or
"(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.”
Local Union No. 89, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, did not join in this motion. Discussions were underway between the union and the EEOC to resolve the allegations in the complaint against the union. The union also did not participate in the appeal to the Ninth Circuit following the denial of the motion to dismiss. On December 18, 1978, the District Court entered a consent decree against the union; General Telephone’s cross-claim for judgment against the union if General Telephone is found liable on the sex discrimination claims is still pending.
The union also did not join in General Telephone’s petition for certiorari and is, therefore, a respondent in this Court. See this Court’s Rule 21 (4).
Petitioners characterize this action as a “class action”; the EEOC characterizes it as an action “affecting a class of individuals.” We need not choose between these characterizations. The issue is whether an action, however it is styled, brought by a Government agency to enforce the federal law with whose enforcement the agency is charged is subject to the requirements of Rule 23.
The Attorney General is authorized to bring suit against a governmental entity.
The Senate Report on the amendments notes:
“The most striking deficiency of the 1964 Act is that the EEOC does not have the authority to issue judicially enforceable orders to back up its findings of discrimination. . . .
“As a consequence, unless the Department of Justice concludes that a pattern or practice of resistance to Title VII is involved, the burden of obtaining enforceable relief rests upon each individual victim of discrimination, who must go into court as a private party, with the delay and expense that entails, in order to secure the rights promised him under the law.” S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 4 (1971).
The Senate Committee contemplated EEOC enforcement through an administrative proceeding followed by a cease-and-desist order with review in the appropriate United States court of appeals. Although a floor amendment changed the procedure to a civil suit in the district court, the policy remained the same.
Cf. Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 368 (1977) (“[U]nder the procedural structure created by the 1972 amendments, the EEOC does not function simply as a vehicle for conducting litigation on behalf of private parties; it is a federal administrative agency charged with the responsibility of investigating claims of employment discrimination and settling disputes, if possible, in an informal, noncoercive fashion”). Cf. also Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395, 397-398 (1946) (The Price Administrator “invoke[s] the jurisdiction of the District Court to enjoin acts and practices made illegal by the [Emergency Price Control Act of 1942] and to enforce compliance with the Act. . . . [S]inee the public interest is involved in a proceeding of this nature, [the District Court's] equitable powers assume an even broader and more flexible character than when only a private controversy is at stake”).
Nor has it been so suggested in § 707 suits brought since 1972. In fact, the only Court of Appeals to hold that the EEOC must comply with Rule 23 in its § 706 actions has intimated that the procedural requirements would not apply in a § 707 action. The Fifth Circuit, in EEOC v. D. H. Holmes Co., although imposing the Rule 23 strictures on § 706 actions, noted “emphatically that this is not a situation in which application of procedural rules will thwart any substantive right whatsoever.
“If, for any reason, EEOC is not certified below but still believes a pattern or practice of discrimination exists in the Holmes Company, its recourse is to file a suit under § 707. . . .” 556 F. 2d, at 792, n. 8.
See, e. g., United States v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 471 F. 2d 582, 589-590 (CA4 1972) (constructive seniority), cert. denied sub nom. Railroad Trainmen v. United States, 411 U. S. 939 (1973); United States v. St. Louis-S. F. R. Co., 464 F. 2d 301, 309-311 (CA8 1972) (en banc) (preferential hiring and constructive seniority), cert. denied sub nom. Transportation Union v. United States, 409 U. S. 1107 (1973); United States v. Ironworkers Local 86, 443 F. 2d 544, 548, 552-554 (CA9) (preferential hiring), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 984 (1971).
Since 1972, backpay has also been awarded in pattem-or-practice suits, and without suggestion that Rule 23 is implicated. E. g., EEOC v. Detroit Edison Co., 515 F. 2d 301, 314-315 (CA6 1975); United States v. Georgia Power Co., 474 F. 2d 906, 919-920 (CA5 1973); cf. United States v. N. L. Industries, Inc., 479 F. 2d 354, 378-380 (CA8 1973). And we see nothing to indicate that prior to 1972, in cases where backpay was requested and denied, the result rested on the ground that the Government could not obtain individual relief in its enforcement action without compliance with Rule 23. See, e. g., United States v. St. Louis-S. F. R. Co., supra, at 311; United States v. Hayes Int’l Corp., 456 F. 2d 112, 121 (CA5 1972).
The legislative debate at this point focused on whether and when to make the transfer. The issue arose in the wake of the decision the day before to empower the EEOC to proceed by civil action and not cease-and-desist order. As finally agreed upon, the transfer was to occur two years after the effective date of the amendments.
Senator Javits goes on here to note that “[t]hese are essentially class actions, and if they can sue for an individual claimant, then they can sue for a group of claimants.” Given its juxtaposition between the discussion of the Department of Justice’s pattern-or-practice actions and the EEOC’s newly granted ability to sue, it is unclear whether the Senator’s characterization here as “class actions” referred to § 707 or § 706.
Petitioners rely heavily on the statement by Senator Javits immediately following the quotation set out in n. 12, supra, that “this is provided for by the rules of civil procedure in the Federal courts.” The Senator then elaborated:
“I have referred to the rules of civil procedure. I now refer specifically to rule 23 of those rules, which is entitled Class Actions and which give[s] the opportunity to engage in the Federal Court in class actions by properly suing parties. We ourselves have given permission to the EEOC to be a properly suing party.” 118 Cong. Rec. 4082 (1972).
Again, given the context, the point that emerges most clearly is that the Senator’s comments merely compare the effect of the amendments to § 706 with the Rule 23 procedure; the comments were not intended to impose the requirements of the Rule on the § 706 action. Indeed, the idea that the EEOC’s enforcement suits were to be subject to the full range of Rule 23 requirements is completely inconsistent with the Senator’s own comparisons, noted in text, between the EEOC’s authority under § 706 as amended and the authority of the Department of Justice under the original version of § 707.
See, e. g., Monarch Asphalt Sales Co. v. Wilshire Oil Co. of Texas, 511 F. 2d 1073, 1077 (CA10 1975) (37 class plaintiffs); Peterson v. Albert M. Bender Co., 75 F. R. D. 661, 667 (ND Cal. 1977) (35-45); Murray v. Norberg, 423 F. Supp. 795, 798 (RI 1976) (fewer than 20); Chmieleski v. City Products Corp., 71 F. R. D. 118, 150-151 (WD Mo. 1976) (22); Lopez v. Jackson County Bd. of Supervisors, 375 F. Supp. 1194, 1196-1197 (SD Miss. 1974) (16); Moreland v. Rucker Pharmacal Co., 63 F. R. D. 611, 613-614 (WD La. 1974) (26); Anderson v. Home Style Stores, Inc., 58 F. R. D. 125, 130-131 (ED Pa. 1972) (18).
An acceptance of the benefits under an EEOC-negotiated settlement could be drafted to provide for a similar relinquishment.
We by no means suggest that the Federal Rules generally are inapplicable to the EEOC's §706 actions. Title VII itself refers to Rule 63, see §706 (f)(5), and the Court itself has discussed Rule 54(c). See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 424 (1975). We hold only that the nature of the EEOC’s enforcement action is such that it is not properly characterized as a “class action” subject to the procedural requirements of Rule 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: | 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.
Pro se petitioner Lowe seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Lowe is allowed until April 19,1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any farther petitions for certiorari nor petitions for extraordinary writs from Lowe in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Lowe has abused this Court’s certiorari and extraordinary writ processes. In November of last year and earlier this month, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Lowe in forma pau-peris status. See Lowe v. Cantrell, 525 U. S. 1176 (1999); In re Lowe, 525 U. S. 960 (1998) (three cases). Before these 4 denials, Lowe had filed 23 petitions, all of which were both patently frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. The 4 instant petitions for certiorari thus bring Lowe’s total number of frivolous filings to 31. He has several additional filings — all of them patently frivolous— currently pending before this Court.
We enter the order barring sons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Lowe’s abuse of the writ of certiorari and of the extraordinary writs has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Lowe from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order, however, will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process.
It is so
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, as is leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis a conviction for housebreaking and larceny. 101 U. S. App. D. C. 386, 249 F. 2d 478. The Solicitor General concedes that leave to appeal should have been allowed unless petitioner’s contentions on the merits were frivolous. The only statutory requirement for the allowance of an indigent’s appeal is the applicant’s “good faith.” 28 U. S. C. § 1915. In the absence of some evident improper motive, the applicant’s good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous. Farley v. United States, 354 U. S. 521. The good-faith test must not be converted into a requirement of a preliminary showing of any particular degree of merit. Unless the issues raised are so frivolous that the appeal would be dismissed in the case of a nonindigent litigant, Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 39 (a), the request of an indigent for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must be allowed.
Normally, allowance of an appeal should not be denied until an indigent has had adequate representation by counsel. Johnson v. United States, 352 U. S. 565. In this case, it appears that the two attorneys appointed by the Court of Appeals, performed essentially the role of amici curiae. But representation in the role of an advocate is required.. If counsel is convinced, after conscientious investigation, that the appeal is frivolous, of course, he may ask to withdraw on that account. If the court is satisfied that counsel has diligently investigated the possible grounds of appeal, and agrees with counsel’s evaluation of the case, then leave to withdraw may be allowed and leave to appeal may be denied. In this case, the Solicitor General concedes, and after examining the record we agree, that the issue presented — probable cause to arrest — is not one that “can necessarily be characterized as frivolous.” Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of this 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.
Per Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fourth Amendment forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and this usually requires the police to have probable cause or a warrant before making an arrest. What if an officer reasonably believes there is an outstanding arrest warrant, but that belief turns out to be wrong because of a negligent bookkeeping error by another police employee? The parties here agree that the ensuing arrest is still a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but dispute whether contraband found during a search incident to that arrest must be excluded in a later prosecution.
Our cases establish that such suppression is not an automatic consequence of a Fourth Amendment violation. Instead, the question turns on the culpability of the police and the potential of exclusion to deter wrongful police conduct. Here the error was the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest. We hold that in these circumstances the jury should not be barred from considering all the evidence.
I
On July 7, 2004, Investigator Mark Anderson learned that Bennie Dean Herring had driven to the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department to retrieve something from his impounded truck. Herring was no stranger to law enforcement, and Anderson asked the county’s warrant clerk, Sandy Pope, to check for any outstanding warrants for Herring’s arrest. When she found none, Anderson asked Pope to check with Sharon Morgan, her counterpart in neighboring Dale County. After checking Dale County’s computer database, Morgan replied that there was an active arrest warrant for Herring’s failure to appear on a felony charge. Pope relayed the information to Anderson and asked Morgan to fax over a copy of the warrant as confirmation. Anderson and a deputy followed Herring as he left the impound lot, pulled him over, and arrested him. A search incident to the arrest revealed methamphetamine in Herring’s pocket, and a pistol (which as a felon he could not possess) in his vehicle. App. 17-23.
There had, however, been a mistake about the warrant. The Dale County sheriff’s computer records are supposed to correspond to actual arrest warrants, which the office also maintains. But when Morgan went to the files to retrieve the actual warrant to fax to Pope, Morgan was unable to find it. She called a court clerk and learned that the warrant had been recalled five months earlier. Normally when a warrant is recalled the court clerk’s office or a judge’s chambers calls Morgan, who enters the information in the sheriff’s computer database and disposes of the physical copy. For whatever reason, the information about the recall of the warrant for Herring did not appear in the database. Morgan immediately called Pope to alert her to the mixup, and Pope contacted Anderson over a secure radio. This all unfolded in 10 to 15 minutes, but Herring had already been arrested and found with the gun and drugs, just a few hundred yards from the sheriff’s office. Id., at 26, 35-42, 54-55.
Herring was indicted in the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for illegally possessing the gun and drugs, violations of 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1) and 21 U. S. C. § 844(a). He moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that his initial arrest had been illegal because the warrant had been rescinded. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion because the arresting officers had acted in a good-faith belief that the warrant was still outstanding. Thus, even if there were a Fourth Amendment violation, there was “no reason to believe that application of the exclusionary rule here would deter the occurrence of any future mistakes.” App. 70. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (2005), and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, 492 F. 3d 1212 (2007).
The Eleventh Circuit found that the arresting officers in Coffee County “were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing or carelessness.” Id., at 1218. The court assumed that whoever failed to update the Dale County sheriff’s records was also a law enforcement official, but noted that “the conduct in. question [wa]s a negligent failure to act, not a deliberate or tactical choice to act.” Ibid. Because the error was merely negligent and attenuated from the arrest, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the benefit of suppressing the evidence “would be marginal or nonexistent,” ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted), and the evidence was therefore admissible under the good-faith rule of United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 (1984).
Other courts have required exclusion of evidence obtained through similar police errors, e. g., Hoay v. State, 348 Ark. 80, 86-87, 71 S. W. 3d 573, 577 (2002), so we granted Herring’s petition for certiorari to resolve the conflict, 552 U. S. 1178 (2008). We now affirm the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment.
II
When a probable-cause determination was based on reasonable but mistaken assumptions, the person subjected to a search or seizure has not necessarily been the victim of a constitutional violation. The very phrase “probable cause” confirms that the Fourth Amendment does not demand all possible precision. And whether the error can be traced to a mistake by a state actor or some other source may bear on the analysis. For purposes of deciding this case, however, we accept the parties’ assumption that there was a Fourth Amendment violation. The issue is whether the exclusionary rule should be applied.
A
The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but “contains no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands,” Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 10 (1995). Nonetheless, our decisions establish an exclusionary rule that, when applicable, forbids the use of improperly obtained evidence at trial. See, e. g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 398 (1914). We have stated that this judicially created rule is “designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348 (1974).
In analyzing the applicability of the rule, Leon admonished that we must consider the actions of all the police officers involved. 468 U. S., at 923, n. 24 (“It is necessary to consider the objective reasonableness, not only of the officers who eventually executed a warrant, but also of the officers who originally obtained it or who provided information material to the probable-cause determination”). The Coffee County officers did nothing improper. Indeed, the error was noticed so quickly because Coffee County requested a faxed confirmation of the warrant.
The Eleventh Circuit concluded, however, that somebody in Dale County should have updated the computer database to reflect the recall of the arrest warrant. The court also concluded that this error was negligent, but did not find it to be reckless or deliberate. 492 F. 3d, at 1218. That fact is crucial to our holding that this error is not enough by itself to require “the extreme sanction of exclusion.” Leon, supra, at 916.
B
The fact that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred— i. e., that a search or arrest was unreasonable — does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 223 (1983). Indeed, exclusion “has always been our last resort, not our first impulse,” Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006), and our precedents establish important principles that constrain application of the exclusionary rule.
First, the exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it “‘result[s] in appreciable deterrence.’” Leon, supra, at 909 (quoting United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 454 (1976)). We have repeatedly rejected the argument that exclusion is a necessary consequence of a Fourth Amendment violation. Leon, supra, at 905-906; Evans, supra, at 13-14; Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U. S. 357, 363 (1998). Instead we have focused on the efficacy of the rule in deterring Fourth Amendment violations in the future. See Calandra, supra, at 347-355; Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 486 (1976).
In addition, the benefits of deterrence must outweigh the costs. Leon, supra, at 910. “We have never suggested that the exclusionary rule must apply in every circumstance in which it might provide marginal deterrence.” Scott, supra, at 368. “[T]o the extent that application of the exclusionary rule could provide some incremental deterrent, that possible benefit must be weighed against [its] substantial social costs.” Illinois v. Krull, 480 U. S. 340, 352-353 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). The principal cost of applying the rule is, of course, letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free — something that “offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system.” Leon, supra, at 908. “[T]he rule’s costly toll upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging [its] application.” Scott, supra, at 364-365 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Havens, 446 U. S. 620, 626-627 (1980); United States v. Payner, 447 U. S. 727, 734 (1980).
These principles are reflected in the holding of Leon: When police act under a warrant that is invalid for lack of probable cause, the exclusionary rule does not apply if the police acted “in objectively reasonable reliance” on the subsequently invalidated search warrant. 468 U. S., at 922. We (perhaps confusingly) called this objectively reasonable reliance “good faith.” Ibid., n. 23. In a companion case, Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U. S. 981 (1984), we held that the exclusionary rule did not apply when a warrant was invalid because a judge forgot to make “clerical corrections” to it. Id., at 991.
Shortly thereafter we extended these holdings to warrant-less administrative searches performed in good-faith reliance on a statute later declared unconstitutional. Krull, supra, at 349-350. Finally, in Evans, 514 U. S. 1, we applied this good-faith rule to police who reasonably relied on mistaken information in a court’s database that an arrest warrant was outstanding. We held that a mistake made by a judicial employee could not give rise to exclusion for three reasons: The exclusionary rule was crafted to curb police rather than judicial misconduct; court employees were unlikely to try to subvert the Fourth Amendment; and “most important, there [was] no basis for believing that application of the exclusionary rule in [those] circumstances” would have any significant effect in deterring the errors. Id., at 15. Evans left unresolved “whether the evidence should be suppressed if police personnel were responsible for the error,” an issue not argued by the State in that case, id., at 16, n. 5, but one that we now confront.
The extent to which the exclusionary rule is justified by these deterrence principles varies with the culpability of the law enforcement conduct. As we said in Leon, “an assessment of the flagrancy of the police misconduct constitutes an important step in the calculus” of applying the exclusionary rule. 468 U. S., at 911. Similarly, in Krull we elaborated that “evidence should be suppressed ‘only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.’ ” 480 U. S., at 348-349 (quoting United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S. 531, 542 (1975)).
Anticipating the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, Judge Friendly wrote that “[t]he beneficent aim of the exclusionary rule to deter police misconduct can be sufficiently accomplished by a practice . . . outlawing evidence obtained by flagrant or deliberate violation of rights.” The Bill of Rights as a Code of Criminal Procedure, 53 Calif. L. Rev. 929, 953 (1965) (footnotes omitted); see also Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 610-611 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring in part) (“[T]he deterrent value of the exclusionary rule is most likely to be effective” when “official conduct was flagrantly abusive of Fourth Amendment rights”).
Indeed, the abuses that gave rise to the exclusionary rule featured intentional conduct that was patently unconstitutional. In Weeks, 232 U. S. 383, a foundational exclusionary rule case, the officers had broken into the defendant’s home (using a key shown to them by a neighbor), confiscated incriminating papers, then returned again with a U. S. Marshal to confiscate even more. Id., at 386. Not only did they have no search warrant, which the Court held was required, but they could not have gotten one had they tried. They were so lacking in sworn and particularized information that “not even an order of court would have justified such procedure.” Id., at 393-394. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920), on which petitioner repeatedly relies, was similar; federal officials “without a shadow of authority” went to the defendants’ office and “made a clean sweep” of every paper they could find. Id., at 390. Even the Government seemed to acknowledge that the “seizure was an outrage.” Id., at 391.
Equally flagrant conduct was at issue in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), which overruled Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 (1949), and extended the exclusionary rule to the States. Officers forced open a door to Ms. Mapp’s house, kept her lawyer from entering, brandished what the court concluded was a false warrant, then forced her into handcuffs and canvassed the house for obscenity. 367 U. S., at 644-645. See Friendly, supra, at 953, and n. 127 (“[T]he situation in Mapp” featured a “flagrant or deliberate violation of rights”). An error that arises from nonrecurring and attenuated negligence is thus far removed from the core concerns that led us to adopt the rule in the first place. And in fact since Leon, we have never applied the rule to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the police conduct was no more intentional or culpable than this.
To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. The error in this case does not rise to that level.
Our decision in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U. S. 154 (1978), provides an analogy. Cf. Leon, supra, at 914. In Franks, we held that police negligence in obtaining a warrant did not even rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation, let alone meet the more stringent test for triggering the exclusionary rule. We held that the Constitution allowed defendants, in some circumstances, “to challenge the truthfulness of factual statements made in an affidavit supporting the warrant,” even after the warrant had issued. 438 U. S., at 155-156. If those false statements were necessary to the Magistrate Judge’s probable-cause determination, the warrant would be “voided.” Ibid. But we did not find all false statements relevant: “There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth,” and “Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient.” Id., at 171.
Both this case and Franks concern false information provided by police. Under Franks, negligent police miscommunications in the course of acquiring a warrant do not provide a basis to rescind a warrant and render a search or arrest invalid. Here, the miscommunications occurred in a different context — after the warrant had been issued and recalled — but that fact should not require excluding the evidence obtained.
The pertinent analysis of deterrence and culpability is objective, not an “inquiry into the subjective awareness of arresting officers,” Reply Brief for Petitioner 4-5. See also post, at 157, n. 7 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). We have already held that “our good-faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal” in light of “all of the circumstances.” Leon, 468 U. S., at 922, n. 23. These circumstances frequently include a particular officer’s knowledge and experience, but that does not make the test any more subjective than the one for probable cause, which looks to an officer’s knowledge and experience, Ornelas v. United States, 517 U. S. 690, 699-700 (1996), but not his subjective intent, Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 812-813 (1996).
We do not suggest that all recordkeeping errors by the police are immune from the exclusionary rule. In this case, however, the conduct at issue was not so objectively culpable as to require exclusion. In Leon, we held that “the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion.” 468 U. S., at 922. The same is true when evidence is obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently recalled warrant.
If the police have been shown to be reckless in maintaining a warrant system, or to have knowingly made false entries to lay the groundwork for future false arrests, exclusion would certainly be justified under our cases should such misconduct cause a Fourth Amendment violation. We said as much in Leon, explaining that an officer could not “obtain a warrant on the basis of a ‘bare bones’ affidavit and then rely on colleagues who are ignorant of the circumstances under which the warrant was obtained to conduct the search.” Id., at 923, n. 24 (citing Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U. S. 560, 568 (1971)). Petitioner’s fears that our decision will cause police departments to deliberately keep their officers ignorant, Brief for Petitioner 37-39, are thus unfounded.
Justice Ginsburg’s dissent also adverts to the possible unreliability of a number of databases not relevant to this case. Post, at 155-156. In a case where systemic errors were demonstrated, it might be reckless for officers to rely on an unreliable warrant system. See Evans, 514 U. S., at 17 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“Surely it would not be reasonable for the police to rely ... on a recordkeeping system ... that routinely leads to false arrests” (second emphasis added)); Hudson, 547 U. S., at 604 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring, in judgment) (“If a widespread pattern of violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern” (emphasis added)). But there is no evidence that errors in Dale County’s system are routine or widespread. Officer Anderson testified that he had never had reason to question information about a Dale County warrant, App. 27, and both Sandy Pope and Sharon Morgan testified that they could remember no similar miscommunication ever happening on their watch, id., at 33, 61-62. That is even less error than in the database at issue in Evans, where we also found reliance on the database to be objectively reasonable. 514 U. S., at 15 (similar error “every three or four years”). Because no such showings were made here, see 451 F. Supp. 2d, at 1292, the Eleventh Circuit was correct to affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.
* * *
Petitioner’s claim that police negligence automatically triggers suppression cannot be squared with the principles underlying the exclusionary rule, as they have been explained in our cases. In light of our repeated holdings that the deterrent effect of suppression must be substantial and outweigh any harm to the justice system, e. g., Leon, 468 U. S., at 909-910, we conclude that when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, any marginal deterrence does not “pay its way.” Id., at 907-908, n. 6. In such a case, the criminal should not “go free because the constable has blundered.” People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926) (opinion of the Court by Cardozo, J.).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
At an earlier point in its opinion, the Eleventh Circuit described the error as “ 'at the very least negligent,’ ” 492 F. 3d 1212, 1217 (2007) (quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 447 (1974)). But in the next paragraph, it clarified that the error was “a negligent failure to act, not a deliberate or tactical choice to act,” 492 F. 3d, at 1218. The question presented treats the error as a “negligent]” one, see Pet. for Cert, i; Brief in Opposition (I), and both parties briefed the case on that basis.
Justice Ginsburg’s dissent champions what she describes as ‘“a more majestic conception’ of . . . the exclusionary rule,” post, at 151 (quoting Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 18 (1995) (Stevens, J., dissenting)), which would exclude evidence even where deterrence does not justify doing so. Majestic or not, our cases reject this conception, see, e. g., United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 921, n. 22 (1984), and perhaps for this reason, her dissent relies almost exclusively on previous dissents to support its analysis.
We thus reject Justice Breyer’s suggestion that Evans was entirely “premised on a distinction between judicial errors and police errors,” post, at 158 (dissenting opinion). Were that the only rationale for our decision, there would have been no reason for us expressly and carefully to leave police error unresolved. In addition, to the extent Evans is viewed as presaging a particular result here, it is noteworthy that the dissent’s view in that case was that the distinction Justice Breyer regards as determinative was instead “artificial.” 514 U. S., at 29 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
We do not quarrel with Justice Ginsburg’s claim that “liability for negligence ... creates an incentive to act with greater care,” post, at 153, and we do not suggest that the exclusion of this evidence could have no deterrent effect. But our cases require any deterrence to “be weighed against the ‘substantial social costs exacted by the exclusionary rule,’” Illinois v. Krull, 480 U. S. 340, 352-353 (1987) (quoting Leon, 468 U. S., at 907), and here exclusion is not worth the cost.
Justice Ginsburg notes that at an earlier suppression hearing Morgan testified — apparently in confusion — that there had been miscommunieations “‘[s]everal times.’” Post, at 150, n. 2 (quoting App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a). When she later realized that she had misspoken, Morgan emphatically corrected the record. App. 61-62. Noting this, the District Court found that “Morgan’s ‘several times’ statement is confusing and essentially unhelpful,” and concluded that there was “no credible evidence of routine problems with disposing of recalled warrants.” 451 F. Supp. 2d, at 1292. This factual determination, supported by the record and credited by the Court of Appeals, see 492 F. 3d, at 1219, is of course entitled to deference.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, the Secretary of Labor, brought suit to enjoin respondents from violating the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq. Respondents, two closely affiliated subsidiaries of a common corporate parent, share an office in Louisville, Kentucky. They are engaged in the business of making personal loans, in amounts up to $300, to individuals, and in purchasing conditional sales contracts from dealers in furniture and appliances. Respondents share the services of a common manager and nine full-time and two part-time employees.
By pretrial stipulation and concessions at trial, respondents in effect conceded that an injunction should issue unless their employees are exempted from the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the statute by §13 (a)(2) thereof, which provides that such requirements shall not apply to
. . any employee employed by any retail or service establishment, more than 50 per centum of which establishment’s annual dollar volume of sales of goods or services is made within the State in which the establishment is located. A ‘retail or service establishment’ shall mean an establishment 75 per centum of whose annual dollar volume of sales of goods or services (or of both) is not for resale and is recognized as retail sales or services in the particular industry; ... .”
As concededly more than 50 percent of respondents’ loan and discount business is with Kentucky residents and none of it involves “resale” transactions, the sole question involved in this litigation is whether respondents should be considered as “retail or service establishment[s],” engaged in the making of' “sales of goods or services,” within the meaning of § 13 (a)(2).. The burden is, of course, upon respondents to establish that they are entitled to the benefit of the § 13 exemption, since coverage apart from the exemption is admitted.
After trial the District Court found that respondents had not proved that they are a “retail or service establishment” within the meaning of § 13 (a)(2), and issued an injunction restraining respondents from further violating the Act. 150 F. Supp. 368. The Court of Appeals reversed. 254 F. 2d 8. We granted certiorari, 358 U. S. 811, to resolve the conflict between the decision of the. court below and that of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Aetna Finance Co. v. Mitchell, 247 F. 2d 190.
Until 1949, § 13 (a) (2) exempted from the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act “Any employee engaged in any retail or. service establishment the greater part of whose selling or servicing is. in intrastate commerce.” The Administrator early ruled that personal loan companies and other ’business entities in what may broadly be called the “financial industry” were not within the scope of that exemption. When Congress amended the Act in 1949 it provided that pre-1949 rulings and interpretations by the Administrator should remain in effect unless inconsistent with the statute as amended. 63 Stat. 920. The narrow issue before us, then, is whether Congress in the 1949 amendment of § 13 (a) (2) broadened the scope of that section so as to embrace personal loan companies.
The present § 13 (a) (2) differs from its predecessor primarily in the addition of a definition of the term “retail or service establishment,” such an establishment being one “75 per centum of whose annual dollar volume of sales óf goods or services (or of both) is not for resale and is recognized as. retail sales or services in the particular industry; . . .” Respondents argue that they plainly come within this definition because (1) more than 75 percent of their loan and discount business is “not for resale,” and (2) their activities are recognized in the financial industry as being the “retail end” of that industry. They claim that the intent of Congress in the 1949 amendment was to provide that “local” business was exempt from the overtime requirements of thé statute, and that their activities are precisely the kind thfe § 13 exemption was designed to embrace.
We do not think the issue before us can be disposed of so simply. The Government points out that the concept of “sale” is inherently inapposite to the lending of money at interest, and urges that because respondents cannot properly be said to be engaged in the "sale of goods or services” the exemption cannot as to them come into play even if their activities are recognized as “retail” in the financial industry. Respondents concede that they are not engaged in the sale of “goods.” but insist that their activities do constitute a “sale” of a “service” within the intendment of § 13 (a)(2), characterizing that “service” as credit or the use of money.
This is not a case where perforce we must attempt to resolve a controversy as to the true meaning of equivocal statutory language unaided by any reliable extrinsic guide to legislative intention. On the contrary, the debates and reports in Congress with reference to this section of the statute are detailed and explicit. " To those legislative materials we now turn.
The legislative history of the 1949 amendment to § 13 (a) (2) demonstrates beyond doubt that Congress was acting in implementation of a specific and particu--larized purpose. Before 1949 the Administrator, in interpreting the term “retail or service establishment,” then nowhere defined in the statute, had, in addition to excluding from the coverage of the exemption personal loan companies and other financial institutions, ruled that a business enterprise generally would not qualify as such an establishment unless 75 percent of its receipts were derived from the sale of goods or services “to private persons to satisfy their personal wants,” on the theory that sales for business use were “nonretail.” This administratively announced “business use” test was generally approved by this Court in Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, 326 U. S. 657.
Congress was dissatisfied with this construction of the statute, and over the objection of the Administrator, who sought to. have his “business use” test legislatively confirmed, passed the 1949 amendment to § 13 (a) (2) to do away with the rule that sales to other than individual consumers could not qualify as retail in deciding whether a particular business enterprise was a “retail or service establishment,” and to substitute a more flexible test, under which selling transactions would qualify as retail if they (1) did not involve “resale,” and (2)' were recognized in the particular industry as retail. We find nothing in the debates or reports which suggests that Congress intended by the amendment to broaden the fields of business enterprise to which the exemption would apply. Rather, it was time and again made plain that the amendment was intended to change the prior law only •by making it possible for business enterprises otherwise eligible under existing concepts to achieve exemption even though more than 25 percent of their sales were to other than private individuals for personal consumption, provided those sales were not for resale and were recognized in the field or industry involved as retail. Thus enterprises in the financial field, none of which had previously been considered to qualify for the exemption regardless of the class of persons with which they . dealt, and regardless of whether they were thought of in the financial industry as engaged in “retail financing,” remained unaffected by the amendment of § 13 (a) (2).
Any residual doubt on this score is dispelled by the explicit and repeated statements of the sponsors of the amendatory legislation and in the House and Senate Reports to the effect that “The amendment does, not exempt banks, insurance companies, building and loan associations, credit companies, newspapers,- telephone companies, gás and electric utility companies, telegraph-companies, etc., because there is no concept of retail selling or servicing in these industries. Where it was intended that such businesses have an exemption one was specifically provided by the law . ...” (Emphasis added.) It is well settled that exemptions from the Fair-Labor Standards Act are to be narrowly construed. A.H. Phillips, Inc., v. Walling, 324 U. S. 490, 493; see also Powell v. United States Cartridge Co., 339 U. S. 497, 517 In the light of the abundant pointed evidence that Congress did not intend that' businesses like those of respondents be exempted from,the overtime’and record-keeping provisions of the statute by § 13 (a) (2), we would not' be justified in straining to bring respondents’ activities within the literal words of the exemption.
Reversed.
Me. Justice Stewaet took no part in the consideration or-decision of this case.
Interpretative Bull. No. 6, 1942. WH Manual 326, ¶¶29-31. That ruling has been carried over under the amended version of § 13 (a) (2). . 29 CFR, 1958 Supp, § 779.10..
The term “service” is nowhere defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
See Interpretative Bull. No. 6, 1942 WH Manual 326, ¶¶ 14, 18.
The- Administrator supported the so-called Lesinski bill, which would have adopted the Administrator’s “business use” test in the definition of “retail or service establishment.”
See H. Conf. Rep., 95 Cong. Rec. 14931: “[§ 13 (a)(2)]. . . .’ .clarifies the existing exemption by defining the term 'retail or service establishment’ and stating the conditions under which the exemption shall apply. This clarification is needed in order to 'obviate the sweeping' ruling of the Administrator and. the courts that.no sale of goods or services for business use is retail. See Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling (326, U. S. 657); . . Report of Majority of Senate Conferees, 95 Cong. Rec. 14877: “The ’conference agreement exempts establishments which are traditionally regarded ás retail. . . .” See also the statement of Senator Holland, sponsor of the legislation in the Senate: “The only substantial difference between the Administrator and his recommendation [which would have written the “business use” test into the statute] and the amendment which we propose is that we propose to do away with this artificial distinction between a retail sale on the one hand and ■ a business sale on the other . . . .” 95 Cong. Rec. 12498. For other authoritative expressions of the legislative intent in this regard, see 95 Cong. Rec. 11115-11116, 12492-12493, 12496, 12502, 12506, 12508.
H. R. Conf. Rep., 95 Cong. Rec. 14932. See also Report .of Majority of Senate Conferees, 95 Cong. Rec. 14877; statement of Senator Holland, 95 Cong. Rec. 12505-12506.
Respondents urge that statements of this kind have no application' to them because they are not “credit companies,” in that such term properly is to be restricted to commercial credit companies.. We agree with the observation of the Court of Appeals in Aetna Finance Co. v. Mitchell, supra, at 193, that this contention is ‘.‘quite unconvincing.” There is nothing which indicates that.Congress was using the term “credit companies!’ in any specialized sense, and indeed one of respondents’ own expert witnesses testified that personal loan companies are “credit institutions.” We think it clear that the House ánd Senate Conferees used “credit companies” to mean nothing-more nor less than companies which deal in credit, as respondents concededly do. ..
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In May, 1940, the individual respondents filed claims for unemployment benefits with the Unemployment Compensation Commission of the Territory of Alaska. After an initial determination by an examiner and after decision by a referee, the Commission held that the claimants were disqualified from receiving benefits for a period of eight weeks, since their unemployment was due to a labor dispute in active progress within the meaning of the Alaska Unemployment Compensation Law. The United States District Court affirmed the Commission’s holding in all particulars. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, one judge dissenting. We granted certiorari because of the public importance of the questions involved.
Among the petitioners are three corporations engaged principally in the business of salmon fishing, canning, and ma.rlcpit.ing. One of the companies owns canneries and other facilities at Karluk, Chignik, and Bristol Bay, Alaska. The other two companies operate only at Bristol Bay. Catching and canning salmon is a seasonal activity. The companies customarily hire workers at San Francisco at the beginning of the season, transport them to the Alaskan establishments, and Return them to San Francisco at the season’s end. Similar operations are carried on by other companies out of other west coast ports, notably Seattle and Portland. The individual respondents are all members of the Alaska Cannery Workers Union Local No. 5, and each worked in Alaska for one of the three companies during the 1939 season. Local No. 6 is the recognized bargaining agent of the cannery workers in the San Francisco area.
In 1939, as had been the practice for some years, the union entered into a written agreement with the companies, covering in considerable detail the matters of wages, hours, conditions of employment, and the like. After the end of the 1939 season, the companies terminated the agreement then in effect, which made necessary the negotiation of a new contract for the 1940 season. Consequently, on March 6, 1940, the companies through their authorized agent, Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., invited the union to enter into negotiations for a new agreement. In a series of meetings held shortly thereafter, serious disagreement appeared which quickly developed into an impasse on the question of wages. The union demanded wages equal to or in excess of those paid under the terms of the 1939 agreement. The companies offered wages which for the most part were below those paid in 1939. On April 1,1940, the union caused the negotiations as to the wage issue to be transferred from San Francisco to Seattle, where an attempt was being made to effect a coastwide agreement to cover all west coast companies carrying on salmon operations in Alaska. . Local No. 5, however, refused to sign a “memorandum” agreement incorporating such terms as might result from the concurrent Seattle negotiations.
On April 3, the companies notified the union that if operations were to be carried on in Karluk and Chignik during the 1940 season, an agreement with respect to the former would have to be reached by April 10 and with respect to the latter by April 12. Although negotiations proceeded up to the deadlines, the parties arrived at no understanding, and on April 22 Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., formally announced that no operations would be carried on in Karluk and Chignik during 1940. Meetings continued, however, in an effort to come to an understanding with respect to Bristol Bay before the arrival of the May 3d deadline which had been set for those operations. Although federal mediators intervened in an attempt to discover a suitable compromise, the deadline date passed without agreement. It appears that, after May 3, negotiations continued in Seattle, where a contract affecting only canners and workers operating out of ports other than San Francisco was finally executed on May 29. The companies and union which are involved in this case were specifically excluded from the terms of the 1940 Seattle agreement.
Shortly after May 3, the individual respondents filed claims for unemployment benefits with the Alaska Unemployment Compensation Commission. The Commission, acting through an examiner, held that respondents were disqualified from receiving payments for the statutory period of eight weeks under the provisions of § 5 (d) of the Alaska law. At the time this case arose, that section stated in part: “An individual shall be disqualified for benefits ... (d) For any week with respect to which the Commission finds that his total or partial unemployment is due to a labor dispute which is in active progress at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or was last employed; provided, that such disqualification shall not exceed the 8 weeks immediately following the beginning of such dispute . . .”
In pursuance of the appeal provisions of the statute, respondents asked for a review of the examiner’s determination. The Commission, in response to this application, appointed a Referee to pass on the disputed claims. The scope of the hearings was confined to the issue of whether the unemployment of the claimants was caused by the existence of a labor dispute. At the end of the proceedings, the Referee came to the conclusion that, although there was a labor dispute in existence initially, the dispute was no longer “in active progress” after the passing of the dates fixed by the companies for consummation of the working agreements. Consequently, the disqualification under § 5 (d) with respect to each of the localities was held no longer to attach after the passage of the respective deadline dates.'
The Commission, on appeal, reversed the Referee’s decision and held that, within the meaning of the Alaska law, a labor dispute was in active progress throughout the entire eight-week statutory period of disqualification beginning with the opening of the season in each locality. Consequently, no benefits were payable until the expiration of the disqualification period. The United States District Court affirmed the Commission’s decision in all particulars. The Circuit Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, reversed, however, on the ground that the labor dispute was not physically at the Alaska canneries where the individual respondents had been last employed.
We are met at the outset with the contention that the facts of this case do not present a “labor dispute” within the meaning of § 5 (d) of the Alaska Act. Respondents urge that the term must be narrowly construed to require a strike or leaving of employment which, in turn, calls for a presently-existing employment relation at the time the dispute arises. According to this view, the term would not cover a situation, such as presented here, where the controversy precedes the employment. Respondents would justify this restricted construction on the ground that the Unemployment Compensation Law is remedial legislation, and any provision limiting benefits under the Act should be narrowly interpreted.
The term “labor dispute” is not defined in the statute. The term appears in the Act in one other connection, however. Section 5 (c) (2) (A) provides that benefits under the Act will not be denied any individual, otherwise eligible, who refuses to accept new work “if the position offered is vacant due directly to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute.” The Social Security Act of 1935 requires that the state or territorial law contain a provision to this effect before the legislation can be approved by the Social Security Board. Obviously, for the purposes of § 5 (c)(2)(A), the term, “labor dispute,” has a broader meaning than that attributed to it by respondents. Unless the Territorial Legislature intended to give a different meaning to the same language appearing in another subdivision of the same section, the term must be given a broader meaning than that contended for by the respondents, for the purposes of § 5 (d) as well. We need not determine whether “labor dispute” must in all cases be construed as broadly as it is defined in the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the National Labor Relations Act. But here there was full-scale controversy. Companies engaged in carrying on a seasonal business were ranged against a union representing seasonal workers who had been employed by the companies in the previous year. Dispute there certainly was; and the subject of that dispute consisted of matters usually contested in labor disputes as that term is normally understood. Since we find nothing to indicate that the Territorial Legislature intended a contrary result, we conclude that the Commission might properly find a “labor dispute” here presented within the meaning of § 5 (d) of the Alaska Act.
We think that there is evidence in the record to support the Commission’s conclusion that respondents’ unemployment was “due” to a labor dispute insofar as that holding relates to the individual respondents employed in 1939 by the Alaska Packers Association and the Red Salmon Canning Company. At the hearings before the Referee, the respondents attempted to establish that the companies called off their 1940 operations for reasons other than their inability to negotiate a satisfactory labor agreement. It was argued, for example, that the companies feared a poor catch as a result of governmental restrictions on fishing applicable to the 1940 season. The evidence adduced before the Referee indicates that both of the above-mentioned companies made extensive preparations for the 1940 operations. In anticipation, equipment and supplies of the value of several hundred thousand dollars were purchased. Ships were prepared and held in readiness for the expeditions. The Referee found that these companies negotiated in good faith and failed to operate in Alaska during the 1940 season only because of their inability to negotiate satisfactory labor agreements before the passing of the deadline dates. There is evidence that the Alaska Packers Association expected to hire about two-thirds the number of workers in 1940 it had employed in 1939. But there is nothing in the record to establish that any of the claimants in this action would have been unemployed as a result of this contemplated curtailment in activity, or, if any of the respondents would have been affected, which of their number would have been unemployed. It appears that the Red Salmon Canning Company expected to use the same number of workers in 1940 as in 1939, or possibly a few more. Under these circumstances, we think that the Commission’s finding that the unemployment was “due” to the labor dispute should stand insofar as it relates to the claimants indicated.
But a different situation is presented with reference to the respondents employed by the Alaska Salmon Company in 1939. That company has an establishment only at Bristol Bay. On April 30, three days before the deadline relating to the Bristol Bay operations, Alaska Salmon withdrew from the negotiations with the union and announced that it was unable to send an expedition to Alaska in 1940. The Referee found that the withdrawal was caused primarily by factors other than the company’s inability to negotiate a satisfactory labor contract. At the hearings before the Referee, counsel for the company stipulated that, even though the other companies had negotiated a labor agreement with the union before the deadline date, Alaska Salmon would have conducted no operations out of San Francisco in 1940 after its withdrawal from negotiations. We conclude that the record does not support the finding of the Commission that the respondents employed by the Alaska Salmon Company in 1939 were unemployed “due” to a labor dispute at the establishment at which last employed.
Respondents urge that, assuming their unemployment was due to a labor dispute, there was no labor dispute in active progress,” within the meaning of the Act, after the passage of the deadline dates. It is argued that when the expeditions were abandoned by the companies, the dispute must necessarily have terminated since there was no possible way in which negotiations could have brought about a settlement. It should be observed, however, that the record does not reveal that negotiations abruptly terminated with the passing of the last deadline date. Conferences continued at Seattle in which both the companies and the union were represented. The respondents considered the negotiations sufficiently alive to make an offer of terms at least as late as May 29. Even if it be assumed that at some time within the eight-week period of disqualification the point was reached when all possibility of settlement disappeared, it does not follow that the Commission’s finding of a dispute in “active progress” must be overturned. Here, as in Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U. S. 111, 131 (1944), the question presented “is one of specific application of a broad statutory term in a proceeding in which the agency administering the statute must determine it initially.” To sustain the Commission’s application of this statutory term, we need not find that its construction is the only reasonable one, or even that it is the result we would have reached had the question arisen in the first instance in judicial proceedings. The “reviewing court’s function is limited.” All that is needed to support the Commission’s interpretation is that it has “warrant in the record” and a “reasonable basis in law.” Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., supra; Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125 (1939).
Applying these tests, we are unable to say that the Commission’s construction was irrational or without support in the record. The Commission apparently views a dispute as “active” during the continuance of a work stoppage induced by a labor dispute. That agency might reasonably conclude that the unemployment resulting from such work stoppage is not of the “involuntary” nature which the statute was designed to alleviate, as indicated by the statement of public policy incorporated in the Act by the Territorial Legislature. We see nothing in such a view to require our substituting a different construction from that made by the Commission entrusted with the responsibility of administering the statute.
Nor can we accept the argument of the majority of the Court of Appeals that since negotiations between the companies and the workers were carried on in San Francisco and Seattle, the dispute could not be said to be “at” the Alaskan establishments as required by the statute. So far as we are able to determine, this issue was injected for the first time by the opinion of the majority of the Court of Appeals. The contention does not seem to have been raised or pressed by respondents up to that point. The responsibility of applying the statutory provisions to the facts of the particular case was given in the first instance to the Commission. A reviewing court usurps the agency’s function when it sets aside the administrative determination upon a ground not theretofore presented and deprives the Commission of an opportunity to consider the matter, make its ruling, and state the reasons for its action. Nor do we find the argument advanced below convincing on its merits. It is clear that the subject matter of the dispute related to the operation of the Alaskan establishments. As a result of the dispute, the normal activities involved in catching and canning salmon were not carried on throughout the 1940 season at any of those establishments. We do not consider significant the fact that the companies and the union did not negotiate at the canneries or on the ships in Alaskan waters. A legislature familiar with the nature of seasonal operations carried on in the Territory could hardly have been unaware of the fact that companies and workers customarily carried on negotiations far distant from the Alaskan establishments. It seems unlikely that it was intended that this ordinary and usual procedure should defeat the disqualification for benefits incorporated in the Act. Furthermore, it should be observed that the respondent union voluntarily entered into the negotiations conducted at San Francisco and Seattle and at no time challenged the propriety of this practice. Thus if we assume with respondents that this issue is properly presented for consideration, we conclude that under the circumstances of this case the dispute was “at the factory, establishment, or other premises” in the sense intended by the Territorial Legislature.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed insofar as it holds that the statutory eight-week period of disqualification is inapplicable to the individual respondents employed by the Alaska Salmon Company in 1939. In all other particulars, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the case remanded to the District Court with instructions to remand for further proceedings pursuant to this opinion.
Extraordinary Session Laws of Alaska, 1937, Chapter 4 as amended by Chapters 1 and 51, Session Laws of Alaska, 1939.
The Alaska statute is part of the legislative scheme for unemployment compensation induced by the provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935. 49 Stat. 620, 626-627, 640. It is said that forty-three states and territories have provisions similar to those in the Alaska law disqualifying from unemployment benefits persons unemployed due to a labor dispute.
As provided by Benefit Regulation No. 10 of the Alaska Unemployment Compensation Commission, the season at Karluk extends from April 5 to September 5, at Chignik from April 1 to September 10, and at Bristol Bay from May 5 to August 25.
Section 6 (c) and §6 (d), Chapter 1, Session Laws of Alaska, 1939.
The Referee found that there had been unemployment due to a labor dispute in active progress at Karluk from April 5, when the season opened, to April 10, the deadline date, and at Chignik from April 1 to April 12. Since the deadline date with respect to Bristol Bay was set two days before the season opened there, the Referee found that there was no dispute in active progress at those plants.
This procedure was in pursuance of § 6 (e) of the Act as amended by Chapter 1, Session Laws of Alaska, 1939.
Section 6 (i) of the Act provides that within thirty days after the decision of the Commission has become final, any party aggrieved may secure judicial review in the United States District Court. The section states, “In any judicial proceeding under this Section, the findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of said Court shall be confined to questions of law.”
A number of state courts in construing similar legislation have found “labor disputes” to have existed in situations where no contractual employment relation presently existed. Each of these cases involved a work stoppage in the interval between the expiration of an old labor contract and the consummation of a new agreement. Miners in General Group v. Hix, 123 W. Va. 637, 17 S. E. 2d 810 (1941); Ex parte Pesnell, 240 Ala. 457, 199 So. 726 (1940); Barnes v. Hall, 285 Ky. 160, 146 S. W. 2d 929 (1940); Block Coal & Coke Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 177 Tenn. 247, 148 S. W. 2d 364, 149 S. W. 2d 469 (1941); Sandoval v. Industrial Comm’n, 110 Colo. 108, 130 P. 2d 930 (1942).
49 Stat. 640, 26 U. S. C. § 1603 (5) (A).
47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. § 101. The Norris-LaGuardia Act contains the following definition: “The term ‘labor dispute’ includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.” 47 Stat. 73, 29 U. S. C. § 113 (c). A number of state courts have found this and the similar definition in the National Labor Relations 'Act persuasive in their construction of the term appearing in unemployment compensation legislation similar to the Alaska Act. Miners in General Group v. Hix, 123 W. Va. 637, 17 S. E. 2d 810 (1941); Barnes v. Hall, 285 Ky. 160, 146 S. W. 2d 929 (1940); Ex parte Pesnell, 240 Ala. 457, 199 So. 726 (1940); Sandoval v. Industrial Comm’n, 110 Colo. 108, 130 P. 2d 930 (1942). The Alabama legislature incorporated the definition appearing in the Norris-LaGuardia Act into the Alabama unemployment compensation act. Ala. Code, Tit. 26 §214 (A).
49 Stat. 449,29 U. S. C. § 151.
The Examiner, the Referee, the Commission, the District Court, and presumably the Circuit Court of Appeals all found a “labor dispute” to have existed, at least before the arrival of the deadline dates.
The “Declaration of Territorial Public Policy” states that “Involuntary unemployment is ... a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature.” It is further stated that the public welfare demands the compulsory setting aside of unemployment reserves “for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own." Chapter 4, Extraordinary Session Laws of Alaska, 1937. (Italics supplied.)
Several state courts have concluded that the disqualification relating to unemployment due to a labor dispute is a reflection of the broad policy of the legislation to compensate only persons involuntarily unemployed. Barnes v. Hall, 285 Ky. 160, 146 S. W. 2d 929 (1940); Deshler Broom Factory v. Kinney, 140 Neb. 889, 2 N. W. 2d 332 (1942); Sandoval v. Industrial Commission, 110 Colo. 108, 130 P. 2d 930 (1942).
Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, supra; Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, supra. Cf. Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358 (1946).
Section 6 (h) of the Act states-that judicial review of the Commission’s decision “shall be permitted only after any party claiming to be aggrieved thereby has exhausted his administrative remedies as provided by this Act.” Cf. Myers v. Bethlehem, Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41, 50-51 (1938); Regal Knitwear Co. v. Labor Board, 324 U. S. 9, 13 (1945); Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, 313 U. S. 177, 196-197 (1941).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is a prerequisite to an action under 42 U. S. C. §1983 (1976 ed., Supp. IV). Petitioner Georgia Patsy filed this action, alleging that her employer, Florida International University (FIU), had denied her employment opportunities solely on the basis of her race and sex. By a divided vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that petitioner was required to exhaust “adequate and appropriate” administrative remedies, and remanded the case to the District Court to consider the adequacy of the administrative procedures. Patsy v. Florida International University, 634 F. 2d 900 (1981) (en banc). We granted certiorari, 454 U. S. 813, and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
I
Petitioner alleges that even though she is well qualified and has received uniformly excellent performance evaluations from her supervisors, she has been rejected for more than 13 positions at FIU. She further claims that FIU has unlawfully filled positions through intentional discrimination on the basis of race and sex. She seeks declaratory and injunctive relief or, in the alternative, damages.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted respondent Board of Regents’ motion to dismiss because petitioner had not exhausted available administrative remedies. On appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Patsy v. Florida International University, 612 F. 2d 946 (1980). The full court then granted respondent’s petition for rehearing and vacated the panel decision.
The Court of Appeals reviewed numerous opinions of this Court holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required, and concluded that these cases did not preclude the application of a “flexible” exhaustion rule. 634 F. 2d, at 908. After canvassing the policy arguments in favor of an exhaustion requirement, the Court of Appeals decided that a § 1983 plaintiff could be required to exhaust administrative remedies if the following minimum conditions are met: (1) an orderly system of review or appeal is provided by statute or agency rule; (2) the agency can grant relief more or less commensurate with the claim; (3) relief is available within a reasonable period of time; (4) the procedures are fair, are not unduly burdensome, and are not used to harass or discourage those with legitimate claims; and (5) interim relief is available, in appropriate cases, to prevent irreparable injury and to preserve the plaintiff’s rights during the administrative process. Where these minimum standards are met, a court must further consider the particular administrative scheme, the nature of the plaintiff’s interest, and the values served by the exhaustion doctrine in order to determine whether exhaustion should be required. Id., at 912-913. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether exhaustion would be appropriate in this case.
II
The question whether exhaustion of administrative remedies should ever be required in a § 1983 action has prompted vigorous debate and disagreement. See, e. g., Turner, When Prisoners Sue: A Study of Prisoner Section 1983 Cases in the Federal Courts, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 610 (1979); Note, 8 Ind. L. Rev. 565 (1975); Comment, 41 U. Chi. L. Rev. 537 (1974). Our resolution of this issue, however, is made much easier because we are not writing on a clean slate. This Court has addressed this issue, as well as related issues, on several prior occasions.
Respondent suggests that our prior precedents do not control our decision today, arguing that these cases can be distinguished on their facts or that this Court did not “fully” consider the question whether exhaustion should be required. This contention need not detain us long. Beginning with McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668, 671-673 (1963), we have on numerous occasions rejected the argument that a §1983 action should be dismissed where the plaintiff has not exhausted state administrative remedies. See Barry v. Barchi, 443 U. S. 55, 63, n. 10 (1979); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 574 (1973); Carter v. Stanton, 405 U. S. 669, 671 (1972); Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U. S. 249, 251 (1971); Houghton v. Shafer, 392 U. S. 639, 640 (1968); King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 312, n. 4 (1968); Damico v. California, 389 U. S. 416 (1967). Cf. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 472-473 (1974) (“When federal claims are premised on [§1983] — as they are here — we have not required exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies, recognizing the paramount role Congress has assigned to the federal courts to protect constitutional rights”). Respondent may be correct in arguing that several of these decisions could have been based on traditional exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine. Nevertheless, this Court has stated categorically that exhaustion is not a prerequisite to an action under § 1983. and we have not deviated from that position in the 19 years since McNeese. Therefore, we do not address the question presented in this case as one of first impression.
► — < ( » — 4
Respondent argues that we should reconsider these decisions and adopt the Court of Appeals’ exhaustion rule, which was based on McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185 (1969). This Court has never announced a definitive formula for determining whether prior decisions should be overruled or reconsidered. However, in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658, 695-701 (1978), we articulated four factors that should be considered. Two of these factors — whether the decisions in question misconstrued the meaning of the statute as revealed in its legislative history and whether overruling these decisions would be inconsistent with more recent expressions of congressional intent — are particularly relevant to our decision today. Both concern legislative purpose, which is of paramount importance in the exhaustion context because I Congress is vested with the power to prescribe the basic procedural scheme under which claims may be heard in federal courts. Of course, courts play an important role in determining the limits of an exhaustion requirement and may impose such a requirement even where Congress has not expressly so provided. However, the initial question whether exhaustion is required should be answered by reference to congressional intent; and a court should not defer the exercise of jurisdiction under a federal statute unless it is consistent with that intent. Therefore, in deciding whether we should reconsider our prior decisions and require exhaustion of state administrative remedies, we look to congressional intent as reflected in the legislative history of the predecessor to § 1983 and in recent congressional activity in this area.
A
In determining whether our prior decisions misconstrued the meaning of § 1983, we begin with a review of the legislative history to § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871,17 Stat. 13, the precursor to § 1983. Although we recognize that the 1871 Congress did not expressly contemplate the exhaustion question, we believe that the tenor of the debates over § 1 supports our conclusion that exhaustion of administrative remedies in § 1983 actions should not be judicially imposed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, along with the Fourteenth Amendment it was enacted to enforce, were crucial ingredients in the basic alteration of our federal system accomplished during the Reconstruction Era. During that time, the Federal Government was clearly established as a guarantor of the basic federal rights of individuals against incursions by state power. As we recognized in Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 242 (1972) (quoting Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880)), “[t]he very purpose of § 1983 was to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people’s federal rights — to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, ‘whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.’ ”
At least three recurring themes in the debates over § 1 cast serious doubt on the suggestion that requiring exhaustion of state administrative remedies would be consistent with the intent of the 1871 Congress. First, in passing § 1, Congress assigned to the federal courts a paramount role in protecting constitutional rights. Representative Dawes expressed this view as follows:
“The first remedy proposed by this bill is a resort to the courts of the United States. Is that a proper place in which to find redress for any such wrongs? If there be power to call into courts of the United States an offender against these rights, privileges, and immunities, and hold him to an account there, either civilly or criminally, for their infringement, I submit to the calm and candid judgment of every member of this House that there is no tribunal so fitted, where equal and exact justice would be more likely to be meted out in temper, in moderation, in severity, if need be, but always according to the law and the fact, as that great tribunal of the Constitution.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 476 (1871) (hereinafter Globe).
See also id., at 332 (remarks of Rep. Hoar); id., at 375 (remarks of Rep. Lowe); id., at 448-449 (remarks of Rep. Butler); id., at 459 (remarks of Rep. Cobum).
The 1871 Congress intended § 1 to “throw open the doors of the United States courts” to individuals who were threatened with, or who had suffered, the deprivation of constitutional rights, id., at 376 (remarks of Rep. Lowe), and to provide these individuals immediate access to the federal courts notwithstanding any provision of state law to the contrary. For example, Senator Edmunds, who introduced the bill in the Senate, stated in his closing remarks that the bill was similar in principle to an earlier act upheld by this Court in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539 (1842):
“[T]he Supreme Court decided... that it was the solemn duty of Congress under the Constitution to secure to the individual, in spite of the State, or with its aid, as the case might be, precisely the rights that the Constitution gave him, and that there should be no intermediate authority to arrest or oppose the direct performance of this duty by Congress.” Globe 692 (emphasis added).
Similarly, Representative Elliott viewed the issue as whether “the Government of the United States [has] the right, under the Constitution, to protect a citizen in the exercise of his vested rights as an American citizen by... the assertion of immediate jurisdiction through its courts, without the appeal or agency of the State in which the citizen is domi-died.” Id., at 389 (emphasis added). See, e. g., id., at 459 (remarks of Rep. Coburn); id., at 807 (remarks of Rep. Garfield); id., at 609 (remarks of Sen. Pool); Globe App. 141 (remarks of Rep. Shanks).
A second theme in the debates further suggests that the 1871 Congress would not have wanted to impose an exhaustion requirement. A major factor motivating the expansion of federal jurisdiction through §§ 1 and 2 of the bill was the belief of the 1871 Congress that the state authorities had been unable or unwilling to protect the constitutional rights of individuals or to punish those who violated these rights. See, e. g., Globe 321 (remarks of Rep. Stoughton) (“The State authorities and local courts are unable or unwilling to check the evil or punish the criminals”); id., at 374 (remarks of Rep. Lowe) (“the local administrations have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective”); id., at 459 (remarks of Rep. Coburn); id., at 609 (remarks of Sen. Pool); id., at 687 (remarks of Sen. Shurz); id., at 691 (remarks of Sen. Edmunds); Globe App. 185 (remarks of Rep. Platt). Of primary importance to the exhaustion question was the mistrust that the 1871 Congress held for the factfinding processes of state institutions. See, e. g., Globe 320 (testimony of Hon. Thomas Settle, Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, before the House Judiciary Committee) (“The defect lies not so much with the courts as with the juries”); id., at 394 (remarks of Rep. Rainey); Globe App. 311 (remarks of Rep. Maynard). This Congress believed that federal courts would be less susceptible to local prejudice and to the existing defects in the factfinding processes of the state courts. See, e. g., Globe 322 (remarks of Rep. Stoughton); id., at 459 (remarks of Rep. Cobum). This perceived defect in the States’ factfinding processes is particularly relevant to the question of exhaustion of administrative remedies: exhaustion rules are often applied in deference to the superior factfinding ability of the relevant administrative agency. See, e. g., McKart v. United States, 395 U. S., at 192-196.
A third feature of the debates relevant to the exhaustion question is the fact that many legislators interpreted the bill to provide dual or concurrent forums in the state and federal system, enabling the plaintiff to choose the forum in which to seek relief. Cf. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 183 (1961) (“The federal remedy is supplementary to the state remedy, and the latter need not be first sought and refused before the federal one is invoked”). For example, Senator Thurman noted:
“I object to [§ 1], first, because of the centralizing tendency of transferring all mere private suits, as well as the punishment of offenses, from the State into the Federal courts. I do not say that this section gives to the Federal courts exclusive jurisdiction. I do not suppose that it is so understood. It leaves it, I presume, in the option of the person who imagines himself to be injured to sue in the State court or in the Federal court, an option that he who has been the least injured, but who has some malice to gratify, will be the most likely to avail himself of.” Globe App. 216.
See also Globe 578, 694-695 (remarks of Sen. Edmunds); id., at 384 (remarks of Rep. Hoar); id., at 514 (remarks of Rep. Famworth); Globe App. 85 (remarks of Rep. Bingham) (“Admitting that the States have concurrent power to enforce the Constitution of the United States within their respective limits, must we wait for their action?”).
This legislative history supports the conclusion that our prior decisions, holding that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under § 1983, did not misperceive the statutory intent: it seems fair to infer that the 1871 Congress did not intend that an individual be compelled in every case to exhaust state administrative remedies before filing an action under § 1 of the Civil Rights Act. We recognize, however, that drawing such a conclusion from this history alone is somewhat precarious: the 1871 Congress was not presented with the question of exhaustion of administrative remedies, nor was it aware of the potential role of state administrative agencies. Therefore, we do not rely exclusively on this legislative history in deciding the question presented here. Congress addressed the question of exhaustion under § 1983 when it recently enacted 42 U. S. C. §1997e (1976 ed., Supp. IV). The legislative history of § 1997e provides strong evidence of congressional intent on this issue.
B
The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1997 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. IV), was enacted pri-manly to ensure that the United States Attorney General has “legal standing to enforce existing constitutional rights and Federal statutory rights of institutionalized persons.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-897, p. 9 (1980) (Conf. Rep.). In § 1997e, Congress also created a specific, limited exhaustion requirement for adult prisoners bringing actions pursuant to § 1983. Section 1997e and its legislative history demonstrate that Congress understood that exhaustion is not generally required in § 1983 actions, and that it decided to carve out only a narrow exception to this rule. A judicially imposed exhaustion requirement would be inconsistent with Congress’ decision to adopt § 1997e and would usurp policy judgments that Congress has reserved for itself.
In considering whether an exhaustion requirement should be incorporated into the bill, Congress clearly expressed its belief that a decision to require exhaustion for certain § 1983 actions would work a change in the law. Witnesses testifying before the Subcommittee that drafted the bill discussed the decisions of this Court holding that exhaustion was not required. See, e. g., Hearings on H. R. 2439 and H. R. 5791 before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 20 (1977) (1977 Hearings); id., at 47, 69, 77, 323; Hearings on H. R. 10 before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 48 (1979) (1979 Hearings). During these hearings, Representative Kastenmeier, Chairman of this Subcommittee, stated:
“Another thing that I think requires some discussion within the committee, and is a point of argument,... is whether there ought to be an exhaustion of remedies requirement.
“... In fact, I think it has been pointed out that if [we] were to require it, particularly in 1983, that would constitute regression from the current state of the law. It would set the law back, because presently it is clearly held, that is the Supreme Court has held, that in 1983 civil rights suits the litigant need not necessarily fully exhaust State remedies.” 1977 Hearings 57-58.
See also id., at 272 (remarks of Rep. Drinan) (Representative Railsback “grounds his bill on doing something which the Supreme Court has consistently refused to do, namely require exhaustion of remedies”); 1979 Hearings 26 (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeier) (adopting §1997e “was resisted as a possible encroachment on civil liberties; that is to say, in the free, unimpeded resort to 1983”).
The debates over adopting an exhaustion requirement also reflect this understanding. See, e. g., 124 Cong. Rec. 11988 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Volkmer and Rep. Kastenmeier); id., at 15445 (remarks of Rep. Ertel); id., at 23180 (remarks of Rep. Wiggins) (“it is settled law that an exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required as a precondition of maintaining a 1983 action”); 125 Cong. Rec. 12496 (1979) (remarks of Rep. Butler) (“Under existing law there is no requirement that a complainant first ask the State prison system to help him”). With the understanding that exhaustion generally is not required, Congress decided to adopt the limited exhaustion requirement of § 1997e in order to relieve the burden on the federal courts by diverting certain prisoner petitions back through state and local institutions, and also to encourage the States to develop appropriate grievance procedures. See, e. g., Conf. Rep. 9; 124 Cong. Rec. 11976 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeier); id., at 11976, 11983 (remarks of Rep. Railsback); id., at 15442 (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeier); id., at 15445 (remarks of Rep. Ertel); id., at 23176 (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeier); id., at 23179-23180 (remarks of Rep. Butler); id., at 23180 (remarks of Rep. Ertel). Implicit in this decision is Congress’ conclusion that the no-exhaustion rule should be left standing with respect to other § 1983 suits.
A judicially imposed exhaustion requirement would also be inconsistent with the extraordinarily detailed exhaustion scheme embodied in § 1997e. Section 1997e carves out a narrow exception to the general no-exhaustion rule to govern certain prisoner claims, and establishes a procedure to ensure that the administrative remedies are adequate and effective. The exhaustion requirement is expressly limited to § 1983 actions brought by an adult convicted of a crime. 42 U. S. C. §1997e(a)(l) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). Section 1997e(b)(l) instructs the Attorney General to “promulgate minimum standards for the development and implementation of a plain, speedy, and effective system” of administrative remedies, and §1997e(b)(2) specifies certain minimum standards that must be included. A court may require exhaustion of administrative remedies only if “the Attorney General has certified or the court has determined that such administrative remedies are in substantial compliance with the minimum acceptable standards promulgated under subsection (b).” § 1997e(a)(2). Before exhaustion may be required, the court must further conclude that it “would be appropriate and in the interests of justice.” § 1997e(a)(l). Finally, in those § 1983 actions meeting all the statutory requirements for exhaustion, the district court may not dismiss the case, but may only “continue such case for a period of not to exceed ninety days in order to require exhaustion.” Ibid. This detailed scheme is inconsistent with discretion to impose, on an ad hoc basis, a judicially developed exhaustion rule in other cases.
Congress hoped that § 1997e would improve prison conditions by stimulating the development of successful grievance mechanisms. See, e. g., Conf. Rep. 9; H. R. Rep. No. 96-80, p. 4 (1979)' 1979 Hearings 4 (remarks of Rep. Rails-back); 124 Cong. Rec. 11976 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Rails-back); 125 Cong. Rec. 12492 (1979) (remarks of Rep. Drinan); 126 Cong. Rec. 10780 (1980) (remarks of Rep.. Kastenmeier). To further this purpose, Congress provided for the deferral of the exercise of federal jurisdiction over certain §1983 claims only on the condition that the state prisons develop adequate procedures. This purpose would be frustrated by judicial discretion to impose exhaustion generally: the States would have no incentive to adopt grievance procedures capable of certification, because prisoner § 1983 cases could be diverted to state administrative remedies in any event.
In sum, the exhaustion provisions of the Act make sense, and are not superfluous, only if exhaustion could not be required before its enactment and if Congress intended to carve out a narrow exception to this no-exhaustion rule. The legislative history of § 1997e demonstrates that Congress has taken the approach of carving out specific exceptions to the general rule that federal courts cannot require exhaustion under §1983. It is not our province to alter the balance struck by Congress in establishing the procedural framework for bringing actions under § 1983.
C
Respondent and the Court of Appeals argue that exhaustion of administrative remedies should be required because it would further various policies. They argue that an exhaustion requirement would lessen the perceived burden that § 1983 actions impose on federal courts; would further the goal of comity and improve federal-state relations by postponing federal-court review until after the state administrative agency had passed on the issue; and would enable the agency, which presumably has expertise in the area at issue, to enlighten the federal court’s ultimate decision.
As we noted earlier, policy considerations alone cannot justify judicially imposed exhaustion unless exhaustion is consistent with congressional intent. See supra, at 501-502, and n. 4. Furthermore, as the debates over incorporating the exhaustion requirement in § 1997e demonstrate, the relevant policy considerations do not invariably point in one direction, and there is vehement disagreement over the validity of the assumptions underlying many of them. The very difficulty of these policy considerations, and Congress’ superior institutional competence to pursue this debate, suggest that legislative not judicial solutions are preferable. Cf. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 317 (1980); Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U. S. 145, 150, 153 (1965).
Beyond the policy issues that must be resolved in deciding whether to require exhaustion, there are equally difficult questions concerning the design and scope of an exhaustion requirement. These questions include how to define those categories of § 1983 claims in which exhaustion might be desirable; how to unify and centralize the standards for judging the kinds of administrative procedures that should be exhausted; what tolling requirements and time limitations should be adopted; what is the res judicata and collateral estoppel effect of particular administrative determinations; what consequences should attach to the failure to comply with procedural requirements of administrative proceedings; and whether federal courts could grant necessary interim in-junctive relief and hold the action pending exhaustion, or proceed to judgment without requiring exhaustion even though exhaustion might otherwise be required, where the relevant administrative agency is either powerless or not inclined to grant such interim relief. These and similar questions might be answered swiftly and surely by legislation, but would create costly, remedy-delaying, and court-burdening litigation if answered incrementally by the judiciary in the context of diverse constitutional claims relating to thousands of different state agencies.
The very variety of claims, claimants, and state agencies involved in §1983 cases argues for congressional consideration of the myriad of policy considerations, and may explain why Congress, in deciding whether to require exhaustion in certain § 1983 actions brought by adult prisoners, carved out such a narrow, detailed exception to the no-exhaustion rule. After full debate and consideration of the various policy arguments, Congress adopted § 1997e, taking the largest class of §1983 actions and constructing an exhaustion requirement that differs substantially from the McKart-type standard urged by respondent and adopted by the Court of Appeals. See n. 18, supra. It is not for us to say whether Congress will or should create a similar scheme for other categories of § 1983 claims or whether Congress will or should adopt an altogether different exhaustion requirement for nonprisoner § 1983 claims.
IV
Based on the legislative histories of both §1983 and § 1997e, we conclude that exhaustion of state administrative remedies should not be required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to § 1983. We decline to overturn our prior decisions holding that such exhaustion is not required. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Because this case is here on a motion to dismiss, we accept as true the factual allegations in petitioner’s amended complaint. In her initial complaint, petitioner named FIU as the defendant. Relying on Byron v. University of Florida, 403 F. Supp. 49 (ND Fla. 1975), the District Court granted FIU’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Board of Regents and not the individual university had the capacity to sue and be sued under Florida law. The District Court granted petitioner leave to amend, and she amended her complaint to name the Board of Regents “on behalf of” FIU.
Petitioner requested the District Court to “[r]equire Defendants to remedy the discrimination practiced upon Plaintiff by promoting her to the next available position consistent with those previously applied for and for which she is qualified or in the alternative, to require the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $500,000 as actual and exemplary damages.” Record 47. Petitioner also requested that the District Court “order further equitable and injunctive relief as it deems appropriate and necessary to correct the conditions of discrimination complained of herein.” Id., at 48.
The other factors discussed in Monell — whether the decisions in question constituted a departure from prior decisions and whether overruling these decisions would frustrate legitimate reliance on their holdings — do not support overruling these decisions. McNeese was not a departure from prior decisions — this Court had not previously addressed the application of the exhaustion rule to § 1983 actions. Overruling these decisions might injure those § 1983 plaintiffs who had forgone or waived their state administrative remedies in reliance on these decisions.
Congressional intent is important in determining the application of the exhaustion doctrine to cases in which federal administrative remedies are available, as well as to those in which state remedies are available. Of course, exhaustion is required where Congress provides that certain administrative remedies shall be exclusive. See Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41 (1938). Even where the statutory requirement of exhaustion is not explicit, courts are guided by congressional intent in determining whether application of the doctrine would be consistent with the statutory scheme. In determining whether exhaustion of federal administrative remedies is required, courts generally focus on the role Congress has assigned to the relevant federal agency, and tailor the exhaustion rule to fit the particular administrative scheme created by Congress. See McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 193-195 (1969). With state administrative remedies, the focus is not so much on the role assigned to the state agency, but the role of the state agency becomes important once a court finds that deferring its exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with statutory intent.
Some of the debates relating to § 2, which created certain federal crimes in addition to those defined in § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27, aimed primarily at the Ku Klux Klan, are also relevant to our discussion of §1.
Opponents of the bill also recognized this purpose and complained that the bill would usurp the States’ power, centralize the government, and perhaps ultimately destroy the States. See, e. g., Globe 337, 338 (remarks of Rep. Whitthorne); id., at 352 (remarks of Rep. Beck); id., at 361 (remarks of Rep. Swann); id., at 365 (remarks of Rep. Arthur); id., at 385 (remarks of Rep. Lewis); id., at 429, 431 (remarks of Rep. McHenry); id., at 454 (remarks of Rep. Cox); id., at 510, 511 (remarks of Rep. Eldridge); Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 46 (1871) (remarks of Rep. Kerr) (hereinafter Globe App.); id., at 216 (remarks of Sen. Thurman); id., at 243 (remarks of Sen. Bayard).
Opponents criticized this provision on this very ground. For example, Representative Storm lamented:
“[Section one] does not even give the State courts a chance to try questions, or to show whether they will try the questions that might come before them under the first section of the fourteenth amendment, fairly or not. It takes the whole question away from them in the beginning.” Id., at 86.
See also Globe 416 (remarks of Rep. Biggs) (“for the violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizen a civil remedy is to be had by proceedings in the Federal courts, State authorization in the premises to the contrary notwithstanding”); id., at 337 (remarks of Rep. Whitthome); id., at 373 (remarks of Rep. Archer); Globe App. 216 (remarks of Sen. Thurman).
This view was expressed in the Presidential message urging the passing of corrective legislation. See Globe 244 (“That the power to correct these evils is beyond the control of State authorities I do not doubt”) (message of President Grant). The inability of state authorities to protect constitutional rights was also expressed in the findings of the House Judiciary Committee, which had been directed to investigate the situation. See id., at 320. The resolution introduced by Senator Sherman instructing the Senate Judiciary Committee to report a bill expressed a similar view. See Globe App. 210 (state “courts are rendered utterly powerless by organized perjury to punish crime”).
Opponents viewed the bill as a declaration of mistrust for state tribunals. See, e. g., Globe 361 (remarks of Rep. Swann); id., at 397 (remarks of Rep. Rice); id., at 454 (remarks of Rep. Cox); Globe App. 216 (remarks of Sen. Thurman). Representative McHenry found particularly offensive the removal of the factfinding function from the local institutions. See Globe 429.
Representative Kastenmeier explains why juveniles were not included in § 1997e:
“I think very candidly we should admit that the first reluctance to resort to this mechanism embodied in [§ 1997e] was resisted as a possible encroachment on civil liberties; that is to say, in the free, unimpeded resort to 1983; because it does deflect 1983 petitions back into — temporarily in any event— back into the State system. Therefore, to the extent that it is even so viewed, notwithstanding the limited form of [§ 1997e], that it should also extend to juveniles was rejected.” 1979 Hearings 26.
Section 1997e(b)(2) states:
“The minimum standards shall provide—
“(A) for an advisory role for employees and inmates of any jail, prison, or other correctional institution (at the most decentralized level as is reasonably possible), in the formulation, implementation, and operation of the system;
“(B) specific maximum time limits for written replies to grievances with reasons thereto at each decision level within the system;
“(C) for priority processing of grievances which are of an emergency nature, including matters in which delay would subject the grievant to substantial risk of personal injury or other damages;
“(D) for safeguards to avoid reprisals against any grievant or participant in the resolution of a grievance; and
“(E) for independent review of the disposition of grievances, including alleged reprisals, by a person or other entity not under the direct supervision or direct control of the institution.”
The Committee Reports state that Congress did not intend that every § 1983 action brought by an adult prisoner in institutions with appropriate grievance procedures be delayed pending exhaustion:
“It is the intent of the Congress that the court not find such a requirement appropriate in those situations in which the action brought pursuant to [§ 1983] raises issues which cannot, in reasonable probability, be resolved by the grievance resolution system, including cases where imminent danger to life is alleged. Allegations unrelated to conditions of confinement, such as those which center on events outside of the institution, would not appropriately be continued for resolution by the grievance resolution system.” Conf. Rep. 15.
See also H. R. Rep. No. 96-80, p. 25 (1979); S. Rep. No. 96-416, p. 34 (1979).
Of course, this burden alone is not sufficient to justify a judicial decision to alter congressionally imposed jurisdiction. See Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U. S. 336, 344 (1976); Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U. S. 145, 150-151
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 judgment is reversed. Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749, 779, 781.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White 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: | 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.
OPINION OF THE COURT
[562 U.S. 326]
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (1989 version) requires, among other things, that auto manufacturers install seatbelts on the rear seats of passenger vehicles. They must install lap-and-shoulder belts on seats next to a vehicle’s doors or frames. But they have a choice about what to install on rear inner seats (say, middle seats or those next to a minivan’s aisle). There they can install either (1) simple lap belts or (2) lap-and-shoulder belts. 54 Fed. Reg. 46257-46258 (1989); 49 CFR § 571.208 (1993), promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Act), 80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (1988 ed.) (recodified without substantive change at 49 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq. (2006 ed.)).
The question presented here is whether this federal regulation preempts a state tort suit that, if successful, would deny manufacturers a choice of belts for rear inner seats by imposing tort liability upon those who choose to install a simple lap belt. We conclude that providing manufacturers with this seatbelt choice is not a significant objective of the federal regulation. Consequently, the regulation does not pre-empt the state tort suit.
I
In 2002, the Williamson family, riding in their 1993 Mazda minivan, was struck head on by another vehicle. Thanh Williamson was sitting in a rear aisle seat, wearing a lap belt; she died in the accident. Delbert and Al-exa Williamson were wearing lap- and-shoulder belts; they survived. They, along with Thanh’s estate, subsequently brought this California
[562 U.S. 327]
tort suit against Mazda. They claimed that Mazda should have installed lap- and-shoulder belts on rear aisle seats, and that Thanh died because Mazda equipped her seat with a lap belt instead.
The California trial court dismissed this tort claim on the basis of the pleadings. And the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The appeals court noted that in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914 (2000), this Court considered whether a different portion of (an older version of) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (FMVSS 208)—a portion that required installation of passive restraint devices—pre-empted a state tort suit that sought to hold an auto manufacturer liable for failure to install a particular kind of passive restraint, namely, airbags. We found that the federal regulation intended to assure manufacturers that they would retain a choice of installing any of several different passive restraint devices. And the regulation sought to assure them that they would not have to exercise this choice in favor of airbags. For that reason we thought that the federal regulation pre-empted a state tort suit that, by premising tort liability on a failure to install airbags, would have deprived the manufacturers of the choice that the federal regulation had assured them. Id., at 874-875, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914.
The court saw considerable similarity between this case and Geier. The federal regulation at issue here gives manufacturers a choice among two different kinds of seatbelts for rear inner seats. And a state lawsuit that premises tort liability on a failure to install a particular kind of seatbelt, namely, lap-and-shoulder belts, would in effect deprive the manufacturer of that choice. The court concluded that, as in Geier, the federal regulation preempts the state tort suit. 167 Cal. App. 4th 905, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 545 (2008).
The Williamsons sought certiorari. And we granted certiorari in light of the fact that several courts have interpreted Geier as indicating that FMVSS 208 pre-empts state tort suits claiming that manufacturers should have installed
[562 U.S. 328]
lap-and-shoulder belts, not lap belts, on rear inner seats. Carden v. General Motors Corp., 509 F.3d 227 (CA5 2007); Roland v. General Motors Corp., 881 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. App. 2008); Heinricher v. Volvo Car Corp., 61 Mass. App. 313, 809 N.E.2d 1094 (2004).
II
In Geier, we considered a portion of an earlier (1984) version of FMVSS 208. That regulation required manufacturers to equip their vehicles with passive restraint systems, thereby providing occupants with automatic accident protection. 49 Fed. Reg. 28983 (1984). But that regulation also gave manufacturers a choice among several different passive restraint systems, including airbags and automatic seatbelts. Id., at 28996. The question before the Court was whether the Act, together with the regulation, pre-empted a state tort suit that would have held a manufacturer liable for not installing airbags. 529 U.S., at 865, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914. By requiring manufacturers to install airbags (in order to avoid tort liability) the tort suit would have deprived the manufacturers of the choice among passive restraint systems that the federal regulation gave them. See Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 713, 105 S. Ct. 2371, 85 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1985) ( “[S]tate laws can be pre-empted by federal regulations as well as by federal statutes”).
We divided this basic pre-emption question into three subsidiary questions. 529 U.S., at 867, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914. First, we asked whether the statute’s express pre-emption provision preempted the state tort suit. That statutory clause says that “no State” may “establish, or ... continue in effect,... any safety standard, applicable to the same aspect of performance” of a motor vehicle or item of equipment “which is not identical to the Federal standard.” 15 U.S.C. § 1392(d) (1988 ed.) (emphasis added). We had previously held that a word somewhat similar to “standard,” namely, “requirements” (found in a similar statute), included within its scope state “common-law duties,” such as duties created by state
[562 U.S. 329]
tort law. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 502-503, 116 S. Ct. 2240, 135 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1996) (plurality opinion); id., at 503-505, 116 S. Ct. 2240, 135 L. Ed. 2d 700 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 509-512, 116 S. Ct. 2240, 135 L. Ed. 2d 700 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). But we nonetheless held that the state tort suit in question fell outside the scope of this particular pre-emption clause. That is primarily because the statute also contains a saving clause, which says that “[c]ompliance with” a federal safety standard “does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.” 15 U.S.C. § 1397(k) (emphasis added). Since tort law is ordinarily “common law,” we held that “the presence of the saving clause” makes clear that Congress intended state tort suits to fall outside the scope of the express pre-emption clause. Geier, 529 U.S., at 868, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914.
Second, we asked the converse question: The saving clause at least removes tort actions from the scope of the express pre-emption clause. Id., at 869, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914. But does it do more? Does it foreclose or limit “the operation of ordinary pre-emption principles insofar as those principles instruct us to read” federal statutes as pre-empting state laws (including state common-law standards) that “actually conflict” with the federal statutes (or related regulations)? Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). We concluded that the saving clause does not foreclose or limit the operation of “ordinary preemption principles, grounded in longstanding precedent.” Id., at 874, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914.
These two holdings apply directly to the case before us. We here consider (1) the same statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq.; (2) a later version of the same regulation, FMVSS 208; and (3) a somewhat similar claim that a state tort action conflicts with the federal regulation. In light of Geier, the statute’s express pre-emption clause cannot pre-empt the common-law tort action; but neither can the statute’s saving clause foreclose or limit the operation of ordinary conflict preemption principles. We consequently turn our attention
[562 U.S. 330]
to Geier’s third subsidiary question, whether, in fact, the state tort action conflicts with the federal regulation.
Ill
Under ordinary conflict preemption principles a state law that “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of a federal law is pre-empted. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S. Ct. 399, 85 L. Ed. 581 (1941). See ibid, (federal statute can pre-empt a state statute); Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 112 S. Ct. 2608, 120 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1992) (federal statute can pre-empt a state tort suit); Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 102 S. Ct. 3014, 73 L. Ed. 2d 664 (1982) (federal regulation can pre-empt a state statute); Geier, supra (federal regulation can pre-empt a state tort suit). In Geier, we found that the state law stood as an “ ‘obstacle’ to the accomplishment” of a significant federal regulatory objective, namely, the maintenance of manufacturer choice. 529 U.S., at 886, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914. We must decide whether the same is true here.
A
At the heart of Geier lies our determination that giving auto manufacturers a choice among different kinds of passive restraint devices was a significant objective of the federal regulation. We reached this conclusion on the basis of our examination of the regulation, including its history, the promulgating agency’s contemporaneous explanation of its objectives, and the agency’s current views of the regulation’s pre-emptive effect.
The history showed that the Department of Transportation (DOT) had long thought it important to leave manufacturers with a choice. In 1967, DOT required manufacturers to install manual seat belts. Id., at 875, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914; 32 Fed. Reg. 2408, 2415 (1967). Because many car occupants did not “buckle up,” DOT began to require passive protection, such as airbags or automatic seatbelts, but without “favor[ing]” or “expect[ing]” the use of airbags. Geier, supra, at 875, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914 (internal
[562 U.S. 331]
quotation marks omitted); 35 Fed. Reg. 16927 (1970). DOT subsequently approved the use of ignition interlocks, which froze the ignition until the occupant buckled the belt, as a substitute for passive restraints. Geier, supra, at 876, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914; 37 Fed. Reg. 3911 (1972). But the interlock devices were unpopular with the public, and Congress soon forbade the agency to make them a means of compliance. Geier, supra, at 876, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914; Motor Vehicle and School-bus Safety Amendments of 1974, § 109, 88 Stat. 1482 (previously codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1410b (1988 ed.)). DOT then temporarily switched to the use of demonstration projects, but later it returned to mandating passive restraints, again leaving manufacturers with a choice of systems. Geier, supra, at 876-877, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914; see 49 Fed. Reg. 28962.
DOT’s contemporaneous explanation of its 1984 regulation made clear that manufacturer choice was an important means for achieving its basic objectives. The 1984 regulation gradually phased in passive restraint requirements, initially requiring manufacturers to equip only 10% of their new fleets with passive restraints. DOT explained that it intended its phasing period partly to give manufacturers time to improve airbag technology and to develop “other, better” passive restraint systems. Geier, 529 U.S., at 879, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914. DOT further explained that it had rejected an “ ‘all airbag’ ” system. Ibid. It was worried that requiring airbags in most or all vehicles would cause a public backlash, like the backlash against interlock devices. Ibid. DOT also had concerns about the safety of airbags, for they could injure out-of-place occupants, particularly children. Id., at 877-878, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914. And, given the cost of airbags, vehicle owners might not replace them when necessary, leaving occupants without passive protection. Ibid. The regulation therefore “deliberately sought variety—a mix of several different passive restraint systems.” Id., at 878, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914. DOT hoped that this mix would lead to better information about the devices’ comparative effectiveness and to the eventual development of “alternative,
[562 U.S. 332]
cheaper, and safer passive restraint systems.” Id., at 879, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914.
Finally, the Solicitor General told us that a tort suit that insisted upon use of airbags, as opposed to other federally permissible passive restraint systems, would “stan[d] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of these objectives.” Id., at 883, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914 (quoting Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., O. T. 1999, No. 98-1811, pp. 25-26 (hereinafter United States Brief in Geier); internal quotation marks omitted). And we gave weight to the Solicitor General’s view in light of the fact that it “ ‘em-bodie[d] the Secretary’s policy judgment that safety would best be promoted if manufacturers installed alternative protection systems in their fleets rather than one particular system in every car.’ ” 529 U.S., at 881, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914 (quoting United States Brief in Geier 25-26).
Taken together, this history, the agency’s contemporaneous explanation, and the Government’s current understanding of the regulation convinced us that manufacturer choice was an important regulatory objective. And since the tort suit stood as an obstacle to the accomplishment of that objective, we found the tort suit pre-empted.
B
We turn now to the present case. Like the regulation in Geier, the regulation here leaves the manufacturer with a choice. And, like the tort suit in Geier, the tort suit here would restrict that choice. But unlike Geier, we do not believe here that choice is a significant regulatory objective.
We concede that the history of the regulation before us resembles the history of airbags to some degree. In 1984, DOT rejected a regulation that would have required the use of lap- and-shoulder belts in rear seats. 49 Fed. Reg. 15241. Nonetheless, by 1989 when DOT promulgated the present regulation, it had “concluded that several factors had changed.” 54 Fed. Reg. 46258.
[562 U.S. 333]
DOT then required manufacturers to install a particular kind of belt, namely, lap-and-shoulder belts, for rear outer seats. In respect to rear inner seats, it retained manufacturer choice as to which kind of belt to install. But its 1989 reasons for retaining that choice differed considerably from its 1984 reasons for permitting manufacturers a choice in respect to airbags. DOT here was not concerned about consumer acceptance; it was convinced that lap-and-shoulder belts would increase safety; it did not fear additional safety risks arising from use of those belts; it had no interest in ensuring a mix of devices; and, though it was concerned about additional costs, that concern was diminishing.
In respect to consumer acceptance, DOT wrote that if
“people who are familiar with and in the habit of wearing lap/shoulder belts in the front seat find lap/ shoulder belts in the rear seat, it stands to reason that they would be more likely to wear those belts when riding in the rear seat.” 53 Fed. Reg. 47983 (1988).
In respect to safety, DOT wrote that, because an increasing number of rear seat passengers wore seatbelts, rear seat lap-and-shoulder belts would have “progressively greater actual safety benefits.” 54 Fed. Reg. 46257.
It added:
“[Sjtudies of occupant protection from 1968 forward show that the lap-only safety belts installed in rear seating positions are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury. . . . However, the agency believes that rear-seat lap/shoulder safety belts would be even more effective.” Ibid.
Five years earlier, DOT had expressed concern that lap-and-shoulder belts might negatively impact child safety by interfering with the use of certain child car seats that relied upon a tether. But by 1989, DOT found that car-seat designs “had shifted away” from tethers. 53 Fed. Reg. 47983. And rear lap-and-shoulder belts could therefore offer safety
[562 U.S. 334]
benefits for children old enough to use them without diminishing the safety of smaller children in car seats. Id,, at 47988-47989 (“[T]he agency believes that this proposal for rear seat lap/shoulder belts would offer benefits for children riding in some types of booster seats, would have no positive or negative effects on children riding in most designs of car seats and children that are too small to use shoulder belts, and would offer older children the same incremental safety protection [as adults]”). Nor did DOT seek to use its regulation to spur the development of alternative kinds of rear aisle or middle seat safety devices. See 54 Fed. Reg. 46257.
Why then did DOT not require lap- and-shoulder belts in these seats? We have found some indication that it thought use of lap-and-shoulder belts in rear aisle seats could cause “entry and exit problems for occupants of seating positions to the rear” by “stretch [ing] the shoulder belt across the aisleway,” id., at 46258. However, DOT encouraged manufacturers to address this issue through innovation:
“[I]n those cases where manufacturers are able to design and install lap/shoulder belts at seating positions adjacent to aisleways without interfering with the aisleway’s purpose of allowing access to more rearward seating positions[, the agency] encourages the manufacturers to do so.” Ibid.
And there is little indication that DOT considered this matter a significant safety concern. Cf. Letter from Philip R. Recht, Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., to Roger Matoba (Dec. 28, 1994), App. to Reply Brief for Petitioners 2 (“With respect to your concerns about the safety of shoulder safety belts which cross an aisle, I note that such belts do not in fact prevent rearward passengers from exiting the vehicle. Such passengers may . . . g[o] under or over the belt. They may also move the belt aside”).
[562 U.S. 335]
The more important reason why DOT did not require lap-and-shoulder belts for rear inner seats was that it thought that this requirement would not be cost effective. The agency explained that it would be significantly more expensive for manufacturers to install lap-and-shoulder belts in rear middle and aisle seats than in seats next to the car doors. 54 Fed. Reg. 46258. But that fact— the fact that DOT made a negative judgment about cost-effectiveness—cannot by itself show that DOT sought to forbid common-law tort suits in which a judge or jury might reach a different conclusion.
For one thing, DOT did not believe that costs would remain frozen. Rather it pointed out that costs were falling as manufacturers were “voluntarily equipping more and more of their vehicles with rear seat lap/ shoulder belts.” Ibid. For another thing, many, perhaps most, federal safety regulations embody some kind of cost-effectiveness judgment. While an agency could base a decision to pre-empt on its cost-effectiveness judgment, we are satisfied that the rulemaking record at issue here discloses no such pre-emptive intent. And to infer from the mere existence of such a cost-effectiveness judgment that the federal agency intends to bar States from imposing stricter standards would treat all such federal standards as if they were maximum standards, eliminating the possibility that the federal agency seeks only to set forth a minimum standard potentially supplemented through state tort law. We cannot reconcile this consequence with a statutory saving clause that foresees the likelihood of a continued meaningful role for state tort law. Supra, at 328-329, 179 L. Ed. 2d, at 81-82.
Finally, the Solicitor General tells us that DOT’s regulation does not pre-empt this tort suit. As in Geier, “the agency’s own views should make a difference.” 529 U.S., at 883, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914.
“Congress has delegated to DOT authority to implement the statute; the subject matter is technical; and the relevant
[562 U.S. 336]
history and background are complex and extensive. The agency is likely to have a thorough understanding of its own regulation and its objectives and is ‘uniquely qualified’ to comprehend the likely impact of state requirements.” Ibid.
There is “no reason to suspect that the Solicitor General’s representation of DOT’s views reflects anything other than ‘the agency’s fair and considered judgment on the matter.’ ” Id., at 884, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914 (quoting Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1997)).
Neither has DOT expressed inconsistent views on this subject. In Geier, the Solicitor General pointed out that “state tort law does not conflict with a federal ‘minimum standard’ merely because state law imposes a more stringent requirement.” United States Brief in Geier 21 (citation omitted). And the Solicitor General explained that a standard giving manufacturers “multiple options for the design of’ a device would not preempt a suit claiming that a manufacturer should have chosen one particular option, where “the Secretary did not determine that the availability of options was necessary to promote safety.” Id., at 22; see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Wood v. General Motors Corp., O. T. 1989, No. 89-46, p. 15. This last statement describes the present case.
In Geier, then, the regulation’s history, the agency’s contemporaneous explanation, and its consistently held interpretive views indicated that the regulation sought to maintain manufacturer choice in order to further significant regulatory objectives. Here, these same considerations indicate the contrary. We consequently conclude that, even though the state tort suit may restrict the manufacturer’s choice, it does not “stan[d] as an obstacle to the accomplishment... of the full purposes and objectives” of federal law. Hines, 312 U.S., at 67, 61 S. Ct. 399, 85 L. Ed. 581. Thus, the regulation does not pre-empt this tort action.
[562 U.S. 337]
The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kagan 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.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Texas for further consideration in light of In re Winship, ante, p. 358.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice in In re Winship, ante, p. 375. Mr. Justice Black dissents for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in In re Winship, ante, p. 377.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by the Secretary’s appeal is whether Congress may condition an alien’s eligibility for participation in a federal medical insurance program on continuous residence in the United States for a five-year period and admission for permanent residence. The District Court held that the first condition was unconstitutional and that it could not be severed from the second. Since we conclude that both conditions are constitutional, we reverse.
Each of the appellees is a resident alien who was lawfully admitted to the United States less than five years ago. Appellees Diaz and Clara are Cuban refugees who remain in this country at the discretion of the Attorney General; appellee Espinosa has been admitted for permanent residence. All three are over 65 years old and have been denied enrollment in the Medicare Part B supplemental medical insurance program established by § 1831 et seq. of the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 620, as added, 79 Stat. 301, and as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395j et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV). They brought this action to challenge the statutory basis for that denial. Specifically, they attack 42 U. S. C. § 1395o (2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), which grants eligibility to resident citi-zents who are 65 or older but denies eligibility to comparable aliens unless they have been admitted for permanent residence and also have resided in the United States for at least five years. Appellees Diaz and Clara meet neither requirement; appellee Espinosa meets only the first.
On August 18, 1972, Diaz filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that his application for enrollment had been denied on the ground that he was not a citizen and had neither been admitted for permanent residence nor resided in the United States for the immediately preceding five years. He further alleged that numerous other persons had been denied enrollment in the Medicare Part B program for the same reasons. He sought relief on behalf of a class of persons who have been or will be denied enrollment in the Medicare insurance program for failure to meet the requirements of 42 U. S. C. § 1395o (2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Since the complaint prayed for a declaration that § 1395o (2) was unconstitutional and for an injunction requiring the Secretary to approve all applicants who had been denied eligibility solely for failure to comply with its requirements, a three-judge court was constituted..
On September 28, 1972, the District Court granted leave to add Clara and Espinosa as plaintiffs and to file an amended complaint. That pleading alleged that Clara had been denied enrollment for the same reasons as Diaz, but explained that Espinosa, although a.permanent resident since 1971, had not attempted to enroll because he could not meet the durational residence requirement, and therefore any attempt would have been futile. The amended complaint sought relief on behalf of a subclass represented by Espinosa — that is, aliens admitted for permanent residence who have been or will be denied enrollment for failure to meet the five-year continuous residence requirement — as well as relief on behalf of the class represented by Diaz and Clara.
On October 24, 1972, the Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter because none of the plaintiffs had exhausted his administrative remedies under the Social Security Act. Two days later, on October 26, 1972, Espinosa filed his application for enrollment with the Secretary. He promptly brought this fact to the attention of the District Court, without formally supplementing the pleadings.
None of the appellees completely exhausted available avenues for administrative review. Nevertheless, the Secretary acknowledged that the applications of Diaz and Clara raised no disputed issues of fact and therefore the interlocutory denials of their applications should be treated as final for the purpose of this litigation. This satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of 42 U. S. C. §405 (g). Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 763-767; Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636, 641 n. 8. The Secretary did not make an equally unambiguous concession with respect to Espinosa, but in colloquy with the court he acknowledged that Espinosa had filed an application which could not be allowed under the statute. The District Court overruled the Secretary’s motion to dismiss and decided the merits on cross-motions for summary judgment.
The District Court held that the five-year residence requirement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and that since it could not be severed from the requirement of admission for permanent residence, the alien-eligibility provisions of § 1395o (2) (B) were entirely unenforceable. Diaz v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp. 1 (1973). The District Court reasoned that “even though fourteenth amendment notions of equal protection are not entirely congruent with fifth amendment concepts of due process,” id., at 9, the danger of unjustifiable discrimination against aliens in the enactment of welfare programs is so great, in view of their complete lack of representation in the political process, that this federal statute should be tested under the same pledge of equal protection as a state statute.. So tested, the court concluded that the statute was invalid because it was not both rationally based and free from invidious discrimination. It rejected the desire to preserve the fiscal integrity of the program, or to treat some aliens as less deserving than others, as adequate justification for the statute. Accordingly, the court enjoined the Secretary from refusing to enroll members of the class and subclass represented by appellees.
The Secretary appealed directly to this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction. Weinberger v. Diaz, 416 U. S. 980. After hearing argument last Term, we set the case for reargument. 420 U. S. 959. We now consider (1) whether the District Court had jurisdiction over Espinosa’s claim; (2) whether Congress may discriminate in favor of citizens and against aliens in providing welfare benefits; and (3) if so, whether the specific discriminatory provisions in § 1395o (2) (B) are constitutional.
I
Espinosa’s claim squarely raises the question whether the requirement of five years’ continuous residence is constitutional, a question that is not necessarily presented by the claims of Diaz and Clara. For if the requirement of admission for permanent residence is valid, their applications were properly denied even if the durational residence requirement is ineffective. We must therefore decide whether the District Court had jurisdiction over Espinosa’s claim.
We have little difficulty with Espinosa’s failure to file an application with the Secretary until after he was joined in the action. Although 42 U. S. C. § 405 (g) establishes fifing of an application as a nonwaivable condition of jurisdiction, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 328; Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S., at 764, Espinosa satisfied this condition while the case was pending in the District Court. A supplemental complaint in the District Court would have eliminated this jurisdictional issue; since the record discloses, both by affidavit and stipulation, that the jurisdictional condition was satisfied, it is not too late, even now, to supplement the complaint to allege this fact. Under these circumstances, we treat the pleadings as properly supplemented by the Secretary’s stipulation that Espinosa had filed an application.
A further problem is presented by the absence of any formal administrative action by the Secretary denying Espinosa’s application. Section 405 (g) requires a final decision by the Secretary after a hearing as a prerequisite of jurisdiction. Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, at 328-330; Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, at 763-765. However, we held in Salfi that the Secretary could waive the exhaustion requirements which this provision contemplates and that he had done so in that case. Id., at 765-767; accord, Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, at 328-330 (dictum); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S., at 641 n. 8. We reach a similar conclusion here.
The plaintiffs in Salfi alleged that their claims had been denied by the local and regional Social Security offices and that the only question was one of constitutional law, beyond the competence of the Secretary to decide. These allegations did not satisfy the exhaustion requirements of § 405 (g) or the Secretary's regulations, but the Secretary failed to challenge the sufficiency of the allegations on this ground. We interpreted this failure as a determination by the Secretary that exhaustion would have been futile and deferred to his judgment that the only issue presented was the constitutionality of a provision of the Social Security Act.
The same reasoning applies to the present case. Although the Secretary moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, at the hearing on the motion he stipulated that no facts were in dispute, that the case was ripe for disposition by summary judgment, and that the only issue before the District Court was the constitutionality of the statute. As in Salfi, this constitutional question is beyond the Secretary’s competence. Indeed, the Secretary has twice stated in this Court that he stipulated in the District Court that Espinosa’s application would be denied for failure to meet the durational residence requirement. For jurisdictional purposes, we treat the stipulation, in the District Court as tantamount to a decision denying the application and as a waiver of the exhaustion requirements. Cf. Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, supra, at 640 n. 6, 641 n. 8.
We conclude, as we did in Salfi, that the Secretary’s submission of the question for decision on the merits by the District Court satisfied the statutory requirement of a hearing and final decision. We hold that Espinosa’s claim, as well as the claims of Diaz and Clara, must be decided.
II
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 48-51; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481, 489. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra; Wong Wing, supra.
The fact that all persons, aliens and citizens alike, are protected by the Due Process Clause does not lead to the further conclusion that all aliens are entitled to enjoy all the advantages of citizenship or, indeed, to the conclusion that all aliens must be placed in a single homogeneous legal classification. For a host of constitutional and statutory provisions rest on the premise that a legitimate distinction between citizens and aliens may justify attributes and benefits for one class not accorded to the other; and the class of aliens is itself a heterogeneous multitude of persons with a wide-ranging variety of ties to this country.
In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rulés that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. The exclusion of aliens and the reservation of the power to deport have no permissible counterpart in the Federal Government’s power to regulate the conduct of its own citizenry. The fact that an Act of Congress treats aliens differently from citizens does not in itself imply that such disparate treatment is “invidious.”
In particular, the fact that Congress has provided some welfare benefits for citizens does not require it to provide like benefits for all aliens. Neither the overnight visitor, the unfriendly agent of a hostile foreign power, the resident diplomat, nor the illegal entrant, can advance even a colorable constitutional claim to a share in the bounty that a conscientious sovereign makes available to its own citizens and some of its guests. The decision to share that bounty with our guests may take into account the character of the relationship between the alien and this country: Congress may decide that as the alien’s tie grows stronger, so does the strength of his claim to an equal share of that munificence.
The real question presented by this case is not whether discrimination between citizens and aliens is permissible; rather, it is whether the statutory discrimination within the class of aliens — allowing benefits to some aliens but not to others — is permissible. We turn to that question.
III
For reasons long recognized as valid, the responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal Government. Since decisions in these matters may implicate our relations with foreign powers, and since a wide variety of classifications must be defined in the light of changing political and economic circumstances, such decisions are frequently of a character more appropriate to either the Legislature or the Executive than to the Judiciary. This very case illustrates the need for flexibility in policy choices rather than the rigidity often characteristic of constitutional adjudication. Appellees Diaz and Clara are but two of over 440,000 Cuban refugees who arrived in the United States between 1961 and 1972. And the Cuban parolees are but one of several categories of aliens who have been admitted in order to make a humane response to a natural catastrophe or an international political situation. Any rule of constitutional law that would inhibit the flexibility of the political branches of government to respond to changing world conditions should be adopted only with the greatest caution. The reasons that preclude judicial review of political questions also dictate a narrow standard of review of decisions made by the Congress or the President in the area of immigration and naturalization.
Since it is obvious that Congress has no constitutional duty to provide all aliens with the welfare benefits provided to citizens, the party challenging the constitutionality of the particular line Congress has drawn has the burden of advancing principled reasoning that will at once invalidate that line and yet tolerate a different line separating some aliens from others. In this case the appellees have challenged two requirements — first, that the alien be admitted as a permanent resident, and, second, that his residence be of a duration of at least five years. But if these requirements were eliminated, surely Congress would at least require that the alien's entry be lawful; even then, unless mere transients are to be held constitutionally entitled to benefits, some durational requirement would certainly be appropriate. In short, it is unquestionably reasonable for Congress to make an alien’s eligibility depend on both the character and the duration of his residence. Since neither requirement is wholly irrational, this case essentially involves nothing more than a claim that it would have been more reasonable for Congress to select somewhat different requirements of the same kind.
We may assume that the five-year line drawn by Congress is longer than necessary to protect the fiscal integrity of the program. We may also assume that unnecessary hardship is incurred by persons just short of qualifying. But it remains true that some fine is essential, that any line must produce some harsh and apparently arbitrary consequences, and, of greatest importance, that those who qualify under the test Congress has chosen may reasonably be presumed to have a greater affinity with the United States than those who do not. In short, citizens and those who are most like citizens qualify. Those who are less like citizens do not.
The task of classifying persons for medical benefits, like the task of drawing lines for federal tax purposes, inevitably requires that some persons who have an almost equally strong claim to favored treatment be placed on different sides of the line; the differences between the eligible and the ineligible are differences in degree rather than differences in the character of their respective claims. When this kind of policy choice must be made, we are especially reluctant to question the exercise of congressional judgment. In this case, since appellees have not identified a principled basis for prescribing a different standard than the one selected by Congress, they have, in effect, merely invited us to substitute our judgment for that of Congress in deciding which aliens shall be eligible to participate in the supplementary insurance program on the same conditions as citizens. We decline the invitation.
IV
The cases on which appellees rely are consistent with our conclusion that this statutory classification does not deprive them of liberty or property without due process of law.
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, provides the strongest support for appellees’ position. That case holds that state statutes that deny welfare benefits to resident aliens, or to aliens not meeting a requirement of dura-tional residence within the United States, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and encroach upon the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens. Of course, the latter ground of decision actually supports our holding today that it is the business of the political branches of the Federal Government, rather than that of either the States or the Federal Judiciary, to regulate the conditions of entry and residence of aliens. The equal protection analysis also involves significantly different considerations because it concerns the relationship between aliens and the States rather than between aliens and the Federal Government.
Insofar as state welfare policy is concerned, there is little, if any, basis for treating persons who are citizens of another State differently from persons who are citizens of another country. Both groups are noncitizens as far as the State’s interests in administering its welfare programs are concerned. Thus, a division by a State of the category of persons who are not citizens of that State into subcategories of United States citizens and aliens has no apparent justification, whereas, a comparable classification by the Federal Government is a routine and normally legitimate part of its business. Furthermore, whereas the Constitution inhibits every State’s power to restrict travel across its own borders, Congress is explicitly empowered to exercise that type of control over travel across the borders of the United States.
The distinction between the constitutional limits on state power and the constitutional grant of power to the Federal Government also explains why appellees’ reliance on Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250, is misplaced. That case involved Arizona’s requirement of durational residence within a county in order to receive nonemergency medical care at the county’s expense. No question of alienage was involved. Since the sole basis for the classification between residents impinged on the constitutionally guaranteed right to travel within the United States, the holding in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, required that it be justified by a compelling state interest. Finding no such justification, we held that the requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause. This case, however, involves no state impairment of the right to travel — nor indeed any impairment whatever of the right to travel within the United States; the predicate for the equal protection analysis in those cases is simply not present. Contrary to appellees’ characterization, it is not “political hypocrisy” to recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment’s limits on state powers are substantially different from the constitutional provisions applicable to the federal power over immigration and naturalization.
Finally, we reject the suggestion that U. S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, lends relevant support to appellees’ claim. No question involving alienage was presented in that case. Rather; we found that the denial of food stamps to households containing unrelated members was not only unsupported by any rational basis but actually was intended to discriminate against certain politically unpopular groups. This case involves no impairment of the freedom of association of either citizens or aliens.
We hold that § 1395o(2)(B) has not deprived ap-pellees of liberty or property without due process of law.
The judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
The Medicare Part B medical insurance program for the aged covers a part of the cost of certain physicians’ services, home health care, outpatient physical therapy, and other medical and health care. 42 TJ, S. C. § 1395k (1970 ed. and Supp. IV). The program supplements the Medicare Part A hospital insurance plan, § 1811 et seq. of the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 620, as added, 79 Stat. 291, and as amended, 42 U. S. C, § 1395c et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), and it is financed in equal parts by the United States and by monthly premiums paid by individuals aged 65 or older who choose to enroll. 42 U. S. C. § 1395r (b) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1395c (1970 ed. and Supp. IV) provides:
“Every individual who — (1) is entitled to hospital insurance benefits under Part A, or (2) has attained age 65 and is a resident of the United States, and is either (A) a citizen or (B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who has resided in the United States continuously during the 5 years immediately preceding the month in which he applies for enrollment under this part, is eligible to enroll in the insurance program established by this part.”
This case does not raise any issues involving subsection (1).
The District Court certified a class and a subclass, defined, respectively, as follows:
“All immigrants residing in the United States who have attained the age of 65 and who have been or will be denied enrollment in the supplemental medical insurance program under Medicare, 42 U. S. C. § 1395j et seq. (1970), because they are not aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence who have resided in the United States continuously during the five years immediately preceding the month in which they apply for enrollment as required by [42 U. S. C. § 1395o (2) (B) (1970 ed., Supp. IV)].
“All immigrants lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States who have attained the age of 65 and who have been or will be denied enrollment in the supplemental medical insurance program under Medicare, 42 U. S. C. § 1395j et seq. (1970), solely because of their failure to meet the five-year continuous residency requirement of [42 U. S. C. § 1395o (2) (B) (1970 ed., Supp. IV)].” Diaz v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp., 1, 7 (1973) (footnote omitted).
These class certifications are erroneous. The District Court did not possess jurisdiction over the claims of the members of the plaintiff class and subclass who “will be denied” enrollment. Those who “will be denied” enrollment, as the quoted phrase is used in the certification, are those who have yet to be denied enrollment by formal administrative decision. See id., at 6-7, and n. 7. But the complaint does not allege, and the record does not show, that the Secretary has taken any action with respect to such persons that is tantamount to a denial. It follows that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over their claims, see Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 764, and that the class and subclass are too broadly defined. In view of our holding that the statute is constitutional, we need not decide whether a narrower class and subclass could have been properly certified.
See infra, at 76-77, and n. 11.
“[N]or shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” U. S. Const., Arndt. 5.
The Secretary asserted jurisdiction in this Court by direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1252, 1253. Since we possess jurisdiction under § 1252, which provides for direct appeal to this Court from a judgment of a federal court holding a federal statute unconstitutional in a civil action to which a federal officer is a party, we need not decide whether an appeal lies under § 1253. Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, at 763 n. 8.
Diaz and Clara contend that the requirement of lawful admission for permanent residence should be construed SO' that it is satisfied by aliens, such as they, who have been paroled into the United States at the discretion of the Attorney General. However, such aliens remain in the United States at the discretion of the Attorney General, 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (d) (5), and hence cannot have been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence,” as § 1395o (2) (B) requires.
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15 (d); Security Ins. Co. of New Haven v. United States ex rel. Haydis, 338 F. 2d 444, 447-449 (CA9 1964).
“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.” 28 U. S. C. § 1653. Although the defect in Espinosa's allegations must be cured by supplemental pleading, instead of amended pleading, the statutory purpose of avoiding needless sacrifice to defective pleading applies equally to this case. See Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 744 n. 9; Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U. S. 402, 407-408, and n. 3. Despite Espinosa’s failure to supplement the complaint, the District Court was aware that he had filed his application; since the Secretary stipulated that the application had been filed, the defect in the pleadings surely did not prejudice him.
Record on Appeal 224-227. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Record on Appeal 259-260.
Jurisdictional Statement 3 n. 3; Brief for Appellant 5 n. 5. In his Supplemental Brief, filed after our decision in Salfi, the Secretary argues that the District Court did not possess jurisdiction over Espinosa’s claim because it was not until after the District Court had issued its injunction that the Secretary resolved an unspecified factual issue presented by Espinosa’s application, and that such a belated confirmation that Espinosa’s application should be denied could not confer jurisdiction upon the District Court nunc -pro tunc. Supplemental Brief for Appellant 4, and n. 1. However, the District Court’s jurisdiction was not founded upon the Secretary’s subsequent confirmation that Espinosa's application should be denied, but rather upon the Secretary’s stipulation in the District Court that no factual issues remained, that the case was ripe for disposition by summary judgment, and that the only issue was the constitutionality of the statute. Even though Salfi had not been decided when he so stipulated, he is not now free to withdraw his stipulation, and no reason appears why he should be permitted to do so.
The Constitution protects the privileges and immunities only of citizens, Arndt. 14, § 1; see Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, and the right to vote only of citizens. Arndts. 15, 19, 24, 26. It requires that Representatives have been citizens for seven years, Art. I, §2, cl. 2, and Senators citizens for nine, Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, and that the President be a “natural bom Citizen.” Art. II, § 1, cl. 5.
A multitude of federal statutes distinguish between citizens and aliens. The whole of Title 8 of the United States Code, regulating aliens and nationality, is founded on the legitimacy of distinguishing between citizens and aliens. A variety of other federal statutes provide for disparate treatment of aliens and citizens. These include prohibitions and restrictions upon Government employment of aliens, e. g., 10 U. S. C. § 5571; 22 U. S. C. § 1044 (e), upon private employment of aliens, e. g., 10 U. S. C. § 2279; 12 U. S. C. § 72, and upon investments and businesses of aliens, e. g., 12 U. S. C. §619; 47 U. S. C. § 17; statutes excluding aliens from benefits available to citizens, e. g., 26 U. S. C. § 931 (1970 ed. and Supp. IV); 46 U. S. C. § 1171 (a), and from protections extended to citizens, e. g., 19 U.S. C. § 1526; 29 U. S. C. § 633a (1970 ed., Supp. IV); and statutes imposing added burdens upon aliens, e. g., 26 U. S. C. § 6851 (d); 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (d). Several statutes treat certain aliens more favorably than citizens. E. g., 19 U. S. C. § 1586 (e); 50 U. S. C. App. § 453 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Other statutes, similar to the one at issue in this case, provide for equal treatment of citizens and aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 10 U. S. C. § 8253; 18 U. S. C. §613 (2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Still others equate citizens and aliens who have declared their intention to become citizens. E. g., 43 U. S. C. § 161; 30 U. S. C. § 22. Yet others condition equal treatment of an alien upon reciprocal treatment of United States citizens by the alien’s own country. E. g., 10 U. S. C. § 7435 (a); 28 U. S. C. § 2502.
The classifications among aliens established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 ei seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), illustrate the diversity of aliens and their ties to this country. Aliens may be immigrants or non-immigrants. 8 U. S. C. §1101 (a) (15). Immigrants, in turn, are divided into those who are subject to numerical limitations upon admissions and those who are not. The former are subdivided into preference classifications which include: grown unmarried children of citizens; spouses and grown unmarried children of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence; professionals and those with exceptional ability in the sciences or arts; grown married children of citizens; brothers and sisters of citizens; persons who perform specified permanent skilled or unskilled labor for which a labor shortage exists; and certain victims of persecution and catastrophic natural calamities who were granted conditional entry and remained in the United States at least two years. 8U. S. C. §§ 1153 (a)(l)-(7). Immigrants not subject to certain numerical limitations include: children and spouses of citizens and parents of citizens at least 21 years old; natives of independent countries of the Western Hemisphere; aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence returning from temporary visits abroad; certain former citizens who may reapply for acquisition of citizenship; certain ministers of religion; and certain employees or former employees of the United States Government abroad. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1101 (a) (27), 1151 (a), (b). Nonimmigrants include: officials and employees of foreign governments and certain international organizations; aliens visiting temporarily for business or pleasure; aliens in transit through this country; alien crewmen serving on a vessel or aircraft; aliens entering pursuant to a treaty of commerce and navigation to carry on trade or an enterprise in which they have invested; aliens entering to study in this country; certain aliens coming temporarily to perform services or labor or to serve as trainees; alien representatives of the foreign press or other information media; certain aliens coming temporarily to participate in a program in their field of study or specialization; aliens engaged to be married to citizens; and certain alien employees entering temporarily to continue to render services to the same employers. 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a) (15). In addition to lawfully admitted aliens, there are, of course, aliens who have entered illegally.
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 765-770.
Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522, 530-532; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 584-591.
See Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 13-16; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 505-514; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 125-130.
“[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, supra, at 588-689 (footnote omitted). Accord, e. g., Kleindienst v. Mandel, supra, at 765-767; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 711-713.
Cuban Refugee Center — Weekly Statistical Report for November 13-17, 1972, App, 40.
See 8 U. S. C. §§1153 (a)(7), 1182 (d)(5).
An unlikely, but nevertheless possible, consequence of holding that appellees are constitutionally entitled to welfare benefits would be a further extension of similar benefits to over 440,000 Cuban parolees.
“It is apparent that several formulations which vary slightly according to the settings in which the questions arise may describe a political question, although each has one or more elements which identify it as essentially a function of the separation of powers. Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibilty of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.” Baker v Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217.
The District Court held that the durational residence requirement was not rationally related to maintaining the fiscal integrity of the Medicare Part B program because the program is financed on a “current cost” basis, half by appropriations from the general revenues and half by premiums from enrolled individuals; because aliens who do not meet the residence requirement would constitute no greater burden on the general revenues than enrolled citizens who have not paid federal taxes or who pay their premiums from federally subsidized welfare benefits; because aliens, like citizens, must pay federal taxes; and because the residency requirement only postpones treatment of aliens until costlier medical care is necessary. Diaz v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp., at 10-12.
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S., at 768-774; Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 483-487.
We have left open the question whether a State may prohibit aliens from holding elective or important nonelective positions or whether a State may, in some circumstances, consider the alien status of an applicant or employee in making an individualized employment decision. See Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case requires us to address, for the second time in a decade and a half, whether it is permissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to execute a juvenile offender who was older than 15 but younger than 18 when he committed a capital crime. In Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361 (1989), a divided Court rejected the proposition that the Constitution bars capital punishment for juvenile offenders in this age group. We reconsider the question.
I
At the age of 17, when he was still a junior in high school, Christopher Simmons, the respondent here, committed murder. About nine months later, after he had turned 18, he was tried and sentenced to death. There is little doubt that Simmons was the instigator of the crime. Before its commission Simmons said he wanted to murder someone. In chilling, callous terms he talked about his plan, discussing it for the most part with two friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, then aged 15 and 16 respectively. Simmons proposed to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering, tying up a victim, and throwing the victim off a bridge. Simmons assured his friends they could “get away with it” because they were minors.
The three met at about 2 a.m. on the night of the murder, but Tessmer left before the other two set out. (The State later charged Tessmer with conspiracy, but dropped the charge in exchange for his testimony against Simmons.) Simmons and Benjamin entered the home of the victim, Shirley Crook, after reaching through an open window and unlocking the back door. Simmons turned on a hallway light. Awakened, Mrs. Crook called out, “Who’s there?” In response Simmons entered Mrs. Crook’s bedroom, where he recognized her from a previous car accident involving them both. Simmons later admitted this confirmed his resolve to murder her.
Using duct tape to cover her eyes and mouth and bind her hands, the two perpetrators put Mrs. Crook in her minivan and drove to a state park. They reinforced the bindings, covered her head with a towel, and walked her to a railroad trestle spanning the Meramec River. There they tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire, wrapped her whole face in duct tape and threw her from the bridge, drowning her in the waters below.
By the afternoon of September 9, Steven Crook had returned home from an overnight trip, found his bedroom in disarray, and reported his wife missing. On the same afternoon fishermen recovered the victim’s body from the river. Simmons, meanwhile, was bragging about the killing, telling friends he had killed a woman “because the bitch seen my face.”
The next day, after receiving information of Simmons’ involvement, police arrested him at his high school and took him to the police station in Fenton, Missouri. They read him his Miranda rights. Simmons waived his right to an attorney and agreed to answer questions. After less than two hours of interrogation, Simmons confessed to the murder and agreed to perform a videotaped reenactment at the crime scene.
The State charged Simmons with burglary, kidnaping, stealing, and murder in the first degree. As Simmons was 17 at the time of the crime, he was outside the criminal jurisdiction of Missouri’s juvenile court system. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §§211.021 (2000) and 211.031 (Supp. 2003). He was tried as an adult. At trial the State introduced Simmons’ confession and the videotaped reenactment of the crime, along with testimony that Simmons discussed the crime in advance and bragged about it later. The defense called no witnesses in the guilt phase. The jury having returned a verdict of murder, the trial proceeded to the penalty phase.
The State sought the death penalty. As aggravating factors, the State submitted that the murder was committed for the purpose of receiving money; was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing lawful arrest of the defendant; and involved depravity of mind and was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman. The State called Shirley Crook’s husband, daughter, and two sisters, who presented moving evidence of the devastation her death had brought to their lives.
In mitigation Simmons’ attorneys first called an officer of the Missouri juvenile justice system, who testified that Simmons had no prior convictions and that no previous charges had been filed against him. Simmons’ mother, father, two younger half brothers, a neighbor, and a friend took the stand to tell the jurors of the close relationships they had formed with Simmons and to plead for mercy on his behalf. Simmons’ mother, in particular, testified to the responsibility Simmons demonstrated in taking care of his two younger half brothers and of his grandmother and to his capacity to show love for them.
During closing, arguments, both the prosecutor and defense counsel addressed Simmons’ age, which the trial judge had instructed the jurors they could consider as a mitigating factor. Defense counsel reminded the jurors that juveniles of Simmons’ age cannot drink, serve on juries, or even see certain movies, because “the legislatures have wisely decided that individuals of a certain age aren’t responsible enough.” Defense counsel argued that Simmons’ age should make “a huge difference to [the jurors] in deciding just exactly what sort of punishment to make.” In rebuttal, the prosecutor gave the following response: “Age, he says. Think about age. Seventeen years old. Isn’t that scary? Doesn’t that scare you? Mitigating? Quite the contrary I submit. Quite the contrary.”
The jury recommended the death penalty after finding the State had proved each of the three aggravating factors submitted to it. Accepting the jury’s recommendation, the trial judge imposed the death penalty.
Simmons obtained new counsel, who moved in the trial court to set aside the conviction and sentence. One argument was that Simmons had received ineffective assistance at trial. To support this contention, the new counsel called as witnesses Simmons’ trial attorney, Simmons’ friends and neighbors, and clinical psychologists who had evaluated him.
Part of the submission was that Simmons was “very immature,” “very impulsive,” and “very susceptible to being manipulated or influenced.” The experts testified about Simmons’ background including a difficult home environment and dramatic changes in behavior, accompanied by poor school performance in adolescence. Simmons was absent from home for long periods, spending time using alcohol and drugs with other teenagers or young adults. The contention by Simmons’ postconviction counsel was that these matters should have been established in the sentencing proceeding.
The trial court found no constitutional violation by reason of ineffective assistance of counsel and denied the motion for posteonviction relief. In a consolidated appeal from Simmons’ conviction and sentence, and from the denial of post-conviction relief, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. State v. Simmons, 944 S. W. 2d 165, 169 (en banc), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 953 (1997). The federal courts denied Simmons’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Simmons v. Bowersox, 235 F. 3d 1124, 1127 (CA8), cert. denied, 534 U. S. 924 (2001).
After these proceedings in Simmons’ case had run their course, this Court held that the Eighth' and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the execution of a mentally retarded person. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002). Simmons filed a new petition for state postconviction relief, arguing that the reasoning of Atkins established that the Constitution prohibits the execution of a juvenile who was under 18 when the crime was committed.
The Missouri Supreme Court agreed. State ex rel. Simmons v. Roper, 112 S. W. 3d 397 (2003) (en banc). It held that since Stanford,
“a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders, as demonstrated by the fact that eighteen states now bar such executions for juveniles, that twelve other states bar executions altogether, that no state has lowered its age of execution below 18 since Stanford, that five states have legislatively or by case law raised or established the minimum age at 18, and that the imposition of the juvenile death penalty has become truly unusual over the last decade.” 112 S. W. 3d, at 399.
On this reasoning it set aside Simmons! death sentence and resentenced him to “life imprisonment without eligibility for probation, parole, or release except by act of the Governor.” Id., at 413.
We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1160 (2004), and now affirm.
II
The Eighth Amendment provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The provision is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 239 (1972) (per curiam); Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660, 666-667 (1962); Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459, 463 (1947) (plurality opinion). As the Court explained in Atkins, the Eighth Amendment guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions. The right flows from the basic “ ‘precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.’ ” 536 U. S., at 311 (quoting Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 367 (1910)). By protecting even those convicted of heinous crimes, the Eighth Amendment reaffirms the duty of the government to respect the dignity of all persons.
The prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments,” like other expansive language in the Constitution, must be interpreted according to its text, by considering history, tradition, and precedent, and with due regard for its purpose and function in the constitutional design. To implement this framework we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1958) (plurality opinion).
In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988), a plurality of the Court determined that our standards of decency do not permit the execution of any offender under the age of 16 at the time of the crime. Id., at 818-838 (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ.). The plurality opinion explained that no death penalty State that had given express consideration to a minimum age for the death penalty had set the age lower than 16. Id., at 826-829. The plurality also observed that “[t]he conclusion that it would offend civilized standards of decency to execute a person who was less than 16 years old at the time of his or her offense is consistent with the views that have been expressed by respected professional organizations, by other nations that share our Anglo-American heritage, and by the leading members of the Western European community.” Id., at 830. The opinion further noted that juries imposed the death penalty on offenders under 16 with exceeding rarity; the last execution of an offender for a crime committed under the age of 16 had been carried out in 1948, 40 years prior. Id., at 832-833.
Bringing its independent judgment to bear on the permissibility of the death penalty for a 15-year-old offender, the Thompson plurality stressed that “[t]he reasons why juveniles are not trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of an adult also explain why their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Id., at 835. According to the plurality, the lesser culpability of offenders under 16 made the death penalty inappropriate as a form of retribution, while the low likelihood that offenders under 16 engaged in “the kind of cost-benefit analysis that attaches any weight to the possibility of execution” made the death penalty ineffective as a means of deterrence. Id., at 836-838. With Justice O’Connor concurring in the judgment on narrower grounds, id., at 848-859, the Court set aside the death sentence that had been imposed on the 15-year-old offender.
The next year, in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361 (1989), the Court, over a dissenting opinion joined by four Justices, referred to contemporary standards of decency in this country and concluded the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments did not proscribe the execution of juvenile offenders over 15 but under 18. The Court noted that 22 of the 37 death penalty States permitted the death penalty for 16-year-old offenders, and, among these 37 States, 25 permitted it for 17-year-old offenders. These numbers, in the Court’s view, indicated there was no national consensus “sufficient to label a particular punishment cruel and unusual.” Id., at 370-371. A plurality of the Court also “emphatically rejected]” the suggestion that the Court should bring its own judgment to bear on the acceptability of the juvenile death penalty. Id., at 377-378 (opinion of Scalia, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and White and Kennedy, JJ.); see also id., at 382 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (criticizing the plurality’s refusal “to judge whether the ‘ “nexus between the punishment imposed and the defendant’s blameworthiness” ’ is proportional”).
The same day the Court decided Stanford, it held that the Eighth Amendment did not mandate a categorical exemption from the death penalty for the mentally retarded. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989). In reaching this conclusion it stressed that only two States had enacted laws banning the imposition of the death penalty on a mentally retarded person convicted of a capital offense. Id., at 334. According to the Court, “the two state statutes prohibiting execution of the mentally retarded, even when added to the 14 States that have rejected capital punishment completely, [did] not provide sufficient evidence at present of a national consensus.” Ibid.
Three Terms ago the subject was reconsidered in Atkins. We held that standards of decency have evolved since Penry and now demonstrate that the execution of the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment. The Court noted objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions of the mentally retarded. When Atkins was decided only a minority of States permitted the practice, and even in those States it was rare. 536 U. S., at 314-315. On the basis of these indicia the Court determined that executing mentally retarded offenders “has become truly unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it.” Id., at 316.
The inquiry into our society’s evolving standards of decency did not end there. The Atkins Court neither repeated nor relied upon the statement in Stanford that the Court’s independent judgment has no bearing on the acceptability of a particular punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Instead we returned to the rule, established in decisions predating Stanford, that “‘the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.’” 536 U. S., at 312 (quoting Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, 597 (1977) (plurality opinion)). Mental retardation, the Court said, diminishes personal culpability even if the offender can distinguish right from wrong. 536 U. S., at 318. The impairments of mentally retarded offenders make it less defensible to impose the death penalty as retribution for past crimes and less likely that the death penalty will have a real deterrent effect. Id., at 319-320. Based on these considerations and on the finding of national consensus against executing the mentally retarded, the Court ruled that the death penalty constitutes an excessive sanction for the entire category of mentally retarded offenders, and that the Eighth Amendment “ ‘places a substantive restriction on the State’s power to take the life’ of a mentally retarded offender.” Id., at 321 (quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 405 (1986)).
Just as the Atkins Court reconsidered the issue decided in Penry, we now reconsider the issue decided in Stanford. The beginning point is a review of objective indicia of consensus, as expressed in particular by the enactments of legislatures that have addressed the question. These data give us essential instruction. We then must determine, in the exercise of our own independent judgment, whether the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles.
J — l I — I
A
The evidence of national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles is similar, and in some respects parallel, to the evidence Atkins held sufficient to demonstrate a national consensus against the death penalty for the mentally retarded. When Atkins was decided, 30 States prohibited the death penalty for the mentally retarded. This number comprised 12 that had abandoned the death penalty altogether, and 18 that maintained it but excluded the mentally retarded from its reach. 536 U. S., at 313-315. By a similar calculation in this case, 30 States prohibit the juvenile death penalty, comprising 12 that have rejected the death penalty altogether and 18 that maintain it but, by express provision or judicial interpretation, exclude juveniles from its reach. See Appendix A, infra. Atkins emphasized that even in the 20 States without formal prohibition, the practice of executing the mentally retarded was infrequent. Since Penry, only five States had executed offenders known to have an IQ under 70. 536 U. S., at 316. In the present case, too, even in the 20 States without a formal prohibition on executing juveniles, the practice is infrequent. Since Stanford, six States have executed prisoners for crimes committed as juveniles. In the past 10 years, only three have done so: Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. See V. Streib, The Juvenile Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and Executions for Juvenile Crimes, January 1, 1973-December 31, 2004, No. 76, p. 4 (2005), available at http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/streib/ documents/JuvDeathDec2004.pdf (last updated Jan. 31,2005) (as visited Feb. 25, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). In December 2003 the Governor of Kentucky decided to spare the life of Kevin Stanford, and commuted his sentence to one of life imprisonment without parole, with the declaration that “ ‘[w]e ought not be executing people who, legally, were children.’” Lexington Herald Leader, Dec. 9, 2003, p. B3, 2003 WL 65043346. By this act the Governor ensured Kentucky would not add itself to the list of States that have executed juveniles within the last 10 years even by the execution of the very defendant whose death sentence the Court had upheld in Stanford v. Kentucky.
There is, to be sure, at least one difference between the evidence of consensus in Atkins and in this case. Impressive in Atkins was the rate of abolition of the death penalty for the mentally retarded. Sixteen States that permitted the execution of the mentally retarded at the time of Penry had prohibited the practice by the time we heard Atkins. By contrast, the rate of change in reducing the incidence of the juvenile death penalty, or in taking specific steps to abolish it, has been slower. Five States that allowed the juvenile death penalty at the time of Stanford have abandoned it in the intervening 15 years — four through legislative enactments and one through judicial decision. Streib, supra, at 5, 7; State v. Furman, 122 Wash. 2d 440, 858 P. 2d 1092 (1993) (en banc).
Though less dramatic than the change from Penry to Atkins (“telling,” to borrow the word Atkins used to describe this difference, 536 U. S., at 315, n. 18), we still consider the change from Stanford to this case to be significant. As noted in Atkins, with respect to the States that had abandoned the death penalty for the mentally retarded since Penry, “[i]t is not so much the number of these States that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of change.” 536 U. S., at 315. In particular we found it significant that, in the wake of Penry, no State that had already prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded had passed legislation to reinstate the penalty. 536 U. S., at 315-316. The number of States that have abandoned capital punishment for juvenile offenders since Stanford is smaller than the number of States that abandoned capital punishment for the mentally retarded after Penry; yet we think the same consistency of direction of change has been demonstrated. Since Stanford, no State that previously prohibited capital punishment for juveniles has reinstated it. This fact, coupled with the trend toward abolition of the juvenile death penalty, carries special force in light of the general popularity of anticrime legislation, Atkins, supra, at 315, and in light of the particular trend in recent years toward cracking down on juvenile crime in other respects, see H. Snyder & M. Sickmund, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report 89, 133 (Sept. 1999); Scott & Grisso, The Evolution of Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice Reform, 88 J. Crim. L. & C. 137, 148 (1997). Any difference between this case and Atkins with respect to the pace of abolition is thus counterbalanced by the consistent direction of the change.
The slower pace of abolition of the juvenile death penalty over the past 15 years, moreover, may have a simple explanation. When we heard Penry, only two death penalty States had already prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded. When we heard Stanford, by contrast, 12 death penalty States had already prohibited the execution of any juvenile under 18, and 15 had prohibited the execution of any juvenile under 17. If anything, this shows that the impropriety of executing juveniles between 16 and 18 years of age gained wide recognition earlier than the impropriety of executing the mentally retarded. In the words of the Missouri Supreme Court: “It would be the ultimate in irony if the very fact that the inappropriateness of the death penalty for juveniles was broadly recognized sooner than it was recognized for the mentally retarded were to become a reason to continue the execution of juveniles now that the execution of the mentally retarded has been barred.” 112 S. W. 3d, at 408, n. 10.
Petitioner cannot show national consensus in favor of capital punishment for juveniles but still resists the conclusion that any consensus exists against it. Petitioner supports this position with, in particular, the observation that when the Senate ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U. N. T. S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976), it did so subject to the President’s proposed reservation regarding Article 6(5) of that treaty, which prohibits capital punishment for juveniles. Brief for Petitioner 27. This reservation at best provides only faint support for petitioner’s argument. First, the reservation was passed in 1992; since then, five States have abandoned capital punishment for juveniles. Second, Congress considered the issue when enacting the Federal Death Penalty Act in 1994, and determined that the death penalty should not extend to juveniles. See 18 U. S. C. § 3591. The reservation to Article 6(5) of the ICCPR provides minimal evidence that there is not now a national consensus against juvenile executions.
As in Atkins, the objective indicia of consensus in this case — the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice — provide sufficient evidence that today our society views juveniles, in the words Atkins used respecting the mentally retarded, as “categorically less culpable than the average criminal.” 536 U. S., at 316.
B
A majority of States have rejected the imposition of the death penalty on juvenile offenders under 18, and we now hold this is required by the Eighth Amendment.
Because the death penalty is the most severe punishment, the Eighth Amendment applies to it with special force. Thompson, 487 U. S., at 856 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit “a narrow category of the most serious crimes” and whose extreme culpability makes them “the most deserving of execution.” Atkins, supra, at 319. This principle is implemented throughout the capital sentencing process. States must give narrow and precise definition to the aggravating factors that can result in a capital sentence. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420, 428-429 (1980) (plurality opinion). In any capital case a defendant has wide latitude to raise as a mitigating factor “any aspect of [his or her] character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 110—112 (1982); see also Johnson v. Texas, 509 U. S. 350, 359-362 (1993) (summarizing the Court’s jurisprudence after Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972) (per curiam), with respect to a sentencer’s consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors). There are a number of crimes that beyond question are severe in absolute terms, yet the death penalty may not be imposed for their commission. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584 (1977) (rape of an adult woman); Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982) (felony murder where defendant did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill). The death penalty may not be imposed on certain classes of offenders, such as juveniles under 16, the insane, and the mentally retarded, no matter how heinous the crime. Thompson v. Oklahoma, supra; Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (1986); Atkins, supra. These rules vindicate the underlying princi-pie that the death penalty is reserved for a narrow category of crimes and offenders.
Three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders. First, as any parent knows and as the scientific and sociological studies respondent and his amici cite tend to confirm, “[a] lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and are more understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.” Johnson, supra, at 367; see also Eddings, supra, at 115-116 (“Even the normal 16-year-old customarily lacks the maturity of an adult”). It has been noted that “adolescents are overrepresented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior.” Arnett, Reckless Behavior in Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective, 12 Developmental Rev. 339 (1992). In recognition of the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles, almost every State prohibits those under 18 years of age from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent. See Appendixes B-D, infra.
The second area of difference is that juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure. Eddings, supra, at 115 (“[Yjouth is more than a chronological fact. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage”). This is explained in part by the prevailing circumstance that juveniles have less control, or less experience with control, over their own environment. See Steinberg & Scott, Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58 Am. Psychologist 1009, 1014 (2003) (hereinafter Steinberg & Scott) (“[A]s legal minors, [juveniles] lack the freedom that adults have to extricate themselves from a criminogenic setting”).
The third broad difference is that the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed. See generally E. Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968).
These differences render suspect any conclusion that a juvenile falls among the worst offenders. The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible behavior means “their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Thompson, supra, at 835 (plurality opinion). Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. See Stanford, 492 U. S., at 395 (Brennan, J., dissenting). The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed. Indeed, “[t]he relevance of youth as a mitigating factor derives from the fact that the signature qualities of youth are transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside.” Johnson, supra, at 368; see also Steinberg & Scott 1014 (“For most teens, [risky or antisocial] behaviors are fleeting; they cease with maturity as individual identity becomes settled. Only a relatively small proportion of adolescents who experiment in risky or illegal activities develop entrenched patterns of problem behavior that persist into adulthood”).
In Thompson, a plurality of the Court recognized the import of these characteristics with respect to juveniles under 16, and relied on them to hold that the Eighth Amendment prohibited the imposition of the death penalty on juveniles below that age. 487 U. S., at 833-838. We conclude the same reasoning applies to all juvenile offenders under 18.
Once the diminished culpability of juveniles is recognized, it is evident that the penological justifications for the death penalty apply to them with lesser force than to adults. We have held there are two distinct social purposes served by the death penalty: “‘retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders.’ ” Atkins, 536 U. S., at 319 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 183 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)). As for retribution, we remarked in Atkins that “[i]f the culpability of the average murderer is insufficient to justify the most extreme sanction available to the State, the lesser culpability of the mentally retarded offender surely does not merit that form of retribution.” 536 U. S., at 319. The same conclusions follow from the lesser culpability of the juvenile offender. Whether viewed as an attempt to express the community’s moral outrage or as an attempt to right the balance for the wrong to the victim, the case for retribution is not as strong with a minor as with an adult. Retribution is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity.
As for deterrence, it is unclear whether the death penalty has a significant or even measurable deterrent effect on juveniles, as counsel for petitioner acknowledged at oral argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 48. In general we leave to legislatures the assessment of the efficacy of various criminal penalty schemes, see Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 998-999 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Here, however, the absence of evidence of deterrent effect is of special concern because the same characteristics that render juveniles less culpable than adults suggest as well that juveniles will be less susceptible to deterrence. In particular, as the plurality observed in Thompson, “[t]he likelihood that the teenage offender has made the kind of cost-benefit analysis that attaches any weight to the possibility of execution is so remote as to be virtually nonexistent.” 487 U. S., at 837. To the extent the juvenile death penalty might have residual deterrent effect, it is worth noting that the punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person.
In concluding that neither retribution nor deterrence provides adequate justification for imposing the death penalty on juvenile offenders, we cannot deny or overlook the brutal crimes too many juvenile offenders have committed. See Brief for Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae. Certainly it can be argued, although we by no means concede the point, that a rare case might arise in which a juvenile offender has sufficient psychological maturity, and at the same time demonstrates sufficient depravity, to merit a sentence of death. Indeed, this possibility is the linchpin of one contention pressed by petitioner and his amici. They assert that even assuming the truth of the observations we have made about juveniles’ diminished culpability in general, jurors nonetheless should be allowed to consider mitigating arguments related to youth on a ease-by-case basis, and in some cases to impose the déath penalty if justified. A central feature of death penalty sentencing is a particular assessment of the circumstances of the crime and the characteristics of the offender. The system is designed to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including youth, in every case. Given this Court’s own insistence on individualized consideration, petitioner maintains that it is both arbitrary and unnecessary to adopt a categorical rule barring imposition of the death penalty on any offender under 18 years of age.
We disagree. The differences between juvenile and adult offenders are too marked and well understood to risk allowing a youthful person to receive the death penalty despite insufficient culpability. An unacceptable likelihood exists that the brutality or cold-blooded nature of any particular crime would overpower mitigating arguments based on youth as a matter of course, even where the juvenile offender’s objective immaturity, vulnerability, and lack of true depravity should require a sentence less severe than death. In some cases a defendant’s youth may even be counted against him. In this very case, as we noted above, the prosecutor argued Simmons’ youth was aggravating rather than mitigating. Supra, at 558. While this sort of overreaching could be corrected by a particular rule to ensure that the mitigating force of youth is not overlooked, that would not address our larger concerns.
It is difficult even for expert psychologists to differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption. See Stein-berg & Scott 1014-1016. As we understand it, this difficulty underlies the rule forbidding psychiatrists from diagnosing any patient under 18 as having antisocial personality disorder, a disorder also referred to as psychopathy or sociopa-thy, and which is characterized by callousness, cynicism, and contempt for the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, challenges a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that a corporation which held record title to real property as agent for the corporation’s shareholders was not the owner of the property for purposes of federal income taxation. 807 F. 2d 65 (1986). We granted certiorari, 482 U. S. 913 (1987), to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals over the tax treatment of corporations purporting to be agents for their shareholders. Compare George v. Commissioner, 803 F. 2d 144, 148-149 (CA5 1986), cert. pending, No. 86-1152, with Frink v. Commissioner, 798 F. 2d 106, 109-110 (CA4 1986), cert. pending, No. 86-1151.
I
Respondent Jesse C. Bollinger, Jr., developed, either individually or in partnership with some or all of the other respondents, eight apartment complexes in Lexington, Kentucky. (For convenience we will refer to all the ventures as “partnerships.”) Bollinger initiated development of the first apartment complex, Creekside North Apartments, in 1968. The Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company agreed to provide permanent financing by lending $1,075,000 to “the corporate nominee of Jesse C. Bollinger, Jr.” at an annual interest rate of eight percent, secured by a mortgage on the property and a personal guarantee from Bollinger. The loan commitment was structured in this fashion because Kentucky’s usury law at the time limited the annual interest rate for noncorporate borrowers to seven percent. Ky. Rev. Stat. §§360.010, 360.025 (1972). Lenders willing to provide money only at higher rates required the nominal debtor and record titleholder of mortgaged property to be a corporate nominee of the true owner and borrower. On October 14, 1968, Bollinger incorporated Creekside, Inc., under the laws of Kentucky; he was the only stockholder. The next day, Bollinger and Creekside, Inc., entered into a written agreement which provided that the corporation would hold title to the apartment complex as Bollinger’s agent for the sole purpose of securing financing, and would convey, assign, or encumber the property and disburse the proceeds thereof only as directed by Bollinger; that Creekside, Inc., had no obligation to maintain the property or assume any liability by reason of the execution of promissory notes or otherwise; and that Bollinger would indemnify and hold the corporation harmless from any liability it might sustain as his agent and nominee.
Having secured the commitment for permanent financing, Bollinger, acting through Creekside, Inc., borrowed the construction funds for the apartment complex from Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Company. Creekside, Inc., executed all necessary loan documents including the promissory note and mortgage, and transferred all loan proceeds to Bollinger’s individual construction account. Bollinger acted as general contractor for the construction, hired the necessary employees,‡ and paid the expenses out of the construction account. When construction was completed, Bollinger obtained, again through Creekside, Inc., permanent financing from Massachusetts Mutual Life in accordance with the earlier loan commitment. These loan proceeds were used to pay off the Citizens Fidelity construction loan. Bollinger hired a resident manager to rent the apartments, execute leases with tenants, collect and deposit the rents, and maintain operating records. The manager deposited all rental receipts into, and paid all operating expenses from, an operating account, which was first opened in the name of Creekside, Inc., but was later changed to “Creekside Apartments, a partnership.” The operation of Creekside North Apartments generated losses for the taxable years 1969, 1971, 1972,1973, and 1974, and ordinary income for the years 1970, 1975, 1976, and 1977. Throughout, the income and losses were reported by Bollinger on his individual income tax returns.
Following a substantially identical pattern, seven other apartment complexes were developed by respondents through seven separate partnerships. For each venture, a partnership executed a nominee agreement with Creekside, Inc., to obtain financing. (For one of the ventures, a different Kentucky corporation, Cloisters, Inc., in which Bollinger had a 50 percent interest, acted as the borrower and titleholder. For convenience, we will refer to both Creekside and Cloisters as “the corporation.”) The corporation transferred the construction loan proceeds to the partnership’s construction account, and the partnership hired a construction supervisor who oversaw construction. Upon completion of construction, each partnership actively managed its apartment complex, depositing all rental receipts into, and paying all expenses from, a separate partnership account for each apartment complex. The corporation had no assets, liabilities, employees, or bank accounts. In every case, the lenders regarded the partnership as the owner of the apartments and were aware that the corporation was acting as agent of the partnership in holding record title. The partnerships reported the income and losses generated by the apartment complexes on their partnership tax returns, and respondents reported their distributive share of the partnership income and losses on their individual tax returns.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the losses reported by respondents, on the ground that the standards set out in National Carbide Corp. v. Commissioner, 336 U. S. 422 (1949), were not met. The Commissioner contended that National Carbide required a corporation to have an arm’s-length relationship with its shareholders before it could be recognized as their agent. Although not all respondents were shareholders of the corporation, the Commissioner took the position that the funds the partnerships disbursed to pay expenses should be deemed contributions to the corporation’s capital, thereby making all respondents constructive stockholders. Since, in the Commissioner’s view, the corporation rather than its shareholders owned the real estate, any losses sustained by the ventures were attributable to the corporation and not respondents. Respondents sought a redetermination in the United States Tax Court. The Tax Court held that the corporation was the agent of the partnerships and should be disregarded for tax purposes. 48 TCM 1443 (1984), ¶ 84, 560 P-H Memo TC. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 807 F. 2d 65 (1986). We granted the Commissioner’s petition for certiorari.
II
For federal income tax purposes, gain or loss from the sale or use of property is attributable to the owner of the property. See Helvering v. Horst, 311 U. S. 112, 116-117 (1940); Blair v. Commissioner, 300 U. S. 5, 12 (1937); see also Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U. S. 591, 604 (1948). The problem we face here is that two different taxpayers can plausibly be regarded as the owner. Neither the Internal Revenue Code nor the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury provide significant guidance as to which should be selected. It is common ground between the parties, however, that if a corporation holds title to property as agent for a partnership, then for tax purposes the partnership and not the corporation is the owner. Given agreement on that premise, one would suppose that there would be agreement upon the conclusion as well. For each of respondents’ apartment complexes, an agency agreement expressly provided that the corporation would “hold such property as nominee and agent for” the partnership, App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a, n. 4, and that the partnership would have sole control of and responsibility for the apartment complex. The partnership in each instance was identified as the principal and owner of the property during financing, construction, and operation. The lenders, contractors, managers, employees, and tenants — all who had contact with the development — knew that the corporation was merely the agent of the partnership, if they knew of the existence of the corporation at all. In each instance the relationship between the corporation and the partnership was, in both form and substance, an agency with the partnership as principal.
The Commissioner contends, however, that the normal indicia of agency cannot suffice for tax purposes when, as here, the alleged principals are the controlling shareholders of the alleged agent corporation. That, it asserts, would undermine the principle of Moline Properties v. Commissioner, 319 U. S. 436 (1943), which held that a corporation is a separate taxable entity even if it has only one shareholder who exercises total control over its affairs. Obviously, Moline’s separate-entity principle would be significantly compromised if shareholders of closely held corporations could, by clothing the corporation with some attributes of agency with respect to particular assets, leave themselves free at the end of the tax year to make a claim — perhaps even a good-faith claim— of either agent or owner status, depending upon which choice turns out to minimize their tax liability. The Commissioner does not have the resources to audit and litigate the many cases in which agency status could be thought debatable. "Hence, the Commissioner argues, in this shareholder context he can reasonably demand that the taxpayer meet a prophylactically clear test of agency.
We agree with that principle, but the question remains whether the test the Commissioner proposes is appropriate. The parties have debated at length the significance of our opinion in National Carbide Corp. v. Commissioner, supra. In that case, three corporations that were wholly owned subsidiaries of another corporation agreed to operate their production plants as “agents” for the parent, transferring to it all profits except for a nominal sum. The subsidiaries reported as gross income only this sum, but the Commissioner concluded that they should be taxed on the entirety of the profits because they were not really agents. We agreed, reasoning first, that the mere fact of the parent’s control over the subsidiaries did not establish the existence of an agency, since such control is typical of all shareholder-corporation relationships, id., at 429-434; and second, that the agreements to pay the parent all profits above a nominal amount were not determinative since income must be taxed to those who actually earn it without regard to anticipatory assignment, id., at 435-436. We acknowledged, however, that there was such a thing as “a true corporate agent... of [an] owner-principal,” id., at 437, and proceeded to set forth four indicia and two requirements of such status, the sum of which has become known in the lore of federal income tax law as the “six National Carbide factors”:
“[1] Whether the corporation operates in the name and for the account of the principal, [2] binds the principal by its actions, [3] transmits money received to the principal, and [4] whether receipt of income is attributable to the services of employees of the principal and to assets belonging to the principal are some of the relevant considerations in determining whether a true agency exists. [5] If the corporation is a true agent, its relations with its principal must not be dependent upon the fact that it is owned by the principal, if such is the case. [6] Its business purpose must be the carrying on of the normal duties of an agent.” Ibid, (footnotes omitted).
We readily discerned that these factors led to a conclusion of nonagency in National Carbide itself. There each subsidiary had represented to its customers that it (not the parent) was the company manufacturing and selling its products; each had sought to shield the parent from service of legal process; and the operations had used thousands of the subsidiaries’ employees and nearly $20 million worth of property and equipment listed as assets on the subsidiaries’ books. Id., at 425, 434, 438, and n. 21.
The Commissioner contends that the last two National Carbide factors are not satisfied in the present case. To take the last first: The Commissioner argues that here the corporation’s business purpose with respect to the property at issue was not “the carrying on of the normal duties of an agent,” since it was acting not as the agent but rather as the owner of the property for purposes of Kentucky’s usury law. We do not agree. It assuredly was not acting as the owner in fact, since respondents represented themselves as the principals to all parties concerned with the loans. Indeed, it was the lenders themselves who required the use of a corporate nominee. Nor does it make any sense to adopt a contrary-to-fact legal presumption that the corporation was the principal, imposing a federal tax sanction for the apparent evasion of Kentucky’s usury law. To begin with, the Commissioner has not established that these transactions were an evasion. Respondents assert without contradiction that use of agency arrangements in order to permit higher interest was common practice, and it is by no means clear that the practice violated the spirit of the Kentucky law, much less its letter. It might well be thought that the borrower does not generally require usury protection in a transaction sophisticated enough to employ a corporate agent — assuredly not the normal modus operandi of the loan shark. That the statute positively envisioned corporate nominees is suggested by a provision which forbids charging the higher corporate interest rates “to a corporation, the principal asset of which shall be the ownership of a one (1) or two (2) family dwelling,” Ky. Rev. Stat. §360.025(2) (1987) — which would seem to prevent use of the nominee device for ordinary home-mortgage loans. In any event, even if the transaction did run afoul of the usury law, Kentucky, like most States, regards only the lender as the usurer, and the borrower as the victim. See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 360.020 (1987) (lender liable to borrower for civil penalty), § 360.990 (lender guilty of misdemeanor). Since the Kentucky statute imposed no penalties upon the borrower for allowing himself to be victimized, nor treated him as in pari delicto, but to the contrary enabled him to pay back the principal without any interest, and to sue for double the amount of interest already paid (plus attorney’s fees), see Ky. Rev. Stat. § 360.020 (1972), the United States would hardly be vindicating Kentucky law by depriving the usury victim of tax advantages he would otherwise enjoy. In sum, we see no basis in either fact or policy for holding that the corporation was the principal because of the nature of its participation in the loans.
Of more general importance is the Commissioner’s contention that the arrangements here violate the fifth National Carbide factor — that the corporate agent’s “relations with its principal must not be dependent upon the. fact that it is owned by the principal.” The Commissioner asserts that this cannot be satisfied unless the corporate agent and its shareholder principal have an “arm’s-length relationship” that includes the payment of a fee for agency services. The meaning of National Carbide’s fifth factor is, at the risk of understatement, not entirely clear. Ultimately, the relations between a corporate agent and its owner-principal are always dependent upon the fact of ownership, in that the owner can cause the relations to be altered or terminated at any time. Plainly that is not what was meant, since on that interpretation all subsidiary-parent agencies would be invalid for tax purposes, a position which the National Carbide opinion specifically disavowed. We think the fifth National Carbide factor — so much more abstract than the others — was no more and no less than a generalized statement of the concern, expressed earlier in our own discussion, that the separate-entity doctrine of Moline not be subverted.
In any case, we decline to parse the text of National Carbide as though that were itself the governing statute. As noted earlier, it is uncontested -that the law attributes tax consequences of property held by a genuine agent to the principal; and we agree that it is reasonable for the Commissioner to demand unequivocal evidence of genuineness in the corporation-shareholder context, in order to prevent evasion of Moline. We see no basis, however, for holding that unequivocal evidence can only consist of the rigid requirements (arm’s-length dealing plus agency fee) that the Commissioner suggests. Neither of those is demanded by the law of agency, which permits agents to be unpaid family members, friends, or associates. See Restatement (Second) of Agency §§ 16, 21, 22 (1958). It seems to us that the genuineness of the agency relationship is adequately assured, and tax-avoiding manipulation adequately avoided, when the.fact that the corporation is acting as agent for its shareholders with respect to a particular asset is set forth in a written agreement at the time the asset is acquired, the corporation functions as agent and not principal with respect to the asset for all purposes, and the corporation is held out as the agent and not principal in all dealings with third parties relating to the asset. Since these requirements were met here, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
Inter partes review is an administrative process in which a patent challenger may ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to reconsider the validity of earlier granted patent claims. This case concerns a statutorily prescribed limitation of the issues a party may raise on appeal from an inter partes review proceeding.
When presented with a request for inter partes review, the agency must decide whether to institute review. 35 U.S.C. § 314. Among other conditions set by statute, if the request comes more than a year after suit against the requesting party for patent infringement, "[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted." § 315(b). "The determination by the [PTO] Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable." § 314(d).
In this case, the agency instituted inter partes review in response to a petition from Thryv, Inc., resulting in the cancellation of several patent claims. Patent owner Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, appealed, contending that Thryv's petition was untimely under § 315(b).
The question before us: Does § 314(d)'s bar on judicial review of the agency's decision to institute inter partes review preclude Click-to-Call's appeal? Our answer is yes. The agency's application of § 315(b)'s time limit, we hold, is closely related to its decision whether to institute inter partes review and is therefore rendered nonappealable by § 314(d).
I
The Patent and Trademark Office has several ways "to reexamine-and perhaps cancel-a patent claim that it had previously allowed." Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2137, 195 L.Ed.2d 423 (2016). Congress established the procedure at issue here, inter partes review, in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), 125 Stat. 284, enacted in 2011. See 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. Inter partes review allows third parties to challenge patent claims on grounds of invalidity specified by statute. § 311(b).
For inter partes review to proceed, the agency must agree to institute review. § 314. Any person who is not the patent's owner may file a petition requesting inter partes review. § 311(a). The patent owner may oppose institution of inter partes review, asserting the petition's "failure... to meet any requirement of this chapter." § 313.
The AIA sets out prerequisites for institution. Among them, "[t]he Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines... that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition." § 314(a). Most pertinent to this case, "[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent." § 315(b).
After receiving the petition and any response, the PTO "Director shall determine whether to institute an inter partes review under this chapter." § 314(b). The Director has delegated institution authority to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board). 37 CFR § 42.4(a) (2019). As just noted, the federal agency's "determination... whether to institute an inter partes review under this section" is "final and nonappealable." 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).
Upon electing to institute inter partes review, the Board conducts a proceeding to evaluate the challenged claims' validity. See § 316. At the conclusion of the proceeding-if review "is instituted and not dismissed"-the Board "issue[s] a final written decision with respect to the patentability of" the challenged claims. § 318(a). "A party dissatisfied with the final written decision... may appeal the decision" to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. § 319.
II
Respondent Click-to-Call owns a patent relating to a technology for anonymous telephone calls, U.S. Patent No. 5,818,836 ('836 patent). In 2013, petitioner Thryv sought inter partes review, challenging several of the patent's claims.
In opposition, Click-to-Call urged that § 315(b) barred institution of inter partes review because Thryv filed its petition too late. Click-to-Call pointed to an infringement suit filed in 2001, which ended in a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. In Click-to-Call's view, that 2001 suit started § 315(b)'s one-year clock, making the 2013 petition untimely.
The Board disagreed. Section 315(b) did not bar the institution of inter partes review, the Board concluded, because a complaint dismissed without prejudice does not trigger § 315(b)'s one-year limit. Finding no other barrier to institution, the Board decided to institute review. After proceedings on the merits, the Board issued a final written decision reiterating its rejection of Click-to-Call's § 315(b) argument and canceling 13 of the patent's claims as obvious or lacking novelty.
Click-to-Call appealed, challenging only the Board's determination that § 315(b) did not preclude inter partes review. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with Thryv and the Director (who intervened on appeal) that § 314(d)'s bar on appeal of the institution decision precludes judicial review of the agency's application of § 315(b). Citing our intervening decision in Cuozzo, see infra, at 1372 - 1373, we granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corp., 579 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2508, 195 L.Ed.2d 837 (2016). On remand, the Court of Appeals again dismissed the appeal on the same ground.
Thereafter, in another case, the en banc Federal Circuit held that "time-bar determinations under § 315(b) are appealable" notwithstanding § 314(d). Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364, 1367 (2018). The majority opinion construed § 314(d)'s reference to the determination whether to institute inter partes review "under this section" as trained on the likelihood-of-success requirement stated in § 314(a). Id., at 1372. The § 315(b) timeliness determination, the majority concluded, "is not 'closely related' to the institution decision addressed in § 314(a)." Id., at 1374 (quoting Cuozzo, 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2142 ). The majority therefore held that for § 315(b) appeals, § 314(d) does not displace the usual presumption favoring judicial review of agency action. Wi-Fi One, 878 F.3d at 1374-1375. In a concurring opinion, Judge O'Malley emphasized a "simpler" basis for the same conclusion. Id., at 1375. In her view, § 314(d) shields from review only the agency's assessment of a petition's "substantive adequacy," not questions about the agency's "authority to act." Id., at 1376.
Judge Hughes, joined by Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Dyk, dissented, expressing a position that today's dissent characterizes as "extraordinary." Post, at 1380 - 1381. Those judges concluded that § 314(d) conveys Congress' "clear and unmistakable" "intent to prohibit judicial review of the Board's [inter partes review] institution decision." Wi-Fi One, 878 F.3d at 1378. That prohibition applies to § 315(b) issues, the Federal Circuit dissenters maintained, because § 315(b) "describes when an [inter partes review] may be 'instituted.' " Id., at 1377, 1378-1379 (quoting § 315(b)).
In light of its en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, the Court of Appeals granted panel rehearing in this case. Treating the Board's application of § 315(b) as judicially reviewable, the panel's revised opinion held that the Board erred by instituting review. The petition for inter partes review here was untimely, the Court of Appeals held, because the 2001 infringement complaint, though dismissed without prejudice, started the one-year clock under § 315(b). The court therefore vacated the Board's final written decision, which had invalidated 13 of Click-to-Call's claims for want of the requisite novelty and nonobviousness, and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
We granted certiorari to resolve the reviewability issue, 587 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2742, 204 L.Ed.2d 1129 (2019), and now vacate the Federal Circuit's judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
III
A
To determine whether § 314(d) precludes judicial review of the agency's application of § 315(b)'s time prescription, we begin by defining § 314(d)'s scope. Section 314(d)'s text renders "final and nonappealable" the "determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section." § 314(d) (emphasis added). That language indicates that a party generally cannot contend on appeal that the agency should have refused "to institute an inter partes review."
We held as much in Cuozzo. There, a party contended on appeal that the agency should have refused to institute inter partes review because the petition failed § 312(a)(3)'s requirement that the grounds for challenging patent claims must be identified "with particularity." 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2139 (internal quotation marks omitted). This "contention that the Patent Office unlawfully initiated its agency review is not appealable," we held, for "that is what § 314(d) says." Id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2139. Section 314(d), we explained, "preclud[es] review of the Patent Office's institution decisions" with sufficient clarity to overcome the "'strong presumption' in favor of judicial review." Id., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2140-2141 (quoting Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 575 U.S. 480, 486, 135 S.Ct. 1645, 191 L.Ed.2d 607 (2015) ). See Cuozzo, 579 U.S., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2140 (finding " 'clear and convincing' indications... that Congress intended to bar review" (quoting Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U.S. 340, 349-350, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984) )).
We reserved judgment in Cuozzo, however, on whether § 314(d) would bar appeals reaching well beyond the decision to institute inter partes review. 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct. at 2141-2142. We declined to "decide the precise effect of § 314(d) on," for example, "appeals that implicate constitutional questions." Ibid. Instead, we defined the bounds of our holding this way: "[O]ur interpretation applies where the grounds for attacking the decision to institute inter partes review consist of questions that are closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to the Patent Office's decision to initiate inter partes review." Ibid.
B
We therefore ask whether a challenge based on § 315(b) ranks as an appeal of the agency's decision "to institute an inter partes review." § 314(d). We need not venture beyond Cuozzo's holding that § 314(d) bars review at least of matters "closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to" the institution decision, 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2141, for a § 315(b) challenge easily meets that measurement.
Section 315(b)'s time limitation is integral to, indeed a condition on, institution. After all, § 315(b) sets forth a circumstance in which "[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted." Even Click-to-Call and the Court of Appeals recognize that § 315(b) governs institution. See Brief for Respondent Click-to-Call 1 (§ 315(b) is "a clear limit on the Board's institution authority"); Wi-Fi One, 878 F.3d at 1373 ("§ 315(b) controls the Director's authority to institute [inter partes review]").
Because § 315(b) expressly governs institution and nothing more, a contention that a petition fails under § 315(b) is a contention that the agency should have refused "to institute an inter partes review." § 314(d). A challenge to a petition's timeliness under § 315(b) thus raises "an ordinary dispute about the application of " an institution-related statute. Cuozzo, 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2139. In this case as in Cuozzo, therefore, § 314(d)
overcomes the presumption favoring judicial review.
C
The AIA's purpose and design strongly reinforce our conclusion. By providing for inter partes review, Congress, concerned about overpatenting and its diminishment of competition, sought to weed out bad patent claims efficiently. See id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2139-2140 ; H. R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, p. 40 (2011) ("The legislation is designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.").
Allowing § 315(b) appeals would tug against that objective, wasting the resources spent resolving patentability and leaving bad patents enforceable. A successful § 315(b) appeal would terminate in vacatur of the agency's decision; in lieu of enabling judicial review of patentability, vacatur would unwind the agency's merits decision. See Cuozzo, 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2139-2140. And because a patent owner would need to appeal on § 315(b) untimeliness grounds only if she could not prevail on patentability, § 315(b) appeals would operate to save bad patent claims. This case illustrates the dynamic. The agency held Click-to-Call's patent claims invalid, and Click-to-Call does not contest that holding. It resists only the agency's institution decision, mindful that if the institution decision is reversed, then the agency's work will be undone and the canceled patent claims resurrected.
Other features of the statutory design confirm that Congress prioritized patentability over § 315(b)'s timeliness requirement. A petitioner's failure to satisfy § 315(b) does not prevent the agency from conducting inter partes review of the challenged patent claims; the agency can do so at another petitioner's request. § 311(a). Nor does failure to satisfy § 315(b) prevent the original initiator from participating on the merits; the § 315(b)-barred party can join a proceeding initiated by another petitioner. § 315(b), (c). And once inter partes review is instituted, the agency may issue a final written decision even "[i]f no petitioner remains in the inter partes review." § 317(a). It is unsurprising that a statutory scheme so consistently elevating resolution of patentability above a petitioner's compliance with § 315(b) would exclude § 315(b) appeals, thereby preserving the Board's adjudication of the merits.
Judicial review of § 315(b) rulings, moreover, would do little to serve other statutory goals. The purpose of § 315(b), all agree, is to minimize burdensome overlap between inter partes review and patent-infringement litigation. Brief for Petitioner 24; Brief for Federal Respondent 36; Brief for Respondent Click-to-Call 37. Judicial review after the agency proceedings cannot undo the burdens already occasioned. Nor are § 315(b) appeals necessary to protect patent claims from wrongful invalidation, for patent owners remain free to appeal final decisions on the merits. § 319.
IV
Click-to-Call advances a narrower reading of § 314(d). In Click-to-Call's view, which the dissent embraces, post, at 1380 - 1387, the bar on judicial review applies only to the agency's threshold determination under § 314(a) of the question whether the petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Section 314(d) addresses the "determination by the Director whether to institute inter partes review under this section " (emphasis added), and, Click-to-Call maintains, § 314(a) contains "the only substantive determination referenced in" the same section as § 314(d). Brief for Respondent Click-to-Call 16. This interpretation, Click-to-Call argues, supplies a clear rule consonant with the presumption favoring judicial review. Cf. supra, at 1371 - 1372 (Federal Circuit's en banc Wi-Fi One decision).
Cuozzo is fatal to Click-to-Call's interpretation. Section 314(d)'s review bar is not confined to the agency's application of § 314(a), for in Cuozzo we held unreviewable the agency's application of § 312(a)(3). 579 U.S., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2139-2140. Far from limiting the appeal bar to § 314(a) and "nothing else" as Click-to-Call urges, Brief for Respondent 29, the Court's opinion in Cuozzo explained that the bar extends to challenges grounded in "statutes related to" the institution decision. 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2141.
The text of § 314(d) offers Click-to-Call no support. The provision sweeps more broadly than the determination about whether "there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail." § 314(a). Rather, it encompasses the entire determination "whether to institute an inter partes review." § 314(d).
And § 314(d) refers not to a determination under subsection (a), but to the determination "under this section." That phrase indicates that § 314 governs the Director's institution of inter partes review. Titled "Institution of inter partes review," § 314 is the section housing the command to the Director to "determine whether to institute an inter partes review," § 314(b). Thus, every decision to institute is made "under" § 314 but must take account of specifications in other provisions-such as the § 312(a)(3) particularity requirement at issue in Cuozzo and the § 315(b) timeliness requirement at issue here. Similar clarifying language recurs throughout the AIA. See, e.g., § 315(c) (referring to the Director's determination regarding "the institution of an inter partes review under section 314 " (emphasis added)); § 314(b) (referring to "a petition filed under section 311," the section authorizing the filing of petitions (emphasis added)); § 314(b)(1) (referring to "a preliminary response to the petition under section 313," the section authorizing the filing of preliminary responses to petitions (emphasis added)).
If Congress had intended Click-to-Call's meaning, it had at hand readymade language from a precursor to § 314(d) : "A determination by the Director under subsection (a) shall be final and non-appealable." 35 U.S.C. § 312(c) (2006 ed.) (emphasis added) (governing inter partes reexamination). Or Congress might have borrowed from a related provision: "A determination by the Director pursuant to subsection (a) of this section that no substantial new question of patentability has been raised will be final and nonappealable." 35 U.S.C. § 303(c) (emphasis added) (governing ex parte reexamination). Instead, Congress chose to shield from appellate review the determination "whether to institute an inter partes review under this section." § 314(d) (emphasis added). That departure in language suggests a departure in meaning. See Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1718, 1723, 198 L.Ed.2d 177 (2017).
Click-to-Call doubts that Congress would have limited the agency's institution authority in § 315(b) without ensuring judicial supervision. Congress entrusted the institution decision to the agency, however, to avoid the significant costs, already recounted, of nullifying a thoroughgoing determination about a patent's validity. See supra, at 1374 - 1375. That goal-preventing appeals that would frustrate efficient resolution of patentability-extends beyond § 314(a) appeals.
Click-to-Call also contends that we adopted its interpretation of § 314(d) in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 200 L.Ed.2d 695 (2018). Neither of our holdings in that case assists Click-to-Call, and both holdings remain governing law. SAS Institute first held that once the agency institutes an inter partes review, it must "resolve all of the claims in the case." Id., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1353. SAS Institute located that rule in § 318(a), which requires the agency to decide "the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner." Ibid. (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted). SAS Institute next held that § 314(d) did not bar judicial review of § 318(a)'s application. Id., at ---- - ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1358-1360. Our decision explained that "nothing in § 314(d) or Cuozzo withdraws our power to ensure that an inter partes review proceeds in accordance with the law's demands." Id., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1359. That reviewability holding is inapplicable here, for Click-to-Call's appeal challenges not the manner in which the agency's review "proceeds" once instituted, but whether the agency should have instituted review at all.
Click-to-Call homes in on a single sentence from SAS Institute's reviewability discussion: " Cuozzo concluded that § 314(d) precludes judicial review only of the Director's 'initial determination' under § 314(a) that 'there is a "reasonable likelihood" that the claims are unpatentable on the grounds asserted' and review is therefore justified." Id., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1359 (quoting Cuozzo, 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2140 ). But that sentence's account of Cuozzo is incomplete. Recall that Cuozzo itself applied § 314(d)'s appeal bar to a challenge on grounds other than § 314(a). See supra, at 1374 - 1375. To understand how far beyond § 314(a) the bar on judicial review extends, we look to the statute and Cuozzo ; for the reasons stated above, they establish that § 314(d) bars challenges resting on § 315(b).
V
Click-to-Call presses an alternative reason why the Board's ruling on its § 315(b) objection is appealable. The Board's final written decision addressed the § 315(b) issue, so Click-to-Call argues that it may appeal under § 319, which authorizes appeal from the final written decision. But even labeled as an appeal from the final written decision, Click-to-Call's attempt to overturn the Board's § 315(b) ruling is still barred by § 314(d). Because § 315(b)'s sole office is to govern institution, Click-to-Call's contention remains, essentially, that the agency should have refused to institute inter partes review. As explained, § 314(d) makes that contention unreviewable.
* * *
For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and remand the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX OF KEY STATUTORY PROVISIONS
35 U.S.C. § 314 :
"Institution of inter partes review
"(a) THRESHOLD.-The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
"(b) TIMING.-The Director shall determine whether to institute an inter partes review under this chapter pursuant to a petition filed under section 311 within 3 months after-
"(1) receiving a preliminary response to the petition under section 313; or
"(2) if no such preliminary response is filed, the last date on which such response may be filed.
"(c) NOTICE.-The Director shall notify the petitioner and patent owner, in writing, of the Director's determination under subsection (a), and shall make such notice available to the public as soon as is practicable. Such notice shall include the date on which the review shall commence.
"(d) NO APPEAL.-The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable."
35 U.S.C. § 315(b) :
" PATENT OWNER'S ACTION.-An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c)."
Justice GORSUCH, with whom Justice SOTOMAYOR joins as to Parts I, II, III, and IV, dissenting.
Today the Court takes a flawed premise-that the Constitution permits a politically guided agency to revoke an inventor's property right in an issued patent-and bends it further, allowing the agency's decision to stand immune from judicial review. Worse, the Court closes the courthouse not in a case where the patent owner is merely unhappy with the merits of the agency's decision but where the owner claims the agency's proceedings were unlawful from the start. Most remarkably, the Court denies judicial review even though the government now concedes that the patent owner is right and this entire exercise in property-taking-by-bureaucracy was forbidden by law.
It might be one thing if Congress clearly ordained this strange result. But it did not. The relevant statute, the presumption of judicial review, and our precedent all point toward allowing, not forbidding, inventors their day in court. Yet, the Court brushes past these warning signs and, in the process, carries us another step down the road of ceding core judicial powers to agency officials and leaving the disposition of private rights and liberties to bureaucratic mercy.
I
Our story stretches back to the 1990s, when Stephen DuVal invented a system for anonymizing telephone calls. Believing in the promise of his idea, Mr. DuVal hired an attorney to secure a patent and sought avenues to bring his invention to market. Initially, both efforts met with success. In 1998, Mr. DuVal was awarded a U.S. Patent, which he licensed to a company called InfoRocket.com, Inc.
But problems soon emerged. In 2001, InfoRocket accused Ingenio, Inc., a predecessor of today's petitioner Thryv, Inc., of infringing Mr. DuVal's patent. The case carried on in federal district court for more than a year before InfoRocket and Ingenio decided to merge. The companies then jointly persuaded the court to dismiss InfoRocket's lawsuit without prejudice.
Still, the quiet did not last long. Following the merger, the surviving entity-for simplicity, call it Thryv-sought to turn the tables on Mr. DuVal by asking the Patent Office to reconsider the validity of his patent in an ex parte reexamination. That agency-led process dragged on for four more years, and ended with a mixed verdict: The Patent Office canceled a few claims, but amended others and permitted Mr. DuVal to add some new ones too.
Even the ex parte reexamination wasn't enough to put the parties' disputes to rest. During the reexamination, Thryv terminated its license with Mr. DuVal and stopped paying him royalties. But it seems that Thryv continued using the patented technology all the same. So Mr. DuVal transferred his patent to respondent Click-to-Call Technologies LP (CTC), which swiftly took the patent back to court. CTC noted that Thryv couldn't exactly plead ignorance about this patent, given that the company or its predecessors had previously licensed the patent, been sued for infringing it, and asked the Patent Office to reexamine it. When it came to Mr. DuVal's patent, CTC alleged, Thryv had done just about everything one can do to a patent except invent it.
Thryv responded by opening another new litigation front of its own. One year after CTC filed its federal lawsuit, Thryv lodged another administrative petition with the Patent Office, this time seeking inter partes review. Echoing some of the same arguments that led to its push for an ex parte administrative reexamination nine years earlier, and adding other arguments too, Thryv (again) asked the agency to cancel Mr. DuVal's patent on the grounds that it lacked novelty and was obvious. At the same time, Thryv sought to stay proceedings in CTC's infringement suit. Thryv argued that the district court should defer to the newly initiated inter partes review. Like many district courts facing the prospect of parallel administrative proceedings, this one obliged.
Why at this late hour did Thryv prefer to litigate before the agency rather than a federal district court? The agency's ex parte reexamination years earlier hadn't helped Thryv much. But since then, Congress had adopted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq. That law created the inter partes review process, which provides a number of benefits to accused infringers such as Thryv. Like federal court litigation, inter partes review holds the advantage of allowing a private party attacking a patent's validity to participate in adversarial proceedings, rather than rely on the agency to direct its own investigation as it does in ex parte reexamination. Compare 35 U.S.C. § 316 with §§ 302, 304, 305. Inter partes review also allows a party challenging a patent all manner of discovery, including depositions and the presentation of expert testimony. § 316 ; 37 CFR §§ 42.51 - 42.65 (2019). At the same time, the burden of proof is lower-requiring challengers like Thryv to prove unpatentability only by a preponderance of the evidence, § 316(e), rather than under the clear and convincing standard that usually applies in court. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L. P., 564 U.S. 91, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011). Perhaps most appealing, proceedings take place before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, rather than in an Article III court, so there is no jury trial before a tenure-protected judge, only a hearing before a panel of agency employees.
Some say the new regime represents a particularly efficient new way to "kill" patents. Certainly, the numbers tell an inviting story for petitioners like Thryv. In approximately 80% of cases reaching a final decision, the Board cancels some or all of the challenged claims. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Trial Statistics 10 (Feb. 2020), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Trial_Statistics_2020_02_29.pdf. The Board has been busy, too, instituting more than 800 of these new proceedings every year. See id., at 6.
Still, Thryv faced a hurdle. Inter partes review "may not be instituted" based on an administrative petition filed more than a year after "the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent" in federal court. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). So, while Congress sought to move many cases out of court and into its new administrative process, it thought patent owners who have already endured long challenges in court shouldn't have to face another layer of administrative review. After all, some repose is due inventors. Patents typically last 20 years; what happens to the incentive to invent if litigation over them lasts even longer (as it has for Mr. DuVal)? By anyone's estimation, too, § 315(b)'s time bar was sure to pose a special problem for Thryv. Yes, Thryv had petitioned for inter partes review one year after being served with CTC's complaint. But nearly 12 years had passed since Thryv's predecessor and privy first found itself on the business end of a lawsuit alleging that it had infringed Mr. DuVal's patent.
Despite this apparently fatal defect, the Board plowed ahead anyway. No one could dispute that Thryv's predecessor and privy had been "served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent" more than a decade earlier. But that complaint didn't count, the Board declared, because it was dismissed without prejudice. The Board cited nothing in § 315(b) suggesting this distinction makes a difference under the statute's plain terms. Instead, the Board tiptoed past the problem and proceeded to invalidate almost all of the patent claims before it, even those the Patent Office itself had affirmed in its own ex parte proceeding years before. No doubt this was exactly what Thryv hoped for in its second bite at the administrative apple.
Thryv's victory may have taken years to achieve, but it didn't seem calculated to last long. Predictably, CTC appealed the Board's interpretation of § 315(b) to the Federal Circuit. And just as unsurprisingly, the court held that dismissed complaints do count as complaints, so Thryv's inter partes administrative challenge was time barred from the start. Mr. DuVal's patent had already survived one ex parte reexamination Thryv instigated. The patent had been the subject of long and repeated litigation in federal courts. The agency had no business opening yet another new inquiry into this very old patent.
But Thryv had one maneuver left. It sought review in this Court, insisting that Article III courts lack authority even to say what the law demands. According to Thryv, a different provision, § 314(d), renders the agency's interpretations and applications of § 315(b) immune from judicial review. So the Board can err; it can even act in defiance of plain congressional limits on its authority. But, in Thryv's view, a court can do nothing about it. Enforcement of § 315(b)'s time bar falls only to the very Patent Office officials whose authority it seeks to restrain. Inventors like Mr. DuVal just have to hope that the bureaucracy revoking their property rights will take the extra trouble of doing so in accordance with
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A section of Title 18 of the United States Code (called the Hobbs Act) says that an individual commits a federal crime if he or she “obstructs, delays, or affects commerce” by (1) “robbery,” (2) “extortion,” or (3) “committing] or threatening] physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan.or purpose to do anything in violation of this section§ 1951(a) (emphasis added). The dispute in these cases concerns the meaning of the underscored words, in particular the words, “in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section.” Does this phrase refer to (violence committed pursuant to) those plans or purposes that affect interstate commerce through robbery or extortion? Or does it refer to (violence committed pursuant to) those plans or purposes that affect interstate commerce, plain and simple? If the former, the statute governs only a limited subset of violent behavior, namely, behavior connected with robbery and extortion. If the latter, the statute governs a far broader range of human activity, namely, all violent actions (against persons or property) that affect interstate commerce. In our view, the former, more restrictive reading of the Act is the correct interpretation.
I
Petitioners are individuals (and organizations) who engage in pro-life, anti-abortion protest activities. Respondents are health care climes that perform abortions and a pro-choice national nonprofit organization that supports the legal availability of abortions. In 1986, (pro-choice) respondents, believing that (pro-life) petitioners had tried to disrupt activities at health care clinics that perform abortions through violence and various other unlawful activities, brought this legal action, which sought damages and an injunction forbidding (pro-life) petitioners from engaging in such activities anywhere in the Nation.
Respondents based their legal claims upon the Hobbs Act, certain other laws that forbid extortion, and a federal anti-racketeering statute, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1962. Respondents argued that petitioners’ clinic-related protest activities amounted in context to extortion. They added that these extortionate acts created a “pattern of racketeering activity” — a pattern that RICO defines in terms of certain predicate acts that include acts of extortion. See § 1961(1) (2000 ed., Supp. III). And 'they sought a permanent injunction, which they believed RICO authorized. See §1964 (2000 ed.).
Initially, the District Court dismissed their complaint. It concluded that RICO requires proof that the alleged criminal acts were motivated by an economic purpose — a purpose that is lacking here. National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 765 F. Supp. 937 (ND Ill. 1991). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 968 F. 2d 612 (1992). But this Court held that the statute “requires no such economic motive,” and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U. S. 249, 252 (1994).
After trial, the jury found that petitioners had engaged in a host of extortionate, or extortion-related, acts. It awarded treble damages to two of the respondents (a matter not at issue here), and the District Court entered a nationwide injunction. See §§ 1964(a), (c). The Court of Appeals affirmed. 267 F. 3d 687 (2001).
This Court again reversed. Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 537 U. S. 393 (2003) (NOW II). We noted that the Hobbs Act defines “extortion” as necessarily including the improper “ ‘obtaining of property from another.’” Id., at 400 (quoting § 1951(b)(2)). We pointed out that the claimed “property” consisted of “a woman’s right to seek medical services from a clinic, the right of the doctors, nurses or other clinic staff to perform their jobs, and the right of the clinics to provide medical services free from wrongful threats, violence, coercion and fear.” Id., at 400-401 (internal quotation marks omitted). We decided that “[wjhatever the outer boundaries may be, the effort to characterize petitioners’ actions here as an ‘obtaining of property from’ respondents is well beyond them.” Id., at 402. Accordingly, we held that “because they did not ‘obtain’ property from respondents,” petitioners “did not commit extortion” as defined by the Hobbs Act. Id., at 397. We found that the state extortion law violations, and other extortion-related violations, were flawed for the same reason and must also be set aside. Id., at 410.
Our opinion concluded:
“Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury’s finding of a RICO violation must be reversed, the judgment that petitioners violated RICO must also be reversed. Without an underlying RICO violation, the injunction issued by the District Court must necessarily be vacated.” Id., at 411.
On remand, the Court of Appeals did not order the District Court to terminate the cases or to vacate its injunction. Instead, the Court of Appeals considered respondents’ argument that the jury’s RICO verdict rested not only upon many instances of extortion-related conduct, but also upon four instances (or threats) of physical violence unrelated to extortion. 91 Fed. Appx. 510, 512 (2004). The Court of Appeals decided that the parties had not presented this theory to this Court and, as a result, we had no occasion to consider whether these four acts alone might constitute Hobbs Act violations (sufficient, as predicate acts under RICO, to support the nationwide injunction). See id., at 513. The Court of Appeals remanded the cases to the District Court to make that determination. Ibid.
Petitioners sought certiorari to review this ruling. We granted the writ to consider the following three questions:
(1) Whether the Court of Appeals improperly disregarded this Court’s mandate in NOW II by holding that the injunction issued by the District Court might not need to be vacated;
(2) Whether the Hobbs Act forbids violent conduct unrelated to extortion or robbery; and
(3) Whether RICO authorizes a private party to obtain an injunction.
We now answer the second question. We hold that physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act. And since our answer to the second question requires an entry of judgment in petitioners’ favor, we shall not answer the first or third questions.
II
We first set forth the Hobbs Act’s text. The relevant statutory section imposes criminal liability on
“[wjhoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section . . . 18 U. S. C. § 1951(a) (emphasis added).
The question, as we have said, concerns the meaning of the phrase that modifies the term “physical violence,” namely, the words “in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section.” Do those words refer to violence (1) that furthers a plan or purpose to “affec[t] commerce ... by robbery or extortion,” or to violence (2) that furthers a plan or purpose simply to “affec[t] commerce”? We believe the former, more restrictive, reading of the text — the reading that ties the violence to robbery or extortion — is correct.
For one thing, the language of the statute makes the more restrictive reading the more natural one. The text that precedes the physical violence clause does not forbid obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce (or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce); rather, it forbids obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce by robbery or extortion.” Ibid, (emphasis added). This language means that behavior that obstructs, delays, or affects commerce is a “violation” of the statute only if that behavior also involves robbery or extortion (or related attempts or conspiracies). Consequently, the reference in the physical violence clause to actions or threats of violence “in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section” (emphasis added) would seem to mean acts or threats of violence in furtherance of a plan or purpose to engage in robbery or extortion, for that is the only kind of behavior that the section otherwise makes a violation.
This restrictive reading is further supported by the fact that Congress often intends such statutory terms as “affect commerce” or “in commerce” to be read as terms of art connecting the congressional exercise of legislative authority with the constitutional provision (here, the Commerce Clause) that grants Congress that authority. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 273 (1995); Russell v. United States, 471 U. S. 858, 859 (1985). Such jurisdictional language may limit, but it will not primarily define, the behavior that the statute calls a “violation” of federal law. Cf. Jones v. United States, 529 U. S. 848, 854 (2000) (holding that by using the term “affecting . . . commerce,” “ ‘Congress did not define the crime described in [18 U. S. C.] § 844(i) as the explosion of a building whose damage or destruction might affect interstate commerce,’” and noting that the Court must look to other “qualifying language” in the provision to define the offense).
For another thing, the statute’s history supports the more restrictive reading. Congress enacted the Hobbs Act’s predecessor in 1934. See Anti-Racketeering Act, ch. 569, 48 Stat. 979 (reproduced in Appendix A, infra). That predecessor Act prohibited coercion and extortion appropriately connected with interstate commerce, and placed these prohibitions in §§2(a) and 2(b), respectively. 48 Stat. 980. The Act went on in §2(c) to impose criminal liability on anyone who, in connection with interstate commerce, “[cjommits or threatens to commit an act of physical violence or physical injury to a person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to violate sections (a) or (b).” Ibid.; see also NOW II, 537 U. S., at 407. The 1934 Act explicitly linked § 2(c), the physical violence subsection, with §§2(a) and 2(b). It thereby made crystal clear that the physical violence that it prohibited was not violence in furtherance of a plan to injure commerce, but violence in furtherance of a plan to injure commerce through coercion or extortion.
In 1946, Congress enacted a superseding law, namely, the Hobbs Act. Ch. 537, 60 Stat. 420 (reproduced in Appendix B, infra). The new law changed the old law in two significant respects: It added robbery while omitting coercion. NOW II, supra, at 407; see United States v. Culbert, 435 U. S. 371, 377 (1978) (“The bill that eventually became the Hobbs Act. . . substituted specific prohibitions against robbery and extortion for the Anti-Racketeering Act’s language”). The new Act, like the old Act, was absolutely explicit in respect to the point here at issue, the necessary link between physical violence and other crimes (now extortion and robbery).
The 1946 Hobbs Act reads as follows:
“Sec. 2. Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce, or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion, shall be guilty of a felony.
“Sec. 3. Whoever conspires with another or with others, or acts in concert with another or with others to do anything in violation of section 2 shall be guilty of a felony.
“Sec. 4. Whoever attempts or participates in an attempt to do anything in violation of section 2 shall be guilty of a felony.
“Sec. 5. Whoever commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of section 2 shall be guilty of a felony.” 60 Stat. 420 (emphasis added).
As § 2 makes clear, the statute prohibits robbery and extortion. As § 5’s reference to § 2 makes clear, the statute prohibits violence only when that violence furthers a plan or purpose to affect commerce by robbery or extortion. Each of the statute’s other sections reflects the same approach; each explicitly refers back to §2’s prohibition against robbery and extortion.
The Act’s legislative history contains nothing to the contrary. Indeed, the Committee Reports and floor debates emphasized that “the purpose of the bill was ‘to prevent anyone from obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce, or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by robbery or extortion as defined in the bill.’” Culbert, sufra, at 377 (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 238, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1945); emphasis added in Culbert); see Culbert, sufra, at 376-378 (discussing legislative history). They nowhere suggested that Congress intended to make physical violence a freestanding crime.
The present Hobbs Act language is less clear than the 1946 version. But the linguistic changes do not reflect a congressional effort to redefine the crime. To the contrary, Congress revised the Hobbs Act’s language in 1948 as part of its general revision of the Criminal Code. That “1948 Revision was not intended to create new crimes but to recodify those then in existence.” Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 269, n. 28 (1952). This Court has written that it will “not presume that the revision worked a change in the underlying substantive law ‘unless an intent to make such [a] chang[e] is clearly expressed.’” Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U. S. 200, 209 (1993) (quoting Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 227 (1957); alteration made in Keene). And here there is no evidence of any such intent. Rather, the Reviser’s Notes indicate that the linguistic changes to the Hobbs Act simply amount to “changes in phraseology and arrangement necessary to effect consolidation.” H. R. Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A131 (1947).
Finally, respondents’ Hobbs Act interpretation broadens the Act’s scope well beyond what case law has assumed. It would federalize much ordinary criminal behavior, ranging from simple assault to murder, behavior that typically is the subject of state, not federal, prosecution. Decisions of this Court have assumed that Congress did not intend the Hobbs Act to have so broad a reach. See NOW II, 537 U. S., at 405 (noting that the Hobbs Act embodied extortion, which required the obtaining of property, not coercion); id., at 411 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (coercion, which is not covered by the Hobbs Act, “more accurately describes the nature of petitioners’ [non-property-related] actions” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Enmons, 410 U. S. 396, 410 (1973) (Hobbs Act does not reach violent, activity by union members seeking higher wages because such violence is not extortion and Congress did not intend to “cover all overtly coercive conduct in the course of” a labor dispute).
Not surprisingly, other Courts of Appeals that have considered the question have rejected respondents’ construction of the Act. See United States v. Yankowski, 184 F. 3d 1071 (CA9 1999); United States v. Franks, 511 F. 2d 25 (CA6 1975). And in 1994, Congress enacted a specific statute aimed directly at the type of abortion clinic violence and other activity at issue in this litigation, thereby suggesting it did not believe that the Hobbs Act already addressed that activity. See Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U. S. C. § 248(a)(3) (imposing criminal liability on anyone who “intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services”).
Ill
Respondents’ contrary claim rests primarily upon a canon of statutory construction that favors interpretations that give a function to each word in a statute, thereby avoiding linguistic superfluity. See United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955) (“It is our duty ‘to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute’” (quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152 (1883))). They claim that, because the definitions of robbery or extortion (or related attempts or conspiracies) already encompass robbery or extortion that takes place through acts of violence (or related threats), “[t]here would be no reason for the statute to include the clause prohibiting violence and threats of violence” unless Congress intended to create a freestanding offense. Brief for Respondents 25; see 18 U. S. C. § 1951(b)(1) (defining “robbery” as the “unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property ... by means of actual or threatened force, or violence” (emphasis added)); § 1951(b)(2) (defining “extortion” as “the obtaining of property from another . . . by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear” (emphasis added)).
Petitioners, however, have found a small amount of additional work for the words to do. Brief for Petitioners in No. 04-1244, pp. 33-36; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11-12. The Scheidler petitioners point to a hypothetical mobster who threatens violence and demands payment from a business. Those threats constitute attempted extortion; but the subsequent acts of violence against a noncomplying business by the subordinates of that mobster may not constitute attempted extortion and may not be punishable as a conspiracy to commit extortion if the subordinates were not privy to the mobster’s plan. A specific prohibition of physical violence in furtherance of a plan to commit extortion would bring the subordinates’ behavior within the statute’s coverage. The United States adds that the physical violence clause permits prosecutors to bring multiple charges for the same conduct. For instance, the clause would apply to a defendant who injured bystanders during a robbery, permitting the Government to charge that defendant with the Hobbs Act crime of robbery and the separate Hobbs Act crime of using violence in furtherance of the robbery. Tr. of Oral Arg. 22.
We concede that this additional work is small. But the need for language to cover such instances, or perhaps simply a desire to emphasize the problem of violence, led Congress in the original 1946 version of the Hobbs Act to make clear that the statute prohibited, not all physical violence, but only physical violence in furtherance of a plan or purpose to engage in robbery or extortion. See supra, at 19. And it is similarly clear that Congress intended to carry this view forward into the 1948 recodification. See supra, at 20-21. The canons of interpretation cannot lead us to a contrary conclusion. Those canons are tools designed to help courts better determine what Congress intended, not to lead courts to interpret the law contrary to that intent. Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U. S. 84, 94 (2001) (noting that “canons are not mandatory rules” but guides “designed to help judges determine the Legislature’s intent,” and that “other circumstances evidencing congressional intent can overcome their force”).
IV
We conclude that Congress did not intend to create a freestanding physical violence offense in the Hobbs Act. It did intend to forbid acts or threats of physical violence in furtherance of a plan or purpose to engage in what the statute refers to as robbery or extortion (and related attempts or conspiracies). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the eases are remanded for entry of judgment for petitioners.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
APPENDIXES TO OPINION OF THE COURT
A
The Anti-Racketeering Act of 1934, ch. 569, 48 Stat. 979, provided:
“AN ACT
“To protect trade and commerce against interference by violence, threats, coercion, or intimidation.
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the term Trade or commerce’, as used herein, is defined to mean trade or commerce between any States, with foreign nations, in the District of Columbia, in any Territory of the United States, between any such Territory or the District of Columbia and any State or other Territory, and all other trade or commerce over which the United States has constitutional jurisdiction.
“Sec. 2. Any person who, in connection with or in relation to any act in any way or in any degree affecting trade or commerce or any article or commodity moving or about to move in trade or commerce—
“(a) Obtains or attempts to obtain, by the use of or attempt to use or threat to use force, violence, or coercion, the payment of money or other valuable considerations, or the purchase or rental of property or protective services, not including, however, the payment of wages of a bona-fide employer to a bona-fide employee; or
“(b) Obtains the property of another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right; or
“(c) Commits or threatens to commit an act of physical violence or physical injury to a person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to violate sections (a) or (b); or
“(d) Conspires or acts concertedly with any other person or persons to commit any of the foregoing acts; shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment from one to ten years or by a fine of $10,000, or both.
“Sec. 3. (a) As used in this Act the term ‘wrongful’ means in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or Territory.
“(b) The terms ‘property’, ‘money’, or ‘valuable considerations’ used herein shall not be deemed to include wages paid by a bona-fide employer to a bona-fide employee.” (Emphasis in original.)
B
Title I of the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act of 1946, ch. 537, 60 Stat. 420, provided:
“Sec. 1. As used in this title—
“(a) The term ‘commerce’ means (1) commerce between any point in a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof, or between points within the same State, Territory, or the District of Columbia but through any place outside thereof, and (2) commerce within the District of Columbia or any Territory, and (3) all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction; and the term ‘Territory’ means any Territory or possession of the United States.
“(b) The term ‘robbery’ means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property, from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
“(c) The term ‘extortion’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
“Sec. 2. Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce, or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion, shall be guilty of a felony.
“Sec. 3. Whoever conspires with another or with others, or acts in concert with another or with others to do anything in violation of section 2 shall be guilty of a felony.
“Sec. 4. Whoever attempts or participates in an attempt to do anything in violation of section 2 shall be guilty of a felony.
“Sec. 5. Whoever commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of section 2 shall be guilty of a felony.
“Sec. 6. Whoever violates any section of this title shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.”
C
The Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1951, as amended in 1948, provides:
“(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
“(b) As used in this section—
“(1) The term ‘robbery’ means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
“(2) The term ‘extortion’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
“(3) The term ‘commerce’ means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
“(c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101-115, 151-166 of Title 29 or sections 151-188 of Title 45.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent William Barrett was convicted after a jury trial of sexual assault, unlawful restraint, and possession of a controlled substance. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the convictions. It held that incriminating statements made by Barrett should have been suppressed under our decision in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 (1981), because Barrett, though stating his willingness to speak to police, had indicated that he would not make a written statement outside the presence of counsel. 197 Conn. 50, 495 A. 2d 1044 (1985). We granted certiorari to consider the federal constitutional issues presented by this holding. 476 U. S. 1114 (1986). We reverse.
In the early morning of October 24, 1980, Barrett was transported from New Haven, Connecticut, to Wallingford, where he was a suspect in a sexual assault that had occurred the previous evening. Upon arrival at the Wallingford police station, Officer Peter Cameron advised Barrett of his rights, and Barrett signed and dated an acknowledgment that he had received the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Barrett stated that “he would not give the police any written statements but he had no problem in talking about the incident.” App. 12A.
Approximately 30 minutes later, Barrett was questioned by Officer Cameron and Officer John Genovese. Before this questioning, he was again advised of his Miranda rights and signed a card acknowledging that he had been read the rights. Respondent stated that he understood his rights, and told the officers that he would not give a written statement unless his attorney was present but had “no problem” talking about the incident. Id., at 21 A. Barrett then gave an oral statement admitting his involvement in the sexual assault.
After discovering that a tape recorder used to preserve the statement had malfunctioned, the police conducted a second interview. For the third time, Barrett was advised of his Miranda rights by the Wallingford police, and once again stated that “he was willing to talk about [the incident] verbally but he did not want to put anything in writing until his attorney came.” Id., at 44A. He then repeated to the police his confession regarding the previous evening’s events.
When the officers discovered that their tape recorder had again failed to record the statement, Officer Cameron reduced to writing his recollection of respondent’s statement.
The trial court, after a suppression hearing, held that the confession was admissible. It found that respondent not only indicated that he understood the warnings, but also “offered the statements that he did not need anything explained to him because he understood. So it was not merely a passive acquiescence . . . .” Id., at 70A. Barrett’s decision to make no written statement without his attorney “indicate[d] to the Court that he certainly understood from having his rights read to him that... he was under no obligation to give any statement.” Ibid. The court held that Barrett had voluntarily waived his right to counsel and thus allowed testimony at trial as to the content of Barrett’s statement. Barrett took the stand in his own defense and testified that he had understood his rights as they were read to him. Id., at 130A. He was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 9 to 18 years.
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that respondent had invoked his right to counsel by refusing to make written statements without the presence of his attorney. In the court’s view, Barrett’s expressed desire for counsel before making a written statement served as an invocation of the right for all purposes:
“The fact that the defendant attached his request for counsel to the making of a written statement does not affect the outcome of. . . our inquiry. No particular form of words has ever been required to trigger an individual’s fifth amendment protections; nor have requests for counsel been narrowly construed. The defendant’s refusal to give a written statement without his attorney present was a clear request for the assistance of counsel to protect his rights in his dealings with the police. Such a request continues to be constitutionally effective despite the defendant’s willingness to make oral statements. We conclude, therefore, that the defendant did invoke his right to counsel under the fifth and fourteenth amendments.” 197 Conn., at 57, 495 A. 2d, at 1049 (citations omitted).
This invocation, the court believed, brought the case within what it called the “bright-line rule for establishing a waiver of this right.” Id., at 58, 495 A. 2d, at 1049. That rule requires a finding that the suspect “(a) initiated further discussions with the police, and (b) knowingly and intelligently waived the right he had invoked.” Smith v. Illinois, 469 U. S. 91, 95 (1984) (per curiam). See also Edwards, supra, at 485, 486, n. 9. Because Barrett had not initiated further discussions with police, the court found his statement improperly admitted.
We think that the Connecticut Supreme Court erred in holding that the United States Constitution required suppression of Barrett’s statement. Barrett made clear to police his willingness to talk about the crime for which he was a suspect. The trial court found that this decision was a voluntary waiver of his rights, and there is no evidence that Barrett was “threatened, tricked, or cajoled” into this waiver. Miranda, 384 U. S., at 476. The Connecticut Supreme Court nevertheless held as a matter of law that respondent’s limited invocation of his right to counsel prohibited all interrogation absent initiation of further discussion by Barrett. Nothing in our decisions, however, or in the rationale of Miranda, requires authorities to ignore the tenor or sense of a defendant’s response to these warnings.
The fundamental purpose of the Court’s decision in Miranda was “to assure that the individual’s right to choose between speech and silence remains unfettered throughout the interrogation process.” Id., at 469 (emphasis added). See also Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 426 (1986) (“Miranda attempted to reconcile [competing] concerns by giving the defendant the power to exert some control over the course of the interrogation”) (emphasis in original); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 308 (1985) (“Once warned, the suspect is free to exercise his own volition in deciding whether or not to make a statement to the authorities”) (emphasis added). To this end, the Miranda Court adopted prophylactic rules designed to insulate the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights from the government “compulsion, subtle or otherwise,” that “operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.” Miranda, supra, at 474. See also Smith, supra, at 98; Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U. S. 1039, 1044 (1983). One such rule requires that, once the accused “states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.” Miranda, supra, at 474. See also Edwards, 451 U. S., at 484. It remains clear, however, that this prohibition on further questioning — like other aspects of Miranda — is not itself required by the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on coerced confessions, but is instead justified only by reference to its prophylactic purpose. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 654 (1984). By prohibiting further interrogation after the invocation of these rights, we erect an auxiliary barrier against police coercion.
But we know of no constitutional objective that would be served by suppression in this case. It is undisputed that Barrett desired the presence of counsel before making a written statement. Had the police obtained such a statement without meeting the waiver standards of Edwards, it would clearly be inadmissible. Barrett’s limited requests for counsel, however, were accompanied by affirmative announcements of his willingness to speak with the authorities. The fact that officials took the opportunity provided by Barrett to obtain an oral confession is quite consistent with the Fifth Amendment. Miranda gives the defendant a right to choose between speech and silence, and Barrett chose to speak.
The Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision to the contrary rested on the view that requests for counsel are not to be narrowly construed. 197 Conn., at 57, 495 A. 2d, at 1049. In support of this premise, respondent observes that our prior decisions have given broad effect to requests for counsel that were less than all-inclusive. See Bradshaw, supra, at 1041-1042 (“I do want an attorney before it goes very much farther”); Edwards, supra, at 479 (“I want an attorney before making a deal”). We do not denigrate the “settled approach to questions of waiver [that] requires us to give a broad, rather than a narrow, interpretation to a defendant’s request for counsel,” Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625, 633 (1986), when we observe that this approach does little to aid respondent’s cause. Interpretation is only required where the defendant’s words, understood as ordinary people would understand them, are ambiguous. Here, however, Barrett made clear his intentions, and they were honored by police. To conclude that respondent invoked his right to counsel for all purposes requires not a broad interpretation of an ambiguous statement, but a disregard of the ordinary-meaning of respondent’s statement.
We also reject the contention that the distinction drawn by Barrett between oral and written statements indicates an understanding of the consequences so incomplete that we should deem his limited invocation of the right to counsel effective for all purposes. This suggestion ignores Barrett’s testimony— and the finding of the trial court not questioned by the Connecticut Supreme Court — that respondent fully understood the Miranda warnings. These warnings, of course, made clear to Barrett that “[i]f you talk to any police officers, anything you say can and will be used against you in court.” App. at 48A. The fact that some might find Barrett’s decision illogical is irrelevant, for we have never “embraced the theory that a defendant’s ignorance of the full consequences of his decisions vitiates their voluntariness.” Elstad, supra, at 316; Colorado v. Spring, post, p. 564.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Connecticut Supreme Court noted in its opinion that the trial court “impliedly found that the defendant had requested counsel.” 197 Conn. 50, 56, 495 A. 2d 1044, 1048 (1985). This statement does not suggest, however, that the request for counsel was in fact all-inclusive, and the Supreme Court expressly noted the trial court’s finding that defendant had refused to give a written statement without his attorney present. Id., at 56, n. 6, 495 A. 2d, at 1048, n. 6. The holding that Barrett had invoked his right to counsel, then, rests on a legal conclusion about the effect of his limited invocation rather than on a factual finding.
Because the attempts to record Barrett’s statements were unsuccessful, we have no occasion to consider whether the result would be different if police had taped the statements and used the recording against Barrett.
Since we reject the claim that Barrett’s statements represent an ambiguous or equivocal response to the Miranda warnings, there is no need for us to address the question left open in Smith v. Illinois, 469 U. S. 91, 96, n. 3 (1984) (per curiam).
We do not suggest that the distinction drawn by Barrett is in fact illogical, for there may be several strategic reasons why a defendant willing to speak to the police would still refuse to write out his answers to questions, or to sign a transcript of his answers prepared by the police, a statement that may be used against him.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider whether the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA or Act), 15 U. S. C. § 1679 et seq., precludes enforcement of an arbitration agreement in a lawsuit alleging violations of that Act.
I
Respondents are individuals who applied for and received an Aspire Visa credit card marketed by petitioner Compu-Credit Corporation and issued by Columbus Bank and Trust, now a division of petitioner Synovus Bank. In their applications they agreed to be bound by a provision which read: “Any claim, dispute or controversy (whether in contract, tort, or otherwise) at any time arising from or relating to your Account, any transferred balances or this Agreement (collectively, ‘Claims’), upon the election of you or us, will be resolved by binding arbitration . . .App. 62.
In 2008, respondents filed a class-action complaint against CompuCredit and Columbus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging, as relevant here, violations of the CROA. The claims largely involved the defendants’ allegedly misleading representation that the credit card could be used to rebuild poor credit and their assessment of multiple fees upon opening of the accounts, which greatly reduced the advertised credit limit.
The District Court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of the claims, concluding that “Congress intended claims under the CROA to be non-arbitrable.” 617 F. Supp. 2d 980, 988 (2009). A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, Judge Tash-ima dissenting. 615 F. 3d 1204 (2010). We granted certio-rari, 563 U. S. 973 (2011).
II
The background law governing the issue before us is the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., enacted in 1925 as a response to judicial hostility to arbitration. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333, 339 (2011). As relevant here, the FAA provides:
“A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S. C. §2.
This provision establishes “a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1,24 (1983). See also, e. g., Concepcion, supra, at 339; Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U. S. 20, 25 (1991). It requires courts to enforce agreements to arbitrate according to their terms. See Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U. S. 213, 221 (1985). That is the case even when the claims at issue are federal statutory claims, unless the PAA’s mandate has been “overridden by a contrary congressional command.” Shear son/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U. S. 220, 226 (1987). See also Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 628 (1985). Respondents contend that the CROA contains such a command.
That statute regulates the practices of credit repair organizations, defined as certain entities that offer services for the purpose of “(i) improving any consumer's credit record, credit history, or credit rating; or (ii) providing advice or assistance to any consumer with regard to any activity or service described in clause (i).” 15 U. S. C. § 1679a(3). In its principal substantive provisions, the CROA prohibits certain practices, § 1679b, establishes certain requirements for contracts with consumers, §1679d, and gives consumers a right to cancel, §1679e. Enforcement is achieved through the Act’s provision of a private cause of action for violation, § 1679g, as well as through federal and state administrative enforcement, §1679h.
Ill
Like the District Court and the Ninth Circuit, respondents focus on the CROA’s disclosure and nonwaiver provisions. The former, which is reproduced in full in the Appendix, infra, sets forth a statement that the credit repair organization must provide to the consumer before any contract is executed. § 1679c(a). One sentence of that required statement reads, “ ‘You have a right to sue a credit repair organization that violates the Credit Repair Organization Act.'”’ The Act’s nonwaiver provision states, “Any waiver by any consumer of any protection provided by or any right of the consumer under this subchapter — (1) shall be treated as void; and (2) may not be enforced by any Federal or State court or any other person.” § 1679f(a).
The Ninth Circuit adopted the following line of reasoning, urged upon us by respondents here: The disclosure provision gives consumers the “right to sue,” which “clearly involves the right to bring an action in a court of law.” 615 F. 3d, at 1208. Because the nonwaiver provision prohibits the waiver of “any right of the consumer under this subchapter,” the arbitration agreement — which waived the right to bring an action in a court of law — cannot be enforced. Id., at 1214.
The flaw in this argument is its premise: that the disclosure provision provides consumers with a right to bring an action in a court of law. It does not. Rather, it imposes an obligation on credit repair organizations to supply consumers with a specific statement set forth (in quotation marks) in the statute. The only consumer right it creates is the right to receive the statement, which is meant to describe the consumer protections that the law elsewhere provides. The statement informs consumers, for instance, that they can dispute the accuracy of information in their credit file and that “ ‘[t]he credit bureau must then reinvestigate and modify or remove inaccurate or incomplete information.’ ” 15 U. S. C. § 1679c(a). That description is derived from § 1681i(a), which sets out in great detail the procedures to be followed by a credit bureau in the event of challenges to the accuracy of its information. Similarly, the required statement informs consumers that they may “ ‘cancel your contract with any credit repair organization for any reason within 3 business days from the date you signed it’” — the right created and set forth in more detail in § 1679e. And the “right to sue” language describes the consumer’s right to enforce the credit repair organization’s “liability]” for “failfure] to comply with any provision of this subchapter” provided for in § 1679g(a). Thus, contrary to the dissent’s assertion, our interpretation does not “[r]educ[e] the required disclosure to insignificance,” post, at 115. The disclosure provision informs consumers of their right to enforce liability for any failure to conform to the statute — information they might otherwise not possess. It is the dissent’s interpretation that effectively reduces a portion of the CROA to a nullity. Interpreting the “right to sue” language in § 1679c(a) to “create” a right to sue in court not only renders it strikingly out of place in a section that is otherwise devoted to giving the consumer notice of rights created elsewhere; it also renders the creation of the “right to sue’’ elsewhere superfluous.
Respondents suggest that the CROA’s civil-liability provision, § 1679g (set forth in full in the Appendix, infra), demonstrates that the Act provides consumers with a “right” to bring an action in court. They cite the provision’s repeated use of the terms “action,” “class action,” and “court” — terms that they say call to mind a judicial proceeding. These references cannot do the heavy lifting that respondents assign them. It is utterly commonplace for statutes that create civil causes of action to describe the details of those causes of action, including the relief available, in the context of a court suit. If the mere formulation of the cause of action in this standard fashion were sufficient to establish the “contrary congressional command” overriding the FAA, McMahon, 482 U. S., at 226, valid arbitration agreements covering federal causes of action would be rare indeed. But that is not the law. In Gilmer we enforced an arbitration agreement with respect to a cause of action created by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) which read, in part: “Any person aggrieved may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of this chapter.” 29 U. S. C. § 626(c)(1). In McMahon we enforced an arbitration agreement with respect to a cause of action created by a provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act which read, in part: “Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit . . . .” 18 U. S. C. § 1964(c). And in Mitsubishi Motors we enforced an arbitration agreement with respect to a cause of action created by a provision of the Clayton Act which read, in part: “[A]ny person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States . . . and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” 15 U. S. C. § 15(a). Thus, we have repeatedly recognized that contractually required arbitration of claims satisfies the statutory prescription of civil liability in court. See Gilmer, 500 U. S., at 28; McMahon, supra, at 240; Mitsubishi Motors, 473 U. S., at 637. To be sure, none of the statutes described above contained a nonwaiver provision, as the statute before us does. But if a cause-of-action provision mentioning judicial enforcement does not create a right to initial judicial enforcement, the waiver of initial judicial enforcement is not the waiver of a “right of the consumer,” § 1679f(a). It takes a considerable stretch to regard the non-waiver provision as a “congressional command” that the FAA shall not apply.
Moreover, if one believes that § 1679g’s contemplation of court suit (combined with §1679f(a)) establishes a non-waivable right to initial judicial enforcement, one must also believe that it establishes a nonwaivable right to initial judicial enforcement in any competent judicial tribunal, since it contains no limitation. We think it clear, however, that this mere “contemplation” of suit in any competent court does not guarantee suit in all competent courts, disabling the parties from adopting a reasonable forum-selection clause. And just as the contemplated availability of all judicial forums may be reduced to a single forum by contractual specification, so also can the contemplated availability of judicial action be limited to judicial action compelling or reviewing initial arbitral adjudication. The parties remain free to specify such matters, so long as the guarantee of § 1679g — the guarantee of the legal power to impose liability — is preserved.
Respondents and the dissent maintain that if the CROA does not create a right to a judicial forum, then the disclosure provision effectively requires that credit repair organizations mislead consumers. We think not. The disclosure provision is meant to describe the law to consumers in a manner that is concise and comprehensible to the layman — which necessarily means that it will be imprecise. The required statement says, for example, that the CROA “ ‘prohibits deceptive practices by credit repair organizations,’ ” 15 U. S. C. § 1679c(a). This is in some respects an overstatement, and in some respects an understatement, of the “Prohibited practices” set forth in § 1679b. It would include, for example, deception apart from “the offer or sale of the services of the credit repair organization,” § 1679b(a)(4). Yet we would not hold, in order to prevent the required statement from being “misleading,” that a consumer has a right to be protected from deceptive practices beyond those actually covered by § 1679b. So also with respect to the statement’s description of a “right to sue.” This is a colloquial method of communicating to consumers that they have the legal right, enforceable in court, to recover damages from credit repair organizations that violate the CROA. We think most consumers would understand it this way, without regard to whether the suit in court has to be preceded by an arbitration proceeding. Leaving that possibility out may be imprecise, but it is not misleading — and certainly not so misleading as to demand, in order to avoid that result, reading the statute to contain a guaranteed right it does not in fact contain.
IV
At the time of the CROA’s enactment m 1996, arbitration clauses in contracts of the type at issue here were no rarity. Quite the contrary, the early 1990⅛ saw the increased use of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts generally, and in financial services contracts in particular. See' Ware, Arbitration and Unconscionability After Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 31 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1001, 1001, and n. 3 (1996); J. Shimabukuro, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, The Federal Arbitration Act: Background and Recent Developments 1 (2002).
Had Congress meant to prohibit these very common provisions in the CROA, it would have done so in a manner less obtuse than what respondents suggest. When it has restricted the use of arbitration in other contexts, it has done so with a clarity that far exceeds the claimed indications in the CROA. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. §26(n)(2) (2006 ed., Supp. IV) (“No predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable, if the agreement requires arbitration of a dispute arising under this section”); 15 U. S. C. § 1226(a)(2) (2006 ed.) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever a motor vehicle franchise contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a controversy arising out of or relating to such contract, arbitration may be used to settle such controversy only if after such controversy arises all parties to such controversy consent in writing to use arbitration to settle such controversy”); cf. 12 U. S. C. § 5518(b) (2006 ed., Supp. IV) (granting authority to the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to regulate predispute arbitration agreements in contracts for consumer financial products or services). That Congress would have sought to achieve the same result in the CROA through combination of the nonwaiver provision with the “right to sue” phrase in the disclosure provision, and the references to “action” and “court” in the description of damages recoverable, is unlikely.
⅜ ⅝ ⅜
Because the CROA is silent on whether claims under the Act can proceed in an arbitral forum, the FAA requires the arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX
Title 15 U. S. C. § 1679c provides:
“(a) Disclosure required
“Any credit repair organization shall provide any consumer with the following written statement before any contract or agreement between the consumer and the credit repair organization is executed:
“ ‘Consumer Credit File Rights Under State and Federal Law
“‘You have a right to dispute inaccurate information in your credit report by contacting the credit bureau directly. However, neither you nor any “credit repair” company or credit repair organization has the right to have accurate, current, and verifiable information removed from your credit report. The credit bureau must remove accurate, negative information from your report only if it is over 7 years old. Bankruptcy information can be reported for 10 years.
“ ‘You have a right to obtain a copy of your credit report from a credit bureau. You may be charged a reasonable fee. There is no fee, however, if you have been turned down for credit, employment, insurance, or a rental dwelling because of information in your credit report within the preceding 60 days. The credit bureau must provide someone to help you interpret the information in your credit file. You are entitled to receive a free copy of your credit report if you are unemployed and intend to apply for employment in the next 60 days, if you are a recipient of public welfare assistance, or if you have reason to believe that there is inaccurate information in your credit report due to fraud.
“ ‘You have a right to sue a credit repair organization that violates the Credit Repair Organization Act. This law prohibits deceptive practices by credit repair organizations.
“‘You have the right to cancel your contract with any credit repair organization for any reason within 3 business days from the date you signed it.
“ ‘Credit bureaus are required to follow reasonable procedures to ensure that the information they report is accurate. However, mistakes may occur.
“ ‘You may, on your own, notify a credit bureau in writing that you dispute the accuracy of information in your credit file. The credit bureau must then reinvestigate and modify or remove inaccurate or incomplete information. The credit bureau may not charge any fee for this service. Any pertinent information and copies of all documents you have concerning an error should be given to the credit bureau.
“‘If the credit bureau’s reinvestigation does not resolve the dispute to your satisfaction, you may send a brief statement to the credit bureau, to be kept in your file, explaining why you think the record is inaccurate. The credit bureau must include a summary of your statement about disputed information with any report it issues about you.
“ ‘The Federal Trade Commission regulates credit bureaus and credit repair organizations. For more information contact:
“ ‘The Public Reference Branch
“ ‘Federal Trade Commission
“ ‘Washington, D. C. 20580’.
“(b) Separate statement requirement
“The written statement required under this section shall be provided as a document which is separate from any written contract or other agreement between the credit repair organization and the consumer or any other written material provided to the consumer.
“(c) Retention of compliance records
“(1) In general
“The credit repair organization shall maintain a copy of the statement signed by the consumer acknowledging receipt of the statement.
“(2) Maintenance for 2 years
“The copy of any consumer’s statement shall be maintained in the organization’s files for 2 years after the' date on which the statement is signed by the consumer.”
* * *
Section 1679g provides:
“(a) Liability established
“Any person who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any other person shall be liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of the amounts determined under each of the following paragraphs:
“(1) Actual damages
“The greater of—
“(A) the amount of any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure; or
“(B) any amount paid by the person to the credit repair organization.
“(2) Punitive damages
“(A) Individual actions
“In the case of any action by an individual, such additional amount as the court may allow.
“(B) Class actions
“In the case of a class action, the sum of—
“(i) the aggregate of the amount which the court may allow for each named plaintiff; and
“(ii) the aggregate of the amount which the court may allow for each other class member, without regard to any minimum individual recovery.
“(3) Attorneys’ fees
“In the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under paragraph (1) or (2), the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees.
“(b) Factors to be considered in awarding punitive damages
“In determining the amount of any liability of any credit repair organization under subsection (a)(2) of this section, the court shall consider, among other relevant factors—
“(1) the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the credit repair organization;
“(2) the nature of the noncompliance;
“(3) the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional; and
“(4) in the case of any class action, the number of consumers adversely affected.”
The District Court said that petitioners do not dispute that they come within this definition. See 617 F. Supp. 2d 980, 984, n. 2 (ND Cal. 2009). The Ninth Circuit did not address that issue, see 615 F. 3d 1204,1207, n. 3 (2010), nor do we.
Accordingly, when a consumer sues to enforce liability under the CROA, he does so under § 1679g(a), not “in light of § 1679c,” post, at 113 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). An action under the CROA need not refer to § 1679c at all, unless it is based on the company’s failure to provide the statement required under that section. Section 1679g(a) creates the “right” at issue and describes it in detail not contained in § 1679e’s summary. When determining the scope of that right, it is therefore § 1679g(a) — and not § 1679c — that must govern.
Gilmer noted that the ADEA had been amended after conclusion of the arbitration agreement in that case to preclude waiver of “rights or claims that may arise after the date the waiver is executed.” 29 U. S. C. § 626(f)(1)(C). The Court said in dictum that this provision “did not explicitly preclude arbitration or other nonjudicial resolution of claims,” 500 U. S., at 29.
The dissent questions the relevance of these statutes, since they postdated the CROA and since this Court’s intervening decisions compelling arbitration “increasingly alerted Congress to the utility of drafting anti-waiver prescriptions with meticulous care.” Post, at 116. But as the dissent implicitly recognizes, Congress had been “alerted” much before these post-CROA statutes were passed. The CROA itself followed a series of this Court’s seminal decisions compelling arbitration, decisions which held that the FAA had established a ‘“federal policy favoring arbitration,’” Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U. S. 20, 26 (1991), and that “[t]he burden is on the party opposing arbitration ... to show that Congress intended to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies,” Shear son/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U. S. 220, 227 (1987). To the extent Congress is ever “stimulated” by this Court’s decisions, post, at 116, there is no reason to think the Congress that enacted the CROA was any less stimulated than subsequent Congresses.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, while a soldier in the United States Army stationed at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, was arrested and charged by state authorities with the sale of marihuana in violation of applicable state law. Prior to his trial on this charge, the petitioner was discharged from the Army and voluntarily left Arizona for New York. When the trial date was set, the petitioner’s court-appointed attorney so advised the petitioner and requested him to return to Arizona. Assertedly because he lacked travel funds, the petitioner did not appear in Arizona on the date set for trial. Under these circumstances, the trial proceeded without the petitioner’s presence, as authorized by state procedure. The jury returned a guilty verdict. After the verdict was rendered, the petitioner obtained the necessary travel funds and returned to Arizona in time for his sentencing. He was sentenced to not less than five nor more than five and one-half years in prison. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. 107 Ariz. 353, 488 P. 2d 973 (1971).
The petition for certiorari in this case presented questions as to constitutional limits on the States’ authority to try in absentia a person who has voluntarily left the State and is unable, for financial reasons, to return to that State. Upon reviewing the record, however, it appears that these broad questions were not raised by the petitioner below nor passed upon by the Arizona Supreme Court. We cannot decide issues raised for the first time here. Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437 (1969). The only related issue actually raised below was whether petitioner’s conduct amounted to a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to be present at trial. Since this is primarily a factual issue which does not, by itself, justify the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court (Parts I, II, III, and IV-C) and an opinion in which The Chief Justice and Me. Justice Rehnquist joined (Parts IV-A and IY-B).
This case requires that we decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has any power to regulate a radio broadcast that is indecent but not obscene.
A satiric humorist named George Carlin recorded a 12-minute monologue entitled “Filthy Words” before a live audience in a California theater. He began by referring to his thoughts about “the words you couldn’t say on the public, ah, airwaves, um, the ones you definitely wouldn’t say, ever.” He proceeded to list those words and repeat them over and over again in a variety of colloquialisms. The transcript of the recording, which is appended to this opinion, indicates frequent laughter from the audience.
At about 2 o’clock in the afternoon on Tuesday, October 30, 1973, a New York radio station, owned by respondent Pacifica Foundation, broadcast the “Filthy Words” monologue. A few weeks later a man, who stated that he had heard the broadcast while driving with his young son, wrote a letter complaining to the Commission. He stated that, although he could perhaps understand the “record’s being sold for private use, I certainly cannot understand the broadcast of same over the air that, supposedly, you control.”
The complaint was forwarded to the station for comment. In its response, Pacifica explained that the monologue had been played during a program about contemporary society’s attitude toward language and that, immediately before its broadcast, listeners had been advised that it included “sensitive language which might be regarded as offensive to some.” Pacifica characterized George Carlin as “a significant social satirist” who “like Twain and Sahl before him, examines the language of ordinary people.... Carlin is not mouthing obscenities, he is merely using words to satirize as harmless and essentially silly our attitudes towards those words.” Pacifica stated that it was not aware of any other complaints about the broadcast.
On February 21, 1975, the Commission issued a declaratory order granting the complaint and holding that Pacifica “could have been the subject of administrative sanctions.” 56 F. C. C. 2d 94, 99. The Commission did not impose formal sanctions, but it did state that the order would be “associated with the station’s license file, and in the event that subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress.”
In its memorandum opinion the Commission stated that it intended to “clarify the standards which will be utilized in considering” the growing number of complaints about indecent speech on the airwaves. Id., at 94. Advancing several reasons for treating broadcast speech differently from other forms of expression, the Commission found a power to regulate indecent broadcasting in two statutes: 18 U. S. C. § 1464 (1976 ed.), which forbids the use of “any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communications,” and 47 U. S. C. § 303 (g), which requires the Commission to “encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.”
The Commission characterized the language used in the Carlin monologue as “patently offensive,” though not necessarily obscene, and expressed the opinion that it should be regulated by principles analogous to those found in the law of nuisance where the “law generally speaks to channeling behavior more than actually prohibiting it.... [T]he concept of ‘indecent’ is intimately connected with the exposure of children to language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.” 56 F. C. C. 2d, at 98.
Applying these considerations to the language used in the monologue as broadcast by respondent, the Commission concluded that certain words depicted sexual and excretory activities in a patently offensive manner, noted that they “were broadcast at a time when children were undoubtedly in the audience (i. e., in the early afternoon),” and that the prerecorded language, with these offensive words “repeated over and over,” was “deliberately broadcast.” Id., at 99. In summary, the Commission stated: “We therefore hold that the language as broadcast was indecent and prohibited by 18 U. S. C. [§] 1464.” Ibid.
After the order issued, the Commission was asked to clarify its opinion by ruling that the broadcast of indecent words as part of a live newscast would not be prohibited. The Commission issued another opinion in which it pointed out that it “never intended to place an absolute prohibition on the broadcast of this type of language, but rather sought to channel it to times of day when children most likely would not be exposed to it.” 59 F. C. C. 2d 892 (1976). The Commission noted that its “declaratory order was issued in a specific factual context,” and declined to comment on various hypothetical situations presented by the petition. Id., at 893. It relied on its “long standing policy of refusing to issue interpretive rulings or advisory opinions when the critical facts are not explicitly stated or there is a possibility that subsequent events will alter them.” Ibid.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, with each of the three judges on the panel writing separately. 181 U. S. App. D. C. 132, 556 F. 2d 9. Judge Tamm concluded that the order represented censorship and was expressly prohibited by § 326 of the Communications Act. Alternatively, Judge Tamm read the Commission opinion as the functional equivalent of a rule and concluded that it was “overbroad.” 181 U. S. App. D. C., at 141, 556 F. 2d, at 18. Chief Judge Bazelon’s concurrence rested on the Constitution. He was persuaded that § 326’s prohibition against censorship is inapplicable to broadcasts forbidden by § 1464. However, he concluded that § 1464 must be narrowly construed to cover only language that is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the First Amendment. 181 U. S. App. D. C., at 140-153, 556 F. 2d, at 24-30. Judge Leventhal, in dissent, stated that the only issue was whether the Commission could regulate the language “as broadcast.” Id., at 154, 556 F. 2d, at 31. Emphasizing the interest in protecting children, not only from exposure to indecent language, but also from exposure to the idea that such language has official approval, id., at 160, and n. 18, 556 F. 2d, at 37, and n. 18, he concluded that the Commission had correctly condemned the daytime broadcast as indecent.
Having granted the Commission’s petition for certiorari, 434 U. S. 1008, we must decide: (1) whether the scope of judicial review encompasses more than the Commission’s determination that the monologue was indecent “as broadcast”; (2) whether the Commission’s order was a form of censorship forbidden by § 326; (3) whether the broadcast was indecent within the meaning of § 1464; and (4) whether the order violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
I
The general statements in the Commission’s memorandum opinion do not change the character of its order. Its action was an adjudication under 5 U. S. C. § 554 (e) (1976 ed.); it did not purport to engage in formal rulemaking or in the promulgation of any regulations. The order “was issued in a specific factual context”; questions concerning possible action in other contexts were expressly reserved for the future. The specific holding was carefully confined to the monologue “as broadcast.”
“This Court... reviews judgments, not statements in opinions.” Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 351 U. S. 292, 297. That admonition has special force when the statements raise constitutional questions, for it is our settled practice to avoid the unnecessary decision of such issues. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 568-569. However appropriate it may be for an administrative agency to write broadly in an adjudicatory proceeding, federal courts have never been empowered to issue advisory opinions. See Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117, 126. Accordingly, the focus of our review must be on the Commission’s determination that the Carlin monologue was indecent as broadcast.
II
The relevant statutory questions are whether the Commission’s action is forbidden “censorship” within the meaning of 47 U. S. C. § 326 and whether speech that concededly is not obscene may be restricted as “indecent” under the authority of 18 U. S. C. § 1464 (1976 ed.). The questions are not unrelated, for the two statutory provisions have a common origin. Nevertheless, we analyze them separately.
Section 29 of the Radio Act of 1927 provided:
“Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the licensing authority the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the licensing authority which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communications. No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall utter any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication.” 44 Stat. 1172.
The prohibition against censorship unequivocally denies the Commission any power to edit proposed broadcasts in advance and to excise material considered inappropriate for the airwaves. The prohibition, however, has never been construed to deny the Commission the power to review the content of completed broadcasts in the performance of its regulatory duties.
During the period between the original enactment of the provision in 1927 and its re-enactment in the Communications Act of 1934, the courts and the Federal Radio Commission held that the section deprived the Commission of the power to subject “broadcasting matter to scrutiny prior to its release,” but they concluded that the Commission’s “undoubted right” to take note of past program content when considering a licensee’s renewal application “is not censorship.”
Not only did the Federal Radio Commission so construe the statute prior to 1934; its successor, the Federal Communications Commission, has consistently interpreted the provision in the same way ever since. See Note, Regulation of Program Content by the FCC, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 701 (1964). And, until this case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has consistently agreed with this construction. Thus, for example, in his opinion in Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith v. FCC, 131 U. S. App.. D. C. 146, 403 F. 2d 169 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U. S. 930, Judge Wright forcefully pointed out that the Commission is not prevented from canceling the license of a broadcaster who persists in a course of improper programming. He explained:
“This would not be prohibited ‘censorship,’... any more than would the Commission’s considering on a license renewal application whether a broadcaster allowed ‘coarse, vulgar, suggestive, double-meaning’ programming ; programs containing such material are grounds for denial of a license renewal.” 131 U. S. App. D. C., at 150-151, n. 3, 403 F. 2d, at 173-174, n. 3.
See also Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 123 U. S. App. D. C. 328, 359 F. 2d 994 (1966).
Entirely apart from the fact that the subsequent review of program content is not the sort of censorship at which the statute was directed, its history makes it perfectly clear that it was not intended to limit the Commission’s power to regulate the broadcast of obscene, indecent, or profane language. A single section of the 1927 Act is the source of both the anticensorship provision and the Commission’s authority to impose sanctions for the broadcast of indecent or obscene language. Quite plainly, Congress intended to give meaning to both provisions. Respect for that intent requires that the censorship language be read as inapplicable to the prohibition on broadcasting obscene, indecent, or profane language.
There is nothing in the legislative history to contradict this conclusion. The provision was discussed only in generalities when it was first enacted. In 1934, the anticensorship provision and the prohibition against indecent broadcasts were re-enacted in the same section, just as in the 1927 Act. In 1948, when the Criminal Code was revised to include provisions that had previously been located in other Titles of the United States Code, the prohibition against obscene, indecent, and profane broadcasts was removed from the Communications Act and re-enacted as § 1464 of Title 18. 62 Stat. 769 and 866. That rearrangement of the Code cannot reasonably be interpreted as having been intended to change the meaning of the anticensorship provision. H. R. Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A106 (1947). Cf. Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U. S. 151, 162.
We conclude, therefore, that § 326 does not limit the Commission’s authority to impose sanctions on licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting.
Ill
The only other statutory question presented by this case is whether the afternoon broadcast of the “Filthy Words” monologue was indecent within the meaning of § 1464. Even that question is narrowly confined by the arguments of the parties.
The Commission identified several words that referred to excretory or sexual activities or organs, stated that the repetitive, deliberate use of those words in an afternoon broadcast when children are in the audience was patently offensive, and held that the broadcast was indecent. Pacifica takes issue with the Commission’s definition of indecency, but does not dispute the Commission’s preliminary determination that each of the components of its definition was present. Specifically, Pacifica does not quarrel with the conclusion that this afternoon broadcast was patently offensive. Pacifica’s claim that the broadcast was not indecent within the meaning of the statute rests entirely on the absence of prurient appeal.
The plain language of the statute does not support Pacifica’s argument. The words “obscene, indecent, or profane” are written in the disjunctive, implying that each has a separate meaning. Prurient appeal is an element of the obscene, but the normal definition of “indecent” merely refers to noncon-formance with accepted standards of morality.
Pacifica argues, however, that this Court has construed the term “indecent” in related statutes to mean “obscene,” as that term was defined in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15. Pacifica relies most heavily on the construction this Court gave to 18 U. S. C. § 1461 in Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87. See also United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U. S. 123, 130 n. 7 (18 U. S. C. § 1462) (dicta). Hamling rejected a vagueness attack on § 1461, which forbids the mailing of “obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile” material. In holding that the statute’s coverage is limited to obscenity, the Court followed the lead of Mr. Justice Harlan in Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478. In that case, Mr. Justice Harlan recognized that § 1461 contained a variety of words with many shades of meaning. Nonetheless, he thought that the phrase “obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile,” taken as a whole, was clearly limited to the obscene, a reading well grounded in prior judicial constructions: “[T]he statute since its inception has always been taken as aimed at obnoxiously debasing portrayals of sex.” 370 U. S., at 483. In Hamling the Court agreed with Mr. Justice Harlan that § 1461 was meant only to regulate obscenity in the mails; by reading into it the limits set by Miller v. California, supra, the Court adopted a construction which assured the statute’s constitutionality.
The reasons supporting Hamling’s construction of § 1461 do not apply to § 1464. Although the history of the former revealed a primary concern with the prurient, the Commission has long interpreted § 1464 as encompassing more than the obscene. The former statute deals primarily with printed matter enclosed in sealed envelopes mailed from one individual to another; the latter deals with the content of public broadcasts. It is unrealistic to assume that Congress intended to impose precisely the same limitations on the dissemination of patently offensive matter by such different means.
Because neither our prior decisions nor the language or history of § 1464 supports the conclusion that prurient appeal is an essential component of indecent language, we reject Pacifica’s construction of the statute. When that construction is put to one side, there is no basis for disagreeing with the Commission’s conclusion that indecent language was used in this broadcast.
IV
Pacifica makes two constitutional attacks on the Commission’s order. First, it argues that the Commission’s construction of the statutory language broadly encompasses so much constitutionally protected speech that reversal is required even if Pacifica’s broadcast of the “Filthy Words” monologue is not itself protected by the First Amendment. Second, Pacifica argues that inasmuch as the recording is not obscene, the Constitution forbids any abridgment of the right to broadcast it on the radio.
A
The first argument fails because our review is limited to the question whether the Commission has the authority to proscribe this particular broadcast. As the Commission itself emphasized, its order was “issued in a specific factual context.” 59 F. C. C. 2d, at 893. That approach is appropriate for courts as well as the Commission when regulation of indecency is at stake, for indecency is largely a function of context — it cannot be adequately judged in the abstract.
The approach is also consistent with Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367. In that case the Court rejected an argument that the Commission’s regulations defining the fairness doctrine were so vague that they would inevitably abridge the broadcasters’ freedom of speech. The Court of Appeals had invalidated the regulations because their vagueness might lead to self-censorship of controversial program content. Radio Television News Directors Assn. v. United States, 400 F. 2d 1002, 1016 (CA7 1968). This Court reversed. After noting that the Commission had indicated, as it has in this case, that it would not impose sanctions without warning in cases in which the applicability of the law was unclear, the Court stated:
“We need not approve every aspect of the fairness doctrine to decide these cases, and we will not now pass upon the constitutionality of these regulations by envisioning the most extreme applications conceivable, United States v. Sullivan, 332 U. S. 689, 694 (1948), but will deal with those problems if and when they arise.” 395 U. S., at 396-.
It is true that the Commission’s order may lead some broadcasters to censor themselves. At most, however, the Commission’s definition of indecency will -deter only the broadcasting of patently offensive references to excretory and sexual organs and activities. While some of these references may be protected, they surely lie at the periphery of First Amendment concern. Cf. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350, 380-381. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 61. The danger 'dismissed so summarily in Red Lion, in contrast, was that broadcasters would respond to the vagueness of the regulations by refusing to present programs dealing with important social and political controversies. Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is “strong medicine” to be applied “sparingly and only as a last resort.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 613. We decline to administer that medicine to preserve the vigor of patently offensive sexual and excretory speech.
B
When the issue is narrowed to the facts of this case, the question is whether the First Amendment denies government any power to restrict the public broadcast of indecent language in any circumstances. For if the government has any such power, this was an appropriate occasion for its exercise.
The words of the Carlin monologue are unquestionably “speech” within the meaning of the First Amendment. It is equally clear that the Commission’s objections to the broadcast were based in part on its content. The order must therefore fall if, as Pacifica argues, the First Amendment prohibits all governmental regulation that depends on the content of speech. Our past cases demonstrate, however, that no such absolute rule is mandated by the Constitution.
The classic exposition of the proposition that both the content and the context of speech are critical elements of First Amendment analysis is Mr. Justice Holmes’ statement for the Court in Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 52:
“We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.... The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against-uttering words that may have all the effect of force.... 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.”
Other distinctions based on content have been approved in the years since Schenck. The government may forbid speech calculated to provoke a fight. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568. It may pay heed to the “ 'commonsense differences’ between commercial speech and other varieties.” Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, supra, at 381. It may treat libels against private citizens more severely than libels against public officials. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323. Obscenity may be wholly prohibited. Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15. And only two Terms ago wé refused to hold that a “statutory classification is unconstitutional because it is based on the content of communication protected by the First Amendment.” Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., supra, at 52.
The question in this case is whether a broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex and excretion may be regulated because of its content. Obscene materials have been denied the protection of the First Amendment because their content is so offensive to contemporary moral standards. Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476. But the fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for - suppressingyit. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas. If there were any reason to believe that the Commission’s characterization of the Carlin monologue as offensive could be traced to its political content — or even to the fact that it satirized contemporary attitudes about four-letter words— First Amendment protection might be required. But that is simply not this case. These words offend for the same reasons that obscenity offends. Their place in the hierarchy of First Amendment values was aptly sketched by Mr. Justice Murphy when he said: “[S]uch utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S., at 572.
Although these words ordinarily lack literary, political, or scientific value, they are not entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment. Some uses of even the most offensive words are unquestionably protected. See, e. g., Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105. Indeed, we may assume, arguendo, that this monologue would be protected in other contexts. Nonetheless, the constitutional protection accorded to a communication containing such patently offensive sexual and excretory language need not be the same in every context. It is a characteristic of speech such as this that both its capacity to offend and its “social value,” to use Mr. Justice Murphy’s term, vary with the circumstances. Words that are commonplace in one setting are shocking in another. To paraphrase Mr. Justice Harlan, one occasion’s lyric is another’s vulgarity. Cf. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 25.
In this case it is undisputed that the content of Pacifica’s broadcast was “vulgar,” “offensive,” and “shocking.” Because content of that character is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection under all circumstances, we must consider its context in order to determine whether the Commission's action was constitutionally permissible.
C
We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 502-503. And of all forms of communication, it is broadcasting that has received the most limited First Amendment protection. Thus, although other speakers cannot be licensed except under laws that carefully define and narrow official discretion, a broadcaster may be deprived of his license and his forum if the Commission decides that such an action would serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Similarly, although the First Amendment protects newspaper publishers from being required to print the replies of those whom they criticize, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, it affords no such protection to broadcasters; on the contrary, they must give free time to the victims of their criticism. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367.
The reasons for these distinctions are complex, but two have relevance to the present case. First, the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans. Patently offensive, indecent material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home, where the individual’s right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder. Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728. Because the broadcast audience is constantly tuning in and out, prior warnings cannot completely protect the listener or viewer from unexpected program content. To say that one may avoid further offense by turning off the radio when he hears indecent language is like saying that the remedy for an assault is to run away after the first blow. One may hang up on an indecent phone call, but that option does not give the caller a constitutional immunity or avoid a harm that has already taken place.
Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read. Although Cohen’s written message might have been incomprehensible to a first grader, Pacifica’s broadcast could have enlarged a child’s vocabulary in an instant. Other forms of offensive expression may be withheld from the young without restricting the expression at its source. Bookstores and motion picture theaters, for example, may be prohibited from making indecent material available to children. We held in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, that the government’s interest in the “well-being of its youth” and in supporting “parents’ claim to authority in their own household” justified the regulation of otherwise protected expression. Id., at 640 and 639. The ease with which children may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with the concerns recognized in Ginsberg, amply justify special treatment of indecent broadcasting.
It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasize the narrowness of our holding. This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution. The Commission’s decision rested entirely on a nuisance rationale under which context is all-important. The concept requires consideration of a host of variables. The time of day was emphasized by the Commission. The content of the program in which the language is used will also affect the composition of the audience, and differences between radio, television, and perhaps closed-circuit transmissions, may also be relevant. As Mr. Justice Sutherland wrote, a “nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, — like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.” Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 388. We simply hold that when the Commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
The following is a verbatim transcript of “Filthy Words” prepared by the Federal Communications Commission.
Aruba-du, ruba-tu, ruba-tu. I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss words and the words that you can't say, that you're not supposed to say all the time, ['] cause words or people into words want to hear your words. Some guys like to record your words and sell them back to you if they can, (laughter) listen in on the telephone, write down what words you say. A guy who used to be in Washington knew that his phone was tapped, used to answer, Fuck Hoover, yes, go ahead, (laughter) Okay, I was thinking one night about the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves, um, the ones you definitely wouldn't say, ever, ['] cause I heard a lady say bitch one night on television, and it was cool like she was talking about, you know, ah, well, the bitch is the first one to notice that in the litter Johnie right (murmur) Right. And, uh, bastard you can say, and hell and damn so I have to figure out which ones you couldn’t and ever and it came down to seven but the list is open to amendment, and in fact, has been changed, uh, by now, ha, a lot of people pointed things out to me, and I noticed some myself. The original seven words were, shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. Those are the ones that will curve your spine, grow hair on your hands and (laughter) maybe, even bring us, God help us, peace without honor (laughter) um, and a bourbon, (laughter) And now the first thing that we noticed was that word fuck was really repeated in there because the word motherfucker is a compound word and it's another form of the word fuck, (laughter) You want to be a purist it doesn't really — it can’t be on the list of basic words. Also, cocksucker is a compound word and neither half of that is really dirty. The word — the half sucker that’s merely suggestive (laughter) and the word cock is a half-way dirty word, 50% dirty — dirty half the time, depending on what you mean by it. (laughter) Uh, remember when you first heard it, like in 6th grade, you used to giggle. And the cock crowed three times, heh (laughter) the cock — three times. It’s in the Bible, cock in the Bible, (laughter) And the first time you heard about a cock-fight, remember — What? Huh? naw. It ain’t that, are you stupid? man. (laughter, clapping) It’s chickens, you know, (laughter) Then you have the four letter words from the old Anglo-Saxon fame. Uh, shit and fuck. The word shit, uh, is an interesting kind of word in that the middle class has never really accepted it and approved it. They use it like, crazy but it’s not really okay. It’s still a rude, dirty, old kind of gushy word, (laughter) They don’t like that, but they say it, like, they say it like, a lady now in a middle-class home, you’ll hear most of the time she says it as an expletive, you know, it’s out of her mouth before she knows. She says, Oh shit oh shit, (laughter) oh shit. If she drops something, Oh, the shit hurt the broccoli. Shit. Thank you. (footsteps fading away) (papers ruffling)
Read it! (from audience)
Shit! (laughter) I won the Grammy, man, for the comedy album. Isn’t that groovy? (clapping, whistling) (murmur) That’s true. Thank you. Thank you man. Yeah, (murmur) (continuous clapping) Thank you man. Thank you. Thank you very much, man. Thank, no, (end of continuous clapping) for that and for the Grammy, man, [’]cause (laughter) that’s based on people liking it man, yeh, that’s ah, that’s okay man. (laughter) Let’s let that go, man. I got my Grammy. I can let my hair hang down now, shit, (laughter) Ha! So! Now the word shit is okay for the man. At work you can say it like crazy. Mostly figuratively, Get that shit out of here, will ya? I don't want to see that shit anymore. I can’t cut that shit, buddy. I’ve had that shit up to here. I think you’re full of shit myself, (laughter) He don’t know shit from Shinola. (laughter) you know that? (laughter) Always wondered how the Shinola people felt about that (laughter) Hi,. I’m the new man from Shinola. (laughter) Hi, how are ya? Nice to see ya. (laughter) How are ya? (laughter) Boy, I don’t know whether to shit or wind my watch, (laughter) Guess, I’ll shit on my watch, (laughter) Oh, the shit is going to hit de fan. (laughter) Built like a brick shit-house, (laughter) Up, he’s up shit’s creek, (laughter) He’s had it. (laughter) He hit me, I’m sorry, (laughter) Hot shit, holy shit, tough shit, eat shit, (laughter) shit-eating grin. Uh, whoever thought of that was ill. (murmur laughter) He had a shit-eating grin! He had a what? (laughter) Shit on a stick, (laughter) Shit in a handbag. I always like that. He ain’t worth shit in a handbag, (laughter) Shitty. He acted real shitty, (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which
The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito join.
In April 1989, petitioner John A. Rapanos backfilled wetlands on a parcel of land in Michigan that he owned and sought to develop. This parcel included 54 acres of land with sometimes-saturated soil conditions. The nearest body of navigable water was 11 to 20 miles away. 339 F. 3d 447, 449 (CA6 2003) (Rapanos I). Regulators had informed Mr. Rapanos that his saturated fields were “waters of the United States,” 33 U. S. C. § 1362(7), that could not be filled without a permit. Twelve years of criminal and civil litigation ensued.
The burden of federal regulation on those who would deposit fill material in locations denominated “waters of the United States” is not trivial. In deciding whether to grant or deny a permit, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) exercises the discretion of an enlightened despot, relying on such factors as “economics,” “aesthetics,” “recreation,” and “in general, the needs and welfare of the people,” 33 CFR § 320.4(a) (2004). The average applicant for an individual permit spends 788 days and $271,596 in completing the process, and the average applicant for a nationwide permit spends 313 days and $28,915 — not counting costs of mitigation or design changes. Sunding & Zilberman, The Economies of Environmental Regulation by Licensing: An Assessment of Recent Changes to the Wetland Permitting Process, 42 Natural Resources J. 59, 74-76 (2002). “[0]ver $1.7 billion is spent each year by the private and public sectors obtaining wetlands permits.” Id., at 81. These costs cannot be avoided, because the Clean Water Act “impose[s] criminal liability,” as well as steep civil fines, “on a broad range of ordinary industrial and commercial activities.” Hanousek v. United States, 528 U. S. 1102, 1103 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). In this litigation, for example, for backfilling his own wet fields, Mr. Rapanos faced 63 months in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in criminal and civil fines. See United States v. Rapanos, 235 F. 3d 256, 260 (CA6 2000).
The enforcement proceedings against Mr. Rápanos are a small part of the immense expansion of federal regulation of land use that has occurred under the Clean Water Act — without any change in the governing statute — during the past five Presidential administrations. In the last three decades, the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have interpreted their jurisdiction over “the waters of the United States” to cover 270-to-300 million acres of swampy lands in the United States — including half of Alaska and an area the size of California in the lower 48 States. And that was just the beginning. The Corps has also asserted jurisdiction over virtually any parcel of land containing a channel or conduit — whether man-made or natural, broad or narrow, permanent or ephemeral — through which rainwater or drainage may occasionally or intermittently flow. On this view, the federally regulated “waters of the United States” include storm drains, roadside ditches, ripples of sand in the desert that may contain water once a year, and lands that are covered by floodwaters once every 100 years. Because they include the land containing storm sewers and desert washes, the statutory “waters of the United States” engulf entire cities and immense arid wastelands. In fact, the entire land area of the United States lies in some drainage basin, and an endless network of visible channels furrows the entire surface, containing water ephemerally wherever the rain falls. Any plot of land containing such a channel may potentially be regulated as a “water of the United States.”
I
Congress passed the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act) in 1972. The Act’s stated objective is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 86 Stat. 816, 33 U. S. C. § 1251(a). The Act also states that “[i]t is the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his authority under this chapter.” § 1251(b).
One of the statute’s principal provisions is 33 U. S. C. § 1311(a), which provides that “the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.” “The discharge of a pollutant” is defined broadly to include “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,” § 1362(12), and “pollutant” is defined broadly to include not only traditional contaminants but also solids such as “dredged spoil,... rock, sand, [and] cellar dirt,” § 1362(6). And, most relevant here, the CWA defines “navigable waters” as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” § 1362(7).
The Act also provides certain exceptions to its prohibition of “the discharge of any pollutant by any person.” § 1311(a). Section 1342(a) authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to “issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant,... notwithstanding section 1311(a) of this title.” Section 1344 authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Corps, to “issue permits... for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites.” § 1344(a), (d). It is the discharge of “dredged or fill material” — which, unlike traditional water pollutants, are solids that do not readily wash downstream — that we consider today.
For a century prior to the CWA, we had interpreted the phrase “navigable waters of the United States” in the Act’s predecessor statutes to refer to interstate waters that are “navigable in fact” or readily susceptible of being rendered so. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 563 (1871); see also United States v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 406 (1940). After passage of the CWA, the Corps initially adopted this traditional judicial definition for the Act’s term “navigable waters.” See 39 Fed. Reg. 12119, codified at 33 CFR § 209.120(d)(1) (1974); see also Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U. S. 159, 168 (2001) (SWANCC). After a District Court enjoined these regulations as too narrow, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway, 392 F. Supp. 685, 686 (DC 1975), the Corps adopted a far broader definition. See 40 Fed. Reg. 31324-31325 (1975); 42 Fed. Reg. 37144 (1977). The Corps’ new regulations deliberately sought to extend the definition of “the waters of the United States” to the outer limits of Congress’s commerce power. See id., at 37144, n. 2.
The Corps’ current regulations interpret “the waters of the United States” to include, in addition to traditional interstate navigable waters, 33 CFR § 328.3(a)(1) (2004), “[a]ll interstate waters including interstate wetlands,” § 328.3(a)(2); “[a]ll other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce,” § 328.3(a)(3); “[tributaries of [such] waters,” § 328.3(a)(5); and “[w]etlands adjacent to [such] waters [and tributaries] (other than waters that are themselves wetlands),” § 328.3(a)(7). The regulation defines “adjacent” wetlands as those “bordering, contiguous [to], or neighboring” waters of the United States. § 328.3(c). It specifically provides that “[w]etlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are 'adjacent wetlands.’” Ibid.
We first addressed the proper interpretation of 33 U. S. C. §1362(7)’s phrase “the waters of the United States” in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U. S. 121 (1985). That case concerned a wetland that “was adjacent to a body of navigable water,” because “the area characterized by saturated soil conditions and wetland vegetation extended beyond the boundary of respondent’s property to... a navigable waterway.” Id., at 131; see also 33 CFR § 328.3(b). Noting that “the transition from water to solid ground is not necessarily or even typically an abrupt one,” and that “the Corps must necessarily choose some point at which water ends and land begins,” 474 U. S., at 132, we upheld the Corps’ interpretation of “the waters of the United States” to include wetlands that “actually abut[ted] on” traditional navigable waters. Id., at 135.
Following our decision in Riverside Bayview, the Corps adopted increasingly broad interpretations of its own regulations under the Act. For example, in 1986, to “clarify” the reach of its jurisdiction, the Corps announced the so-called “Migratory Bird Rule,” which purported to extend its jurisdiction to any intrastate waters “[wjhich are or would be used as habitat” by migratory birds. 51 Fed. Reg. 41217; see also SWANCC, supra, at 163-164. In addition, the Corps interpreted its own regulations to include “ephemeral streams” and “drainage ditches” as “tributaries” that are part of the “waters of the United States,” see 33 CFR § 328.3(a)(5), provided that they have a perceptible “ordinary high water mark” as defined in § 328.3(e). 65 Fed. Reg. 12823 (2000). This interpretation extended “the waters of the United States” to virtually any land feature over which rainwater or drainage passes and leaves a visible mark— even if only “the presence of litter and debris.” 33 CFR § 328.3(e). See also U. S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulating Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Waters and Wetlands: Corps of Engineers Needs to Evaluate Its District Office Practices in Determining Jurisdiction, GAO-04-297, pp. 20-22 (Feb. 2004) (hereinafter GAO Report), http:// www.gao.gov/new.items/d04297.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2006, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Prior to our decision in SWANCC, lower courts upheld the application of this expansive definition of “tributaries” to such entities as storm sewers that contained flow to covered waters during heavy rainfall, United States v. Eidson, 108 F. 3d 1336, 1340-1342 (CA11 1997), and dry arroyos connected to remote waters through the flow of groundwater over “centuries,” Quivira Mining Co. v. EPA, 765 F. 2d 126, 129 (CA10 1985).
In SWANCC, we considered the application of the Corps’ “Migratory Bird Rule” to “an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois.” 531 U. S., at 162. Observing that “[i]t was the significant nexus between the wetlands and ‘navigable waters’ that informed our reading of the CWA in Riverside Bayview,” id., at 167 (emphasis added), we held that Riverside Bayview did not establish “that the jurisdiction of the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water,” 531 U. S., at 168 (emphasis deleted). On the contrary, we held that “nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters,” id., at 171 — which, unlike the wetlands at issue in Riverside Bayview, did not “actually abu[t] on a navigable waterway,” 531 U. S., at 167 — were not included as “waters of the United States.”
Following our decision in SWANCC, the Corps did not significantly revise its theory of federal jurisdiction under § 1344(a). The Corps provided notice of a proposed rule-making in light of SWANCC, 68 Fed. Reg. 1991 (2003), but ultimately did not amend its published regulations. Because SWANCC did not directly address tributaries, the Corps notified its field staff that they “should continue to assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters... and, generally speaking, their tributary systems (and adjacent wetlands).” 68 Fed. Reg. 1998. In addition, because SWANCC did not overrule Riverside Bayview, the Corps continues to assert jurisdiction over waters “ ‘neighboring’ ” traditional navigable waters and their tributaries. 68 Fed. Reg. 1997 (quoting 33 CFR § 328.3(c) (2002)).
Even after SWANCC, the lower courts have continued to uphold the Corps’ sweeping assertions of jurisdiction over ephemeral channels and drains as “tributaries.” For example, courts have held that jurisdictional “tributaries” include the “intermittent flow of surface water through approximately 2.4 miles of natural streams and manmade ditches (paralleling and crossing under 1-64),” Treacy v. Newdunn Assoc., 344 F. 3d 407, 410 (CA4 2003); a “roadside ditch” whose water took “a winding, thirty-two-mile path to the Chesapeake Bay,” United States v. Deaton, 332 F. 3d 698, 702 (CA4 2003); irrigation ditches and drains that intermittently connect to covered waters, Community Assn. for Restoration of Environment v. Henry Bosma Dairy, 305 F. 3d 943, 954-955 (CA9 2002); Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation Dist., 243 F. 3d 526, 534 (CA9 2001); and (most implausibly of all) the “washes and arroyos” of an “arid development site,” located in the middle of the desert, through which “water courses... during periods of heavy rain,” Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F. 3d 1113, 1118 (CA9 2005).
These judicial constructions of “tributaries” are not outliers. Rather, they reflect the breadth of the Corps’ determinations in the field. The Corps’ enforcement practices vary somewhat from district to district because “the definitions used to make jurisdictional determinations” are deliberately left “vague.” GAO Report 26; see also id., at 22. But district offices of the Corps have treated, as “waters of the United States,” such typically dry land features as “arroyos, coulees, and washes,” as well as other “channels that might have little water flow in a given year.” Id., at 20-21. They have also applied that definition to such man-made, intermittently flowing features as “drain tiles, storm drains systems, and culverts.” Id., at 24 (footnote omitted).
In addition to “tributaries,” the Corps and the lower courts have also continued to define “adjacent” wetlands broadly after SWANCC. For example, some of the Corps’ district offices have concluded, that wetlands are “adjacent” to covered waters if they are hydrologically connected “through directional sheet flow during storm events,” GAO Report 18, or if they lie within the “100-year floodplain” of a body of water — that is, they are connected to the navigable water by flooding, on average, once every 100 years, id., at 17, and n. 16. Others have concluded that presence within 200 feet of a tributary automatically renders a wetland “adjacent” and jurisdictional. Id., at 19. And the Corps has successfully defended such theories of “adjacency” in the courts, even after SWANCC’s excision of “isolated” waters and wetlands from the Act’s coverage. One court has held since SWANCC that wetlands separated from flood control channels by 70-foot-wide berms, atop which ran maintenance roads, had a “significant nexus” to covered waters because, inter alia, they lay “within the 100 year floodplain of tidal waters.” Baccarat Fremont Developers, LLC v. Army Corps of Engineers, 425 F. 3d 1150, 1152, 1157 (CA9 2005). In one of the cases before us today, the Sixth Circuit held, in agreement with “[t]he majority of courts,” that “while a hydrological connection between the non-navigable and navigable waters is required, there is no ‘direct abutment’ requirement” under SWANCC for “‘adjacency.’” 376 F. 3d 629, 639 (2004) (Rapanos II). And even the most insubstantial hydrologic connection may be held to constitute a “significant nexus.” One court distinguished SWANCC on the ground that “a molecule of water residing in one of these pits or ponds [in SWANCC] could not mix with molecules from other bodies of water” — whereas, in the case before it, “water molecules currently present in the wetlands will inevitably flow towards and mix with water from connecting bodies,” and “[a] drop of rainwater landing in the Site is certain to intermingle with water from the [nearby river].” United States v. Rueth Development Co., 189 F. Supp. 2d 874, 877-878 (ND Ind. 2002).
II
In these consolidated cases, we consider whether four Michigan wetlands, which lie near ditches or man-made drains that eventually empty into traditional navigable waters, constitute “waters of the United States” within the meaning of the Act. Petitioners in No. 04-1034, the Rápanos and their affiliated businesses, deposited fill material without a permit into wetlands on three sites near Midland, Michigan: the “Salzburg site,” the “Hines Road site,” and the “Pine River site.” The wetlands at the Salzburg site are connected to a man-made drain, which drains into Hoppler Creek, which flows into the Kawkawlin River, which empties into Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron. See Brief for United States in No. 04-1034, p. 11; 339 F. 3d, at 449. The wetlands at the Hines Road site are connected to something called the “Rose Drain,” which has a surface connection to the Tittabawassee River. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 04-1034, pp. A23, B20. And the wetlands at the Pine River site have a surface connection to the Pine River, which flows into Lake Huron. Id., at A23-A24, B26. It is not clear whether the connections between these wetlands and the nearby drains and ditches are continuous or intermittent, or whether the nearby drains and ditches contain continuous or merely occasional flows of water.
The United States brought civil enforcement proceedings against the Rapanos petitioners. The District Court found that the three described wetlands were “within federal jurisdiction” because they were “ 'adjacent to other waters of the United States,’ ” and held petitioners liable for violations of the CWA at those sites. Id., at B32-B35. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that there was federal jurisdiction over the wetlands at all three sites because “there were hydrological connections between all three sites and corresponding adjacent tributaries of navigable waters.” 376 F. 3d, at 643.
Petitioners in No. 04-1384, the Carabells, were denied a permit to deposit fill material in a wetland located on a triangular parcel of land about one mile from Lake St. Clair. A man-made drainage ditch runs along one side of the wetland, separated from it by a 4-foot-wide man-made berm. The berm is largely or entirely impermeable to water and blocks drainage from the wetland, though it may permit occasional overflow to the ditch. The ditch empties into another ditch or a drain, which connects to Auvase Creek, which empties into Lake St. Clair. See App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 04-1384, pp. 2a-3a.
After exhausting administrative appeals, the Carabell petitioners filed suit in the District Court, challenging the exercise of federal regulatory jurisdiction over their site. The District Court ruled that there was federal jurisdiction because the wetland “is adjacent to neighboring tributaries of navigable waters and has a significant nexus to ‘waters of the United States.’” Id., at 49a. Again the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Carabell wetland was “adjacent” to navigable waters. 391 F. 3d 704, 708 (2004) (Carabell).
We granted certiorari and consolidated the cases, 546 U. S. 932 (2005), to decide whether these wetlands constitute “waters of the United States” under the Act, and if so, whether the Act is constitutional.
Ill
The Rapanos petitioners contend that the terms “navigable waters” and “waters of the United States” in the Act must be limited to the traditional definition of The Daniel Ball, which required that the “waters” be navigable in fact, or susceptible of being rendered so. See 10 Wall, at 563. But this definition cannot be applied wholesale to the CWA. The Act uses the phrase “navigable waters” as a defined term, and the definition is simply “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. § 1362(7). Moreover, the Act provides, in certain circumstances, for the substitution of state for federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters... other than those waters which are presently used, or are susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce... including wetlands adjacent thereto.” § 1344(g)(1) (emphasis added). This provision shows that the Act’s term “navigable waters” includes something more than traditional navigable waters. We have twice stated that the meaning of “navigable waters” in the Act is broader than the traditional understanding of that term, SWANCC, 531 U. S., at 167; Riverside Bayview, 474 U. S., at 133. We have also emphasized, however, that the qualifier “navigable” is not devoid of significance, SWANCC, supra, at 172.
We need not decide the precise extent to which the qualifiers “navigable” and “of the United States” restrict the coverage of the Act. Whatever the scope of these qualifiers, the CWA authorizes federal jurisdiction only over “waters.” 33 U. S. C. § 1362(7). The only natural definition of the term “waters,” our prior and subsequent judicial constructions of it, clear evidence from other provisions of the statute, and this Court’s canons of construction all confirm that “the waters of the United States” in § 1362(7) cannot bear the expansive meaning that the Corps would give it.
The Corps’ expansive approach might be arguable if the CWA defined “navigable waters” as “water of ±he United States.” But “the waters of the United States” is something else. The use of the definite article (“the”) and the plural number (“waters”) shows plainly that § 1362(7) does not refer to water in general. In this form, “the waters” refers more narrowly to water “[a]s found in streams and bodies forming geographical features such as oceans, rivers, [and] lakes,” or “the flowing or moving masses, as of waves or floods, making up such streams or bodies.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2882 (2d ed. 1954) (hereinafter Webster’s Second). On this definition, “the waters of the United States” include only relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water. The definition refers to water as found in “streams,” “oceans,” “rivers,” “lakes,” and “bodies” of water “forming geographical features.” Ibid. All of these terms connote continuously present, fixed bodies of water, as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows. Even the least substantial of the definition’s terms, namely, “streams,” connotes a continuous flow of water in a permanent channel— especially when used in company with other terms such as “rivers,” “lakes,” and “oceans.” None of these terms encompasses transitory puddles or ephemeral flows of water.
The restriction of “the waters of the United States” to exclude channels containing merely intermittent or ephemeral flow also accords with the commonsense understanding of the term. In applying the definition to “ephemeral streams,” “wet meadows,” storm sewers and culverts, “directional sheet flow during storm events,” drain tiles, man-made drainage ditches, and dry arroyos in the middle of the desert, the Corps has stretched the term “waters of the United States” beyond parody. The plain language of the statute simply does not authorize this “Land Is Waters” approach to federal jurisdiction.
In addition, the Act’s use of the traditional phrase “navigable waters” (the defined term) further confirms that it confers jurisdiction only over relatively permanent bodies of water. The Act adopted that traditional term from its predecessor statutes. See SWANCC, 531 U. S., at 180 (Stevens, J., dissenting). On the traditional understanding, “navigable waters” included only discrete bodies of water. For example, in The Daniel Ball, we used the terms “waters” and “rivers” interchangeably. 10 Wall., at 563. And in Appalachian Electric, we consistently referred to the “navigable waters” as “waterways.” 311 U. S., at 407-409. Plainly, because such “waters” had to be navigable in fact or susceptible of being rendered so, the term did not include ephemeral flows. As we noted in SWANCC, the traditional term “navigable waters” — even though defined as “the waters of the United States” — carries some of its original substance: “[I]t is one thing to give a word limited effect and quite another to give it no effect whatever.” 531 U. S., at 172. That limited effect includes, at bare minimum, the ordinary presence of water.
Our subsequent interpretation of the phrase “the waters of the United States” in the CWA likewise confirms this limitation of its scope. In Riverside Bayview, we stated that the phrase in the Act referred primarily to “rivers, streams, and other hydrographic features more conventionally identifiable as ‘waters’” than the wetlands adjacent to such features. 474 U. S., at 131 (emphasis added). We thus echoed the dictionary definition of “waters” as referring to “streams and bodies forming geographical features such as oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.” Webster’s Second 2882 (emphasis added). Though we upheld in that case the inclusion of wetlands abutting such a “hydrographic featur[e]” — principally due to the difficulty of drawing any clear boundary between the two, see 474 U. S., at 132; Part IV, infra — nowhere did we suggest that “the waters of the United States” should be expanded to include, in their own right, entities other than “hydrographic features more conventionally identifiable as ‘waters,’” id., at 131. Likewise, in both Riverside Bayview and SWANCC, we repeatedly described the “navigable waters” covered by the Act as “open water” and “open waters.” See Riverside Bayview, supra, at 132, and n. 8, 134; SWANCC, supra, at 167, 172. Under no rational interpretation are typically dry channels described as “open waters.”
Most significant of all, the CWA itself categorizes the channels and conduits that typicálly carry intermittent flows of water separately from “navigable waters,” by including them in the definition of “ ‘point source.’ ” The Act defines “ ‘point source’” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” 33 U. S. C. § 1362(14). It also defines “ ‘discharge of a pollutant’ ” as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” §1362(12)(A) (emphasis added). The definitions thus conceive of “point sources” and “navigable waters” as separate and distinct categories. The definition of “discharge” would make little sense if the two categories were significantly overlapping. The separate classification of “ditch[es], channels], and conduit[s]” — which are terms ordinarily used to describe the watercourses through which intermittent waters typically flow — shows that these are, by and large, not “waters of the United States.”
Moreover, only the foregoing definition of “waters” is consistent with the CWA’s stated “policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, [and] to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources... § 1251(b). This statement of policy was included in the Act as enacted in 1972, see 86 Stat. 816, prior to the addition of the optional state administration program in the 1977 amendments, see 91 Stat. 1601. Thus the policy plainly referred to something beyond the subsequently added state administration program of 33 U. S. C. § 1344(g)-(Z). But the expansive theory advanced by the Corps, rather than “preserving] the primary rights and responsibilities of the States,” would have brought virtually all “plan[ning of] the development and use... of land and water resources” by the States under federal control. It is therefore an unlikely reading of the phrase “the waters of the United States.”
Even if the phrase “the waters of the United States” were ambiguous as applied to intermittent flows, our own canons of construction would establish that the Corps’ interpretation of the statute is impermissible. As we noted in SWANCC, the Government’s expansive interpretation would “result in a significant impingement of the States’ traditional and primary power over land and water use.” 531 U. S., at 174. Regulation of land use, as through the issuance of the development permits sought by petitioners in both of these cases, is a quintessential state and local power. See FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742, 767-768, n. 30 (1982); Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 513 U. S. 30, 44 (1994). The extensive federal jurisdiction urged by the Government would authorize the Corps to function as a de facto regulator of immense stretches of intrastate land — an authority the agency has shown its willingness to exercise with the scope of discretion that would befit a local zoning board. See 33 CFR § 320.4(a)(1) (2004). We ordinarily expect a “clear and manifest” statement from Congress to authorize an unprecedented intrusion into traditional state authority. See BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation, 511 U. S. 531, 544 (1994). The phrase “the waters of the United States” hardly qualifies.
Likewise, just as we noted in SWANCC, the Corps’ interpretation stretches the outer limits of Congress’s commerce power and raises difficult questions about the ultimate scope of that power. See 531 U. S., at 173. (In developing the current regulations, the Corps consciously sought to extend its authority to the farthest reaches of the commerce power. See 42 Fed. Reg. 37127 (1977).) Even if the term “the waters of the United States” were ambiguous as applied to channels that sometimes host ephemeral flows of water (which it is not), we would expect a clearer statement from Congress to authorize an agency theory of jurisdiction that presses the envelope of constitutional validity. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988).
In sum, on its only plausible interpretation, the phrase “the waters of the United States” includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water “forming geographic features” that are described in ordinary parlance as “streams[,]... oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.” See Webster’s Second 2882. The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. The Corps’ expansive interpretation of the “the waters of the United States” is thus not “based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984).
IV
In Carabell, the Sixth Circuit held that the nearby ditch constituted a “tributary” and thus a “water of the United States” under 33 CFR § 328.3(a)(5). See 391 F. 3d, at 708-709. Likewise in Rapanos II, the Sixth Circuit held that the nearby ditches were “tributaries” under § 328.3(a)(5). 376 F. 3d, at 643. But Rapanos II also stated that, even if the ditches were not “waters of the United States,” the wetlands were “adjacent” to remote traditional navigable waters in virtue of the wetlands’ “hydrological connection” to them. See id., at 639-640. This statement reflects the practice of the Corps’ district offices, which may “assert jurisdiction over a wetland without regulating the ditch connecting it to a water of the United States.” GAO Report 23. We therefore address in this Part whether a wetland may be considered
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, respondent Jackie Gainey was convicted of violating 26 U. S. C. § 5601 (a)(1) (possession, custody or control of a set up, unregistered still and distilling apparatus) and 26 U. S. C. § 5601 (a) (4) (carrying on “the business of a distiller or rectifier without having given bond as required by law”)- In the course of his instructions the trial judge informed the jury of two statutory provisions which authorize a jury to infer guilt of the substantive offenses from the fact of a defendant’s unexplained presence at the site of an illegal still. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the convictions on the ground that these statutory inferences are unconstitutional, because it thought the connection between unexplained presence at an illegal still and the substantive offenses of “possession” and “carrying on” is insufficiently rational to satisfy the due process requirements formulated by this Court in Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463. We granted certiorari, sub nom. United States v. Barrett, to review the exercise of the grave power of annulling an Act of Congress. 375 U. S. 962.
If either statutory inference is valid, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed, because concurrent sentences were imposed by the District Court. Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190, 195; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 299 (1929). We find the inference authorized by § 5601 (b) (2) constitutionally permissible, and therefore reverse the judgment without reaching the validity of § 5601 (b)(1).
The legislative record shows that Congress enacted these provisions because of “the practical impossibility of proving . . . actual participation in the illegal activities except by inference drawn from [the defendant’s] presence when the illegal acts were committed . ...” The statutes were passed against a backdrop of varying formulations among the Circuits of the standards which should shape a trial judge’s instructions to a jury in telling it what weight to accord the fact of a defendant’s unexplained presence at an illegal still site. Long before 1958, the year the statutes were enacted, trial judges had been instructing juries that a defendant’s presence at a still could be considered by them in determining whether the defendant had participated in carrying on the illegal operation. Barton v. United States, 267 F. 174, 175-176 (C. A. 4th Cir.). Compare Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613. The Fourth Circuit had endorsed such a charge. Barton v. United States, supra. In the Third and Fifth Circuits the precedents were less clear. See Graceffo v. United States, 46 F. 2d 852 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Fowler v. United States, 234 F. 2d 697, 699 (C. A. 5th Cir.).
The variations among the courts of appeals concerned the reasonableness of inferring guilt of the substantive offense from the fact of unexplained presence at the site of the criminal enterprise. It is that question which Congress has now resolved in favor of the established practice of trial judges to include the inference in their charges. And it is the same question of reasonableness which the petitioner asks this Court to determine in passing on the constitutionality of § 5601 (b)(2).
As the Court of Appeals correctly stated in this case, the constitutionality of the legislation depends upon the rationality of the connection “between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed.” Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 466. The process of making the determination of rationality is, by its nature, highly empirical, and in matters not within specialized judicial competence or completely commonplace, significant weight should be accorded the capacity of Congress to amass the stuff of actual experience and cull conclusions from it. As the record in the Circuits shows, courts have differed in assessing the weight to be placed upon the fact of the defendant’s unexplained presence at a still. See United States v. Freeman, 286 F. 2d 262 (C. A. 4th Cir.). Yet it is precisely when courts have been unable to agree as to the exact relevance of a frequently occurring fact in an atmosphere pregnant with illegality that Congress’ resolution is appropriate.
The rationality of the inference provided by § 5601 (b) (2) must be viewed in the context of the broad substantive offense it supports. Section 5601 (a)(4) proscribes “carrying on” the enterprise of illegal distillation — an offense which is one of the most comprehensive of the criminal statutes designed to stop the production and sale of untaxed liquor. See Vukich v. United States, 28 F. 2d 666, 669 (C. A. 9th Cir.). Those who aid and abet the enterpriser come within the statute’s reach by virtue of 18 U. S. C. § 2 (1958 ed.). United States v. Giuliano, 263 F. 2d 582 (C. A. 3d Cir.). Suppliers, haulers, and a host of other functionaries have been convicted under the statute. See United States v. Pritchard, 55 F. Supp. 201 (D. C. W. D. S. C.), aff’d, 145 F. 2d 240 (C. A. 4th Cir.). Congress was undoubtedly aware that manufacturers of illegal liquor are notorious for the deftness with which they locate arcane spots for plying their trade. Legislative recognition of the implications of seclusion only confirms what the folklore teaches — that strangers to the illegal business rarely penetrate the curtain of secrecy. We therefore hold that § 5601 (b) (2) satisfies the test of Tot v. United States, supra.
But it is said that this statute is unconstitutional upon a different ground — that it impinges upon the trial judge’s powers over the judicial proceeding. We cannot agree. Our Constitution places in the hands of the trial judge the responsibility for safeguarding the integrity of the jury trial, including the right to have a case withheld from the jury when the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction. The statute before us deprives the trial judge of none of his normal judicial powers. We do not interpret the provision in the statute that unexplained “presence . . . shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction” as in any way invading the province of the judge’s discretion. The language permits the judge to submit a case to the jury on the basis of the accused’s presence alone, and to this extent it constitutes congressional recognition that the fact of presence does have probative worth in the determination of guilt. But where the only evidence is of presence the statute does not require the judge to submit the case to the jury, nor does it preclude the grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. And the Court of Appeals may still review the trial judge's denial of motions for a directed verdict or for a judgment n. o. v.
The statute does not prevent the jury from being “properly instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt.” Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, 139. In this case, the trial judge instructed the jury as follows:
“There is one other matter which I should mention. I charge you that the presence of defendants at a still, if proved, with or without flight therefrom, or attempted flight therefrom, if proved, would be a circumstance for you to consider along with all the other testimony in the case. Of course, the bare presence at a distillery and flight therefrom of an innocent man is not in and of itself enough to make him guilty. It is possible under the law for an innocent man to be present at a distillery, and it is possible for him to run when about to be apprehended, and such an innocent man ought never to be convicted, but presence at a distillery, if you think these men were present, is a circumstance to be considered along with all the other circumstances in the case in determining whether they were connected with the distillery or not. Did they have any equipment with them that was necessary at the distillery? What was the hour of day that they were there? Did the officers see them do anything? Did they make any statements?
“It is your duty to explore this case, analyze the evidence pro and con fairly. Presence at a still, together with other circumstances in the case, if they are sufficient in your opinion to exclude every reasonable conclusion except that they were there connected with the distillery, in an illegal manner, . . . carrying on the business as charged . . . , if you believe those things, would authorize you in finding the defendants guilty.
“And under a statute enacted by Congress a few years back, when a person is on trial for . . . carrying on the business of a distiller without giving bond as required by law, as charged in this case, and the defendant is shown to have been at the site of the place . . . where and at the time when the business of a distiller was engaged in or carried on without bond having been given, under the law such presence of the defendant shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant by the evidence in the case and by proven facts and circumstances explains such presence to the satisfaction of the jury.
“Now this does not mean that the presence of the defendant at the site and place at the time referred to requires the jury to convict the defendant, if the defendant by the evidence in the case, facts and cir-circumstances proved, fails to explain his presence to the satisfaction of the jury. It simply means that a jury may, if it sees fit, convict upon such evidence, as it shall be deemed in law sufficient to authorize a conviction, but does not require such a result.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The jury was thus specifically told that the statutory inference was not conclusive. “Presence” was one circumstance to be considered among many. Even if it found that the defendant had been present at the still, and that his presence remained unexplained, the jury could nonetheless acquit him if it found that the Government had not proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Holland v. United States, supra. In the absence of the statute, such an instruction to the jury would surely have been permissible. Cf. Wilson v. United States, supra. Furthermore, in the context of the instructions as a whole, we do not consider that the single phrase “unless the defendant by the evidence in the case and by proven facts and circumstances explains such presence to the satisfaction of the jury” can be fairly understood as a comment on the petitioner’s failure to testify. Cf. Bruno v. United States, 308 U. S. 287. The judge’s overall reference was carefully directed to the evidence as a whole, with neither allusion nor innuendo based on the defendant’s decision not to take the stand.
In McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U. S. 520, 525, the Court approved a proceeding which did no more than “accord to the evidence, if unexplained, its natural probative force.” That is all that Congress has done here. We cannot find that the law it enacted violates the Constitution.
Reversed.
The evidence for the prosecution showed that an old Dodge truck with darkened headlights drove up to the site of a secluded still, hidden in a swamp in Dooly County, Georgia. The respondent, Jackie Gainey, left the truck, turned on a flashlight, and walked toward the still. There he was confronted by state and federal revenue agents. The respondent attempted to flee, but after a short chase, he and his waiting colleagues were apprehended. Since the trial, one of Gainey’s co-defendants, Roy Lee Barrett, has died; the other, Cleveland Johns, elected to serve and has completed his sentence.
Section 5601 (b)(1) provides:
“(1) Unregistered stills.
“Whenever on trial for violation of subsection (a) (1) the defendant is shown to have been at the site or place where, and at the time when, a still or distilling apparatus was set up without having been registered, such presence of the defendant shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant explains such presence to the satisfaction of the jury (or of the court when tried without jury).”
Section 5601 (b)(2) provides:
“(2) Failure or refusal of distiller or rectifier to give bond.
“Whenever on trial for violation of subsection (a) (4) the defendant is shown to have been at the site or place where, and at the time when, the business of a distiller or rectifier was so engaged in or carried on, such presence of the defendant shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant explains such presence to the satisfaction of the jury (or of the court when tried without jury).”
These sections were introduced into the Code in 1958. The statutory inferences are modeled after 18 U. S. C. §545 (1958 ed.), originally § 4 of the Smuggling Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 178, 179. Similar wording appears in 21 U. S. C. § 174 (1958 ed.), the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act of 1909, 35 Stat. 614, the constitutionality of which was sustained in Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178.
A third count charged a violation of § 5602, which prohibits carrying on the business of a distiller with intent to defraud the United States. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on this count also, and the Government did not seek review of this reversal. A fourth count, charging that the defendants, in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 5180 (1958 ed.), worked in a distillery on which no sign was placed showing the name of the person engaged in the distilling, resulted in a directed verdict of acquittal.
Hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means on Excise Tax Technical and Administrative Problems, Part 3, p. 95, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.
Bozza v. United States, 330 U. S. 160, contributed to congressional concern. See Hearings, note 4, supra. But that case did not deal with the problem of presence alone as insufficient evidence where the substantive offense is “carrying on” the enterprise of illegal distillation. Bozza’s conviction for “carrying on” the enterprise of illegal distillation was affirmed by this Court.
“Very few of the illicit distillers allow any one, except their most intimate friends, to approach their distilleries. Such places, as a rule, are forbidden ground, for the reason that when the violators are arrested it is a difficult matter to prove them guilty, when so few persons have ever seen them operating their distilleries.” Atkinson, After the Moonshiners, By One of the Raiders, at p. 23.
“The first requisite for an illicit still is a good stream of cool water. . . .
“The next requisite is seclusion. It must be placed where no one ever travels, or even thinks of traveling.” Id., at p. 18.
Indeed the better practice would be to instruct the jurors that they may draw the inference unless the evidence in the case provides a satisfactory explanation for the defendant’s presence at the still, omitting any explicit reference to the statute itself in the charge.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
I
On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. It also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote totals of 215 votes identified in Palm Beach County and 168 votes identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic candidates for President and Vice President. The State Supreme Court noted that petitioner George W. Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243, 1248, n. 6. The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican candidates for President and Vice President, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. Post, p. 1046.
The proceedings leading to the present controversy are discussed in some detail in our opinion in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. 70 (per curiam) (Bush I). On November 8,2000, the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that petitioner Bush had received 2,909,135 votes, and respondent Gore had received 2,907,351 votes, a margin of 1,784 for Governor Bush. Because Governor Bush’s margin of victory was less than “one-half of a percent... of the votes cast,” an automatic machine recount was conducted under § 102.141(4) of the Florida Election Code, the results of which showed Governor Bush still winning the race but by a diminished margin. Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida’s election protest provisions. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 102.166 (Supp. 2001). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based. Bush I, ante, at 78. On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1273, 1290.
On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and declared Governor Bush the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. On November 27, Vice President Gore, pursuant to Florida’s contest provisions, filed a complaint in Leon County Circuit Court contesting the certification. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 102.168 (Supp. 2001). He sought relief pursuant to § 102.168(3)(c), which provides that “[Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election” shall be grounds for a contest. The Circuit Court denied relief, stating that Vice President Gore failed to meet his burden of proof. He appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court.
Accepting jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (2000). The court held that the Circuit Court had been correct to reject Vice President Gore’s challenge to the results certified in Nassau County and his challenge to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board’s determination that 3,300 ballots cast in that county were not, in the statutory phrase, “legal votes.”
The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under § 102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (“under-votes”). Id., at 1256. Noting the closeness of the election, the court explained that “[o]n this record, there can be no question that there are legal votes within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of this election in doubt.” Id., at 1261. A “legal vote,” as determined by the Supreme Court, is “one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter.’ ” Id., at 1257. The court therefore ordered a hand recount of the 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. Observing that the contest provisions vest broad discretion in the circuit judge to “provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances,” §102.168(8), the Supreme Court further held that the Circuit Court could order “the Supervisor of Elections and the Canvassing Boards, as well as the necessary public officials, in all counties that have not conducted a manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes ... to do so forthwith, said tabulation to take place in the individual counties where the ballots are located.” Id., at 1262.
The Supreme Court also determined that Palm Beach County and Miami-Dade County, in their earlier manual recounts, had identified a net gain of 215 and 168 legal votes, respectively, for Vice President Gore. Id., at 1260. Rejecting the Circuit Court’s conclusion that Palm Beach County lacked the authority to include the 215 net votes submitted past the November 26 deadline, the Supreme Court explained that the deadline was not intended to exclude votes identified after that date through ongoing manual recounts. As to Miami-Dade County, the court concluded that although the 168 votes identified were the result of a partial recount, they were “legal votes [that] could change the outcome of the election.” Ibid. The Supreme Court therefore directed the Circuit Court to include those totals in the certified results, subject to resolution of the actual vote total from the Miami-Dade partial recount.
The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U. S. C. § 5, and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
II
A
The closeness of this election, and the multitude of legal challenges which have followed in its wake, have brought into sharp focus a common, if heretofore unnoticed, phenomenon. Nationwide statistics reveal that an estimated 2% of ballots cast do not register a vote for President for whatever reason, including deliberately choosing no candidate at all or some voter error, such as voting for two candidates or insufficiently marking a ballot. See Ho, More Than 2M Ballots Uncounted, AP Online (Nov. 28,2000); Kelley, Balloting Problems Not Rare But Only in a Very Close Election Do Mistakes and Mismarking Make a Difference, Omaha World-Herald (Nov. 15,2000). In certifying election results, the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements.
This case has shown that punchcard balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. After the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting.
B
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 85 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another. See, e. g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).
There is no difference between the two sides of the present controversy on these basic propositions. Respondents say that the very purpose of vindicating the right to vote justifies the recount procedures now at issue. The question before us, however, is whether the recount procedures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.
Much of the controversy seems to revolve around ballot cards designed to be perforated by a stylus but which, either through error or deliberate omission, have not been perforated with sufficient precision for a machine to register the perforations. In some cases a piece of the card — a chad — is hanging, say, by two corners. In other cases there is no separation at all, just an indentation.
The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from such ballots. For purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it is not necessary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition. The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for nonarbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” 772 So. 2d, at 1262. This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.
The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the actor in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to believe a witness but how to interpret the marks or holes or scratches on an inanimate object, a piece of cardboard or paper which, it is said, might not have registered as a vote during the machine count. The factfinder confronts a thing, not a person. The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.
The want of those rules here has led to unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects. See id., at 1267 (Wells, C. J., dissenting) (“Should a county canvassing board count or not count a ‘dimpled chad’ where the voter is able to successfully dislodge the chad in every other contest on that ballot? Here, the county canvassing boards disagree”). As seems to have been acknowledged at oral argument, the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another.
The record provides some examples. A monitor in Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment.
An early case in our one-person, one-vote jurisprudence arose when a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its different counties. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368 (1963). The Court found a constitutional violation. We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that “[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.
The State Supreme Court ratified this uneven treatment. It mandated that the recount totals from two counties, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, be included in the certified total. The court also appeared to. hold sub silentio that the recount totals from Broward County, which were not completed until after the original November 14 certification by the Secretary, were to be considered part of the new certified vote totals even though the county certification was not contested by Vice President Gore. Yet each of the counties used varying standards to determine what was a legal vote. Broward County used a more forgiving standard than Palm Beach County, and uncovered almost three times as many new votes, a result markedly disproportionate to the difference in population between the counties.
In addition, the recounts in these three counties were not limited to so-called undervotes but extended to all of the ballots. The distinction has real consequences. A manual recount of all ballots identifies not only those ballots which show no vote but also those which contain more than one, the so-called overvotes. Neither category will be counted by the machine. This is not a trivial concern. At oral argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a machine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernible by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent. Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernible by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot. The State Supreme Court’s inclusion of vote counts based on these variant standards exemplifies concerns with the remedial processes that were under way.
That brings the analysis to yet a further equal protection problem. The votes certified by the court included a partial total from one county, Miami-Dade. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision thus gives no assurance that the recounts included in a final certification must be complete. Indeed, it is respondents’ submission that it would be consistent with the rules of the recount procedures to include whatever partial counts are done by the time of final certification, and we interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to permit this. See 772 So. 2d, at 1261-1262, n. 21 (noting “practical difficulties” may control outcome of election, but certifying partial Miami-Dade total nonetheless). This accommodation no doubt results from the truncated contest period established by the Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, at respondents’ own urging. The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.
In addition to these difficulties the actual process by which the votes were to be counted under the Florida Supreme Court’s decision raises further concerns. That order did not specify who would recount the ballots. The county canvassing boards were forced to pull together ad hoc teams of judges from various Circuits who had no previous training in handling and interpreting ballots. Furthermore, while others were permitted to observe, they were prohibited from objecting during the recount.
The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.
Given the Court’s assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision. The contest provision, as it was mandated by the State Supreme Court, is not well calculated to sustain the confidence that all citizens must have in the outcome of elections. The State has not shown that its procedures include the necessary safeguards. The problem, for instance, of the estimated 110,000 overvotes has not been addressed, although Chief Justice Wells called attention to the concern in his dissenting opinion. See 772 So. 2d, at 1264, n. 26.
Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary, as required by Fla. Stat. Ann. §101.015 (Supp. 2001).
The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participate] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U. S. C. § 5. 772 So. 2d, at 1289; see also Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1220, 1237 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.
Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 134 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 145-146 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U. S. C. §5, Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy — remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18 — contemplates action in violation of the Florida Election Code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. Ann. §102.168(8) (Supp. 2001).
* * *
None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the Members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith.
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once again the Court is required to consider the impact of New York’s motion picture licensing law upon First Amendment liberties, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Cf. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495.
The New York statute makes it unlawful “to exhibit, or to sell, lease or lend for exhibition at any place of amusement for pay or in connection with any business in the state of New York, any motion picture film or reel [with certain exceptions not relevant here], unless there is at the time in full force and effect a valid license or permit therefor of the education department. . . .” The law provides that a license shall issue “unless such film or a part'thereof is obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious, or is of such a character that its exhibition would tend to corrupt morals or incite to crime----” A recent statutory amendment provides that, “the.term ‘immoral’ and the phrase ‘of such a character that its exhibition woúld tend to corrupt morals’ shall denote a motion picture film or part thereof, the dominant purpose or effect of which is erotic or pornographic; or which portrays acts of sexual immorality, perversion, or lewdhess, or which expressly or impliedly presents such.acts as desirable, acceptable or proper patterns of behavior.”
As the distributor of a motion picture entitled “Lady Chatterley’s Lover/’ the appellant Kingsley submitted that film to the Motion Picture Division of the New York Education Department for a license. Finding three isolated scenes in the film “ ‘immoral’ within the intent of our Law,” the Division refused to issue a license until the scenes in question were deleted. The distributor petitioned the Regents of the University of the State of New York for a review of that ruling. The Regents upheld the denial of a license, but on the broader ground that “the whole theme of this motion picture is immoral under said law, for that theme is the presentation of adultery as a desirable, acceptable and proper pattern of behavior.”
Kingsley sought judicial review of the Regents’ determination. The Appellate Division unanimously annulled the action of the Regents and directed that a license be issued. 4 App. Div. 2d 348, 165 N. Y. S. 2d 681. A sharply divided Court of Appeals, however, reversed the Appellate Division and upheld the Regents’ refusal to license the film for exhibition. 4 N. Y. 2d 349, 151 N. E. 2d 197, 175 N. Y. S. 2d 39.
The Court of Appeals unanimously and explicitly rejected any notion that the film is obscene. See Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476. Rather, the court found that the picture as a whole “alluringly portrays adultery as proper behavior.” As Chief Judge Conway’s prevailing opinion emphasized, therefore, the only portion' of the statute involved in this case is that part of §§122 and 122-a of the Education Law requiring the denial of a license to' motion pictures “which are immoral in that they portray ‘acts of sexual immorality ... as desir.able, acceptable or proper patterns of behavior.’ ” 4 N. Y. 2d, at 351, 151 N. E. 2d, at 197, 175 N. Y. S. 2d, at 40. A majority of the Court of Appeals ascribed to that language a precise purpose of the New York Legislature to require the denial of a license to a motion picture “because its subject matter is adultery presented as being right and desirable for certain people under certain circumstances.” 4 N. Y. 2d, at 369, 151 N. E. 2d, at 208, 175 N. Y. S. 2d, at 55 (concurring opinion).
' We accept the premise that the motion picture here in question, can be so characterized. We accept too, as we must, the construction- of the New York Legislature’s language which the Court of Appeals has put upon it. Albertson v. Millard, 345 U. S. 242; United States v. Burnison, 339 U. S. 87; Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of R. R. Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495. That construction, we emphasize, gives to the term “sexual immorality” a concept entirely different from the- concept embraced in words like “obscenity” or “pornography.” Moreover, it is not suggested-that the film would itself operate as an incitement to illegal action. Rather, the New York Court of Appeals tells us that the relevant portion of the New York Education Law requires the denial of a license to. any motion picture which approvingly portrays an adulterous relationship, quite without reference to the manner of its portrayal.
What New York has done, therefore, is to prevent the exhibition of a motion picture because that picture advocates an idea — that adultery under certain circumstances may be proper behavior. Yet the First Amendment’s basic guarantee is of freedom to advocate ideas. The State, quite simply, has thus struck at the very heart of constitutionally protected liberty.
It is contended that the State’s action was justified because the motion picture attractively portrays a relationship which is contrary to the moral standards, the religious precepts, and the legal code of its citizenry. This argument misconceives what it is that the Constitution protects. Its guarantee is not confined to. the expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by a majority. It protects advocacy of the opinion that adultery may sometimes be proper, no less than advocacy of socialism or the single tax. ■ And in the realm of ideas it protects expression which is eloquent no less than that which is unconvincing.
Advocacy of conduct proscribed by law is not, as Mr. Justice Brandéis long ago pointed out, “a justification for denying free speech whére the advocacy, falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on.” Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, at 376 (concurring opinion). “Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied, to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of thé rights of free speech. . . Id., at 378.
The inflexible command which the New Fork Court of Appeals has attributed to the State'Legislature thus cuts so close to the core of constitutional freedom as to make it quite needless in this case to examine the periphery. Specifically, there is no occasion to consider the appellant’s contention that the State is entirely without power to require films of any kind to be licensed prior to their exhibition. Nor need we here determine'whether, despite problems peculiar to motion pictures, the controls which a State may impose upon this medium of expression are precisely coextensive with those allowable for newspapers, books, or individual speech'. It is enough for the present case to reaffirm that motion pictures are within the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ basic protection. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495.
Reversed.
McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, 1953, Education Law, § 129.
McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, 1953, Education Law, § 122.
McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, 1953 (Cum. Supp. 1958), Education Law, §122-a.
“An applicant for a. license or permit, in case his application be denied by the director of the division or by the officer authorized to issue the same, shall have the right of review by the regents.” McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, 1953, Education Law, § 124.
The proceeding was brought under Art. 78 of the New York Civil Practice Act, Gilbert-Bliss’ N. Y. Civ. Prac., Vol. 6B, 1944, 1949 Supp., § 1283 et seg. See also, McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, 1953, Education Law, § 124.
Although four of the seven judges of the Court of Appeals voted to reverse the order of the Appellate Division, only three of them were of the clear opinion that denial of a license was permissible under the Constitution. Chief Judge Conway wrote an opinion in' which Judges Froessel and Burke concurred, concluding that denial of the license was constitutionally permissible. Judge Desmond wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he stated: “I Confess doubt as to the validity of such a statute but I do not know how that doubt can be resolved unless we reverse here and let the Supreme Court have the final say.” 4 N. Y. 2d, at 369, 151 N. E. 2d, at 208, 175 N. Y. S. 2d, at 55. Judge Dye, Judge Fuld, and Judge Van Voorhis wrote separate dissenting opinions.
The opinion written by Chief Judge Conway stated: “[I]t is curious indeed to say in one breath, as some do, that obscene motion pictures may be censored, and then in another breath that motion pictures which alluringly portray adultery as proper and desirable may not be censored. As stated above, ‘The law is concerned with effect, not merely with but one means of producing it.’ It must be firmly borne in mind .that to give obscenity, as defined, the stature of the only constitutional limitation is to extend an invitation to corrupt the public morals by methods of presentation which craft will insure do not fall squarely within the definition of that term. Precedent, just as sound principle, will not support a statement that motion pictures must be ‘out and out’ obscene before they may be censored.” 4 N. Y. 2d, at 364, 151 N. E. 2d, at 205, 175 N. Y. S. 2d, at 51.
Judge Desmond’s concurring opinion stated: “[It is not] necessarily determinative that this film is not obscene in the dictionary sense. . . 4 N. Y. 2d, at 369, 151 N. E. 2d, at 208, 175 N. Y. S. 2d, at 55. Judge Dye’s dissenting opinion stated: “No one contends that the film in question is obscene within the narrow legal limits of obscenity as recently defined by the Supreme Court. ...” 4 N. Y. 2d, at 371, 151 N. E. 2d, at 210, 175 N. Y. S. 2d, at 57. Judge Van Voorhis’ dissenting opinion'stated: “[I]t is impossible to write off this entire drama as ‘mere pornography’ Judge Van Voorhis, however, would have remitted the case to the Board of Regents to consider whether certain “passages” in the film “might have been eliminated as ‘obscene’ without doing violence to constitutional liberties.” 4 N. Y. 2d, at 375, 151 N. E. 2d, at 212, 175 N. Y. S. 2d, at 60.
This is also emphasized in the brief of counsel for the Regents,, which states, “The full definition is not before this Court — only these parts of the definition as cited — and any debate as to whether other parts of the definition are a proper standard has no bearing in this case.”
In concurring, Judge Desmond agreed that this was the meaning of the statutory language in question, and that “the theme and content of this film fairly deserve that characterization. ...” 4 N. Y. 2d, at 366, 151 N. E. 2d, at 206, 175 N. Y. S. 2d, at 52.
See by way of contrast, Swearingen v. United States, 161 U. S. 446; United States v. Limehouse, 285 U. S. 424.
Thomas Jefferson wrote more than a hundred and fifty years ago, f‘But we have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some, if others are left free to demonstrate their errors. And especially when the law stands ready to punish the first criminal act produced by the false reasoning. These are safer correctives than the conscience of- a judge.” Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Elijah Boardman, July 3, 1801, Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, Vol. 115, folio 19761.
Cf. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697.
Cf. Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436; Alberts v. California, 354 U. S. 476.
Cf. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 commencement of petitioner’s civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was timely only if the so-called “injury and pattern discovery” rule governs the start of the 4-year limitations period. We hold that it does not.
I
In February 1985, petitioner, Mark Rotella, was admitted to the Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavilion with a diagnosis of major depression. Rotella v. Pederson, 144 F. 3d 892, 894 (CA5 1998). He was discharged in 1986. In 1994, Brook-haven’s parent company and one of its directors pleaded guilty to charges of criminal fraud perpetrated through improper relationships and illegal agreements between the company and its doctors. Rotella learned of the plea agreement that same year, and in 1997 he filed a civil RICO claim against respondents, a group of doctors and related business entities, in Federal District Court.
RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (1994 ed. and Supp. III), makes it criminal “to conduct” an “enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity,” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(e), defined as behavior that violates certain other laws, either enumerated federal statutes or state laws addressing specified topics and bearing specified penalties, 18 U. S. C. § 1961(1) (Supp. III). “Pattern” is also a defined term requiring “at least two acts of racketeering activity ..., the last of which occurred within ten years... after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.” 18 U. S. C. § 1961(5).
RICO provides for civil actions (like this one) by which “[a]ny person injured in his business or property” by a RICO violation may seek treble damages and attorney’s fees. 18 U. S. C. § 1964(c) (Supp. III). Rotella alleged such injury, in that respondents had conspired to admit, treat, and retain him at Brookhaven not for any medical reason but simply to maximize their profits. Respondents raised the statute of limitations as a defense and sought summary judgment on the ground that the period for bringing the civil action had expired before Rotella sued.
Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U. S. 143, 156 (1987), established a 4-year limitations period for civil RICO claims. The District Court held that the period began when Rotella discovered his injury, which he concedes he did in 1986 at the latest. 147 F. 3d 438, 439 (CA5 1998). Under this “injury discovery” rule, the limitations period expired in 1990, and the District Court accordingly ordered summary judgment for respondents. Rotella appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the RICO limitations period does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers (or should have discovered) both the injury and the pattern of racketeering activity. After the Fifth Circuit ruled against him, ibid., we granted certiorari to address a split of authority among the Courts of Appeals on whether the limitations period is triggered in accordance with the “injury and pattern discovery” rule invoked by Rotella. 526 U. S. 1003 (1999). We now affirm.
> — i H-Í
Given civil RICO’s want of any express limitations provision for civil enforcement actions, in Malley-Duff we undertook to derive one and determined that the limitations period should take no account of differences among the multifarious predicate acts of racketeering activity covered by the statute. Although we chose a uniform 4-year period on a Clayton Act analogy, §4B, as added, 69 Stat. 283, 15 U. S. C. § 15b, we did not decide when the period began to run, and the question has divided the Courts of Appeals.
Three distinct approaches emerged in the wake of Malley-Duff. Some Circuits, like the Fifth in this case, applied an injury discovery accrual rule starting the clock when a plaintiff knew or should have known of his injury. See, e. g., Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F. 3d 506, 511 (CA9 1996); McCool v. Strata Oil Co., 972 F. 2d 1452, 1464-1465 (CA7 1992); Rodriguez v. Banco Central Corp., 917 F. 2d 664, 665-666 (CA1 1990); Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 859 F. 2d 1096, 1102 (CA2 1988); Pocahontas Supreme Coal Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 828 F. 2d 211, 220 (CA4 1987).
Some applied the injury and pattern discovery rule that Rotella seeks, under which a civil RICO claim accrues only when the claimant discovers, or should discover, both an injury and a pattern of RICO activity. See, e. g., Caproni v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 15 F. 3d 614, 619-620 (CA6 1994); Granite Falls Bank v. Henrikson, 924 F. 2d 150, 154 (CA8 1991); Bath v. Bushkin, Gaims, Gaines & Jonas, 913 F. 2d 817, 820-821 (CA10 1990); Bivens Gardens Office Building, Inc. v. Barnett Bank, 906 F. 2d 1546, 1554-1555 (CA11 1990).
The Third Circuit applied a “last predicate act” rule, see Keystone Ins. Co. v. Houghton, 863 F. 2d 1125, 1130 (CA3 1988). Under this rule, the period began to run as soon as the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and the pattern of racketeering activity, but began to run anew upon each predicate act forming part of the same pattern.
In Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp., 521 U. S. 179 (1997), we cut the possibilities by one in rejecting the last predicate act rule. Since a pattern of predicate acts can continue indefinitely, with each separated by as many as 10 years, that rule might have extended the limitations period to many decades, and so beyond any limit that Congress could have contemplated. See ibid. Preserving a right of action for such a vast stretch of time would have thwarted the basic objective of repose underlying the very notion of a limitations period. See id., at 189. The last predicate act rule was likewise at odds with the model for civil RICO, the Clayton Act, under which “[generally, a cause of action accrues and the statute begins to run when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff’s business.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U. S. 321, 338 (1971); Klehr, supra, at 188.
The decision in Klehr left two candidates favored by various Courts of Appeals: some form of the injury discovery rule (preferred by a majority of Circuits to have considered it), and the injury and pattern discovery rule. Today, guided by principles enunciated in Klehr, we eliminate the latter.
h-i HH h — {
We think the minority injury and pattern discovery rule unsound for a number of reasons. We start with the realization that under the provision recognizing the possibility of finding a pattern of racketeering in predicate acts 10 years apart, even an injury occurrence rule unsoftened by a discovery feature could in theory open the door to proof of predicate acts occurring 10 years before injury and 14 before commencement of litigation. A pattern discovery rule would allow proof of a defendant’s acts even more remote from time of trial and, hence, litigation even more at odds with the basic policies of all limitations provisions: repose, elimination of stale claims, and certainty about a plaintiff’s opportunity for recovery and a defendant’s potential liabilities. See, e. g., Klehr, supra, at 187; Malley-Duff, 483 U. S., at 150, 156; Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261, 270, 271 (1985).
How long is too long is, of course, a matter of judgment based on experience, and it gives us great pause that the injury and pattern discovery rule is an extension of the traditional federal accrual rule of injury discovery, and unwarranted by the injury discovery rule’s rationale. Federal courts, to be sure, generally apply a discovery accrual rule when a statute is silent on the issue, as civil RICO is here. Klehr, supra, at 191 (citing Connors v. Hallmark & Son Coal Co., 935 F. 2d 336, 342 (CADC 1991), and 1 C. Corman, Limitation of Actions § 6.5.5.1, p. 449 (1991)). But in applying a discovery accrual rule, we have been at pains to explain that discovery of the injury, not discovery of the other elements of a claim, is what starts the clock. In the circumstance of medical malpractice, where the cry for a discovery rule is loudest, we have been emphatic that the justification for a discovery rule does not extend beyond the injury:
“We are unconvinced that for statute of limitations purposes a plaintiff’s ignorance of his legal rights and his ignorance of the fact of his injury or its cause should receive identical treatment. That he has been injured in fact may be unknown or unknowable until the injury manifests itself; and the facts about causation may be in the control of the putative defendant, unavailable to the plaintiff or at least very difficult to obtain. The prospect is not so bleak for a plaintiff in possession of the critical facts that he has been hurt and who has inflicted the injury. He is no longer at the mercy of the latter. There are others who can tell him if he has been wronged, and he need only ask.” United States v. Kubrick, 444 U. S. 111, 122 (1979).
A person suffering from inadequate treatment is thus responsible for determining within the limitations period then running whether the inadequacy was malpractice.
We see no good reason for accepting a lesser degree of responsibility on the part of a RICO plaintiff. It is true, of course, as Rotella points out, that RICO has a unique pattern requirement, see Malley-Duff, supra, at 154 (“[T]he heart of any RICO complaint is the allegation of a pattern of racketeering”); H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U. S. 229, 236 (1989) (referring to “RICQ’s key requirement of a pattern of racketeering”). And it is true as well that a pattern of predicate acts may well be complex, concealed, or fraudulent. But identifying professional negligence may also be a matter of real complexity, and its discovery is not required before the statute starts running. Kubrick, supra, at 122, 124. Although we said that the potential malpractice plaintiff “need only ask” if he has been wronged by a doctor, considerable enquiry and investigation may be necessary before he can make a responsible judgment about the action-ability of the unsuccessful treatment he received. The fact, then, that a considerable effort may be required before a RICO plaintiff can tell whether a pattern of racketeering is demonstrable does not place him in a significantly different position from the malpractice victim. A RICO plaintiff's ability to investigate the cause of his injuries is no more impaired by his ignorance of the underlying RICO pattern than a malpractice plaintiff is thwarted by ignorance of the details of treatment decisions or of prevailing standards of medical practice.
Nor does Rotella’s argument gain strength from the fact that some patterns of racketeering will include fraud, which is generally associated with a different accrual rule; we have already found the connection between civil RICO and fraud to be an insufficient ground for recognizing a limitations period beyond four years, Malley-Duff, supra, at 149, and the lenient rule Rotella seeks would amount to backsliding from Malley-Duff.
What is equally bad is that a less demanding basic discovery rule than federal law generally applies would clash with the limitations imposed on Clayton Act suits. This is important because, as we have previously noted, there is a clear legislative record of congressional reliance on the Clayton Act when RICO was under consideration, see Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 489 (1985), and we have recognized before that the Clayton Act’s injury-focused accrual rule was well established by the time civil RICO was enacted. Klehr, 521 U. S., at 189. In rejecting a significantly different focus under RICO, therefore, we are honoring an analogy that Congress itself accepted and relied upon, and one that promotes the objectives of civil RICO as readily as it furthers the objects of the Clayton Act. Both statutes share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and penalize the respectively prohibited practices. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U. S., at 151) (civil RICO specifically has a “further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate”). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better. It would, accordingly, be strange to provide an unusually long basic limitations period that could only have the effect of postponing whatever public benefit civil RICO might realize. The Clayton Act avoids any such policy conflict by its accrual rule that “[generally, a cause of action accrues and the statute begins to run when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff’s business,” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U. S., at 338, and the Clayton Act analogy reflects the clear intent of Congress to reject a potentially longer basic rule under RICO.
In sum, any accrual rule softened by a pattern discovery feature would, undercut every single policy we have mentioned. By tying the start of the limitations period to a plaintiff’s reasonable discovery of a pattern rather than to the point of injury or its reasonable discovery, the rule would extend the potential limitations period for most civil RICO cases well beyond the time when a plaintiff’s cause of action is complete, as this ease shows. Rotella does not deny that he knew of his injury in 1986 when it occurred, or that his civil RICO claim was complete and subject to suit at that time. But under Rotella’s rule, the clock would have started only in 1994, when he discovered the pattern of predicate acts (his assumption being that he could not reasonably have been expected to discover them sooner). A limitations period that would have begun to run only eight years after a claim became ripe would bar repose, prove a godsend to stale claims, and doom any hope of certainty in identifying potential liability. Whatever disputes may arise about pinpointing the moment a plaintiff should have discovered an injury to himself would be dwarfed by the controversy inherent in divining when a plaintiff should have discovered a racketeering pattern that might well be complex, concealed or fraudulent, and involve harm to parties wholly unrelated to an injured plaintiff. The fact, as Rotella notes, that difficulty in identifying a pattern is inherent in civil RICO, see H. J. Inc., 492 U. S., at 235, n. 2 (collecting cases), only reinforces our reluctance to parlay the necessary complexity of RICO into worse trouble in applying its limitations rule. Cf. Wilson, 471 U. S., at 270 (discussing need for firmly defined, easily applied rules). A pattern discovery rule would patently disserve the congressional objective of a civil enforcement scheme parallel to the Clayton Act regime, aimed at rewarding the swift who undertake litigation in the public good.
Rotella has two remaining points about which a word should be said. We have already encountered his argument that differences between RICO and the Clayton Act render their analogy inapt, and we have explained why neither the RICO pattern requirement nor the occurrence of fraud in RICO patterns is a good reason to ignore the Clayton Act model, see supra, at 556-557. Here it remains only to respond to Rotella’s argument that we ourselves undercut the force of the Clayton Act analogy when we held that RICO had no racketeering injury requirement comparable to the antitrust injury requirement under the Clayton Act, see Sedima, 473 U. S., at 495. This point not only fails to support but even cuts against Rotella’s position. By eliminating the complication of anything like an antitrust injury element we have, to that extent, recognized a simpler RICO cause of action than its Clayton Act counterpart, and RICO’s comparative simplicity in this respect surely does not support the adoption of a more protracted basic limitations period.
Finally, Rotella returns to his point that RICO patterns will involve fraud in many eases, when he argues that unless a pattern discovery rule is recognized, a RICO plaintiff will sometimes be barred from suit by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which provides that fraud must be pleaded with particularity. While we will assume that Rule 9(b) will exact some cost, we are wary of allowing speculation about that cost to control the resolution of the issue here. Rotella has presented no case in which Rule 9(b) has effectively barred a claim like his, and he ignores the flexibility provided by Rule 11(b)(3), allowing pleadings based on evidence reasonably anticipated after further, investigation or discovery. See, e. g., Corley v. Rosewood Care Center, Inc. of Peoria, 142 F. 3d 1041, 1050-1051 (CA7 1998) (relaxing particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) where RICO plaintiff lacks access to all facts necessary to detail claim). It is not that we mean to reject Rotella’s concern about allowing “blameless ignorance” to defeat a claim, Urie v. Thompson, 337 U. S. 163, 170 (1949); we simply do not think such a concern should control the decision about the basic limitations rule. In rejecting pattern discovery as a basic rule, we do not unsettle the understanding that federal statutes of limitations are generally subject to equitable principles of tolling, see Holm berg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, 397 (1946), and where a pattern remains obscure in the face of a plaintiff’s diligence in seeking to identify it, equitable tolling may be one answer to the plaintiff’s difficulty, complementing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3). See ibid.; see generally Klehr, 521 U. S., at 192-193 (noting distinctions between different equitable devices). The virtue of relying on equitable tolling lies in the very nature of such tolling as the exception, not the rule.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Rotella alleged that “a group of doctors and their related business entities . . . improperly conspir[ed] to admit, treat, and retain him at Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavilion for reasons related to their own financial interests rather than the patient’s psychiatric condition.” 147 F. 3d 438, 439 (CA5 1998). As injuries, he alleged, among other things, confinement for an excessive period because of the conspiracy to draw down his and other patients’ insurance coverage, loss of a number of personal items, and fraudulent charges for unnecessary treatment. Brief for Petitioner 3; App. 20-24.
We do not, however, settle upon a final rule. In addition to the possibilities entertained in the Courts of Appeals, Justice Scaiia has espoused an “injury occurrence” rule, under which discovery would be irrelevant, Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp., 521 U. S. 179, 198 (1997) (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and our decision in Klehr leaves open the possibility of a straight injury occurrence rule. Amicus American Council of Life Insurance urges us to adopt this injury occurrence rule in this case, see Brief for American Council of Life Insurance as Amicus Curiae 5-14, but the parties have not focused on this option, and we would not pass upon it without more attentive advocacy.
This objective of encouraging prompt litigation to combat racketeering is the most obvious answer to Rotella’s argument that the injury and pattern discovery rule should be adopted because “RICO is to be read broadly” and “‘liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,”' Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 497-498 (1985) (quoting Pub. L. 91-452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947).
Some Circuits apply injury and pattern discovery out of fear that when the injury precedes a second predicate act, the limitations period might otherwise expire before the pattern is created. E. g., Granite Falls Bank v. Henrikson, 924 P. 2d 150, 154 (CA8 1991). Respondents argue that this overlooks the cardinal principle that a limitations period does not begin to run until the cause of action is complete. Rawlings v. Ray, 312 U. S. 96, 98 (1941); see also United States v. Lindsay, 346 U. S. 568, 569 (1954); Clark v. Iowa City, 20 Wall. 583, 589 (1875).
The quandary is hypothetical here; Rotella does not dispute that his injury in 1986 completed the elements of his cause of action. Hence, we need not and do not decide whether civil RICO allows for a cause of action when a second predicate act follows the injury, or what limitations accrual rule might apply in such a case. In any event, doubt about whether a harm might be actionable before a pattern is complete is a weak justification for the cost of a general pattern discovery rule.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether School Board members, vested by state law with the power to employ and dismiss teachers, could, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, dismiss teachers engaged in a strike prohibited by state law.
I
The petitioners are a Wisconsin school district, the seven members of its School Board, and three administrative employees of the district. Respondents are teachers suing on behalf of all teachers in the district and the Hortonville Education Association (HEA), the collective-bargaining agent for the district's teachers.
During the 1972-1973 school year Hortonville teachers worked under a master collective-bargaining agreement; negotiations were conducted for renewal of the contract, but no agreement was reached for the 1973-1974 school year. The teachers continued to work while negotiations proceeded during the year without reaching agreement. On March 18, 1974, the members of the teachers’ union went on strike, in direct violation of Wisconsin law. On March 20, the district superintendent sent all teachers a letter inviting them to return to work; a few did so. On March 23, he sent another letter, asking the 86 teachers still on strike to return, and reminding them that strikes by public employees were illegal; none of these teachers returned to work. After conducting classes with substitute teachers on March 26 and 27, the Board decided to conduct disciplinary hearings for each of the teachers on strike. Individual notices were sent to each teacher setting hearings for April 1, 2, and 3.
On April 1, most of the striking teachers appeared before the Board with counsel. Their attorney indicated that the teachers did not want individual hearings, but preferred to be treated as a group. Although counsel agreed that the teachers were on strike, he raised several procedural objections to the hearings. He also argued that the Board was not sufficiently impartial to exercise discipline over the striking teachers and that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required an independent, unbiased decisionmaker. An offer of proof was tendered to demonstrate that the strike had been provoked by the Board’s failure to meet teachers’ demands, and respondents’ counsel asked to cross-examine Board members individually. The Board rejected the request, but permitted counsel to make the offer of proof, aimed at showing that the Board’s contract offers were unsatisfactory, that the Board used coercive and illegal bargaining tactics, and that teachers in the district had been locked out by the Board.
On April 2, the Board voted to terminate the employment of striking teachers, and advised them by letter to that effect. However, the same letter invited all teachers on strike to reapply for teaching positions. One teacher accepted the invitation and returned to work; the Board hired replacements to fill the remaining positions.
Respondents then filed suit against petitioners in state court, alleging, among other things, that the notice and hearing provided them by the Board were inadequate to comply with due process requirements. The trial court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment on the due process claim. The court found that the teachers, although on strike, were still employees of the Board under Wisconsin law and that they retained a property interest in their positions under this Court’s decisions in Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972), and Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972). The court concluded that the only question before the Board on April 1 and 2 was whether the teachers were on strike in violation of state law, and that no evidence in mitigation was relevant. It rejected their claim that they were denied due process, since the teachers admitted they were on strike after receiving adequate notice and a hearing, including the warning that they were in violation of Wisconsin law.
On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, 66 Wis. 2d 469, 225 N. W. 2d 658 (1975). On the single issue now presented it held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution required that the teachers’ conduct and the Board’s response be evaluated by an impartial de-cisionmaker other than the Board. The rationale of the Wisconsin Supreme Court appears to be that although the teachers had admitted being on strike, and although the strike violated Wisconsin law, the Board had available other remedies than dismissal, including an injunction prohibiting the strike, a call for mediation, or continued bargaining. Relying on our holding in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972), the Wisconsin court thén held “it would seem essential, even in cases of undisputed or stipulated facts, that an impartial decision maker be charged with the responsibility of determining what action shall be taken on the basis of those facts.” 66 Wis. 2d, at 493, 225 N. W. 2d, at 671. The court held that the Board was not sufficiently impartial to make this choice: “The background giving rise to the ultimate facts in this case reveals a situation not at all conducive to detachment and impartiality on the part of the school board.” Ibid. In reaching its conclusion, the court acknowledged that the Board’s decision could be reviewed in other forums; but no reviewing body would give the teachers an opportunity to demonstrate that “another course of action such as mediation, injunction, continued collective bargaining or arbitration would have been a more reasonable response on the part of the decision maker.” Id., at 496, 225 N. W. 2d, at 672.
Since it concluded that state law provided no adequate remedy, the Wisconsin Supreme Court fashioned one it thought necessary to comply with federal due process principles. To leave with the Board “[a]s much control as possible ... to set policy and manage the school,” the court held that the Board should after notice and hearing make the decision to fire in the first instance. A teacher dissatisfied with the Board’s decision could petition any court of record in the county for a de novo hearing on all issues; the trial court would “resolve any factual disputes and provide for a reasonable disposition.” Id., at 498, 225 N. W. 2d, at 673. The Wisconsin Supreme Court recognized that this remedy was “not ideal because a court may be required to make public policy decisions that are better left to a legislative or administrative body.” Ibid. But it would suffice “until such time and only until such time as the legislature provides a means to establish a forum that will meet the requirements of due process.” Ibid.
We granted certiorari because of the state court’s reliance on federal due process. 423 U. S. 821 (1975). We reverse.
II
The Hortonville School District is a common school district under Wisconsin law, financed by local property taxes and state school aid and governed by an elected seven-member School Board. Wis. Stat. Ann. §§ 120.01, 120.03, 120.06 (1973). The Board has broad power over “the possession, care, control and management of the property and affairs of the school district.” § 120.12 (1) ; see also §§ 120.08, 120.10, 120.15-120.17. The Board negotiates terms of employment with teachers under the Wisconsin Municipal Employment Relations Act, § 111.70 et seg. (1974), and contracts with individual teachers on behalf of the district. The Board is the only body vested by statute with the power to employ and dismiss teachers. § 118.22 (2).
The sole issue in this case is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits this School Board from making the decision to dismiss teachers admittedly engaged in a strike and persistently refusing to return to their duties. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that state law prohibited the strike and that termination of the striking teachers’ employment was within the Board’s statutory authority. 66 Wis. 2d, at 479-481, 225 N. W. 2d, at 663-665. We are, of course, bound to accept the interpretation of Wisconsin law by the highest court of the State. Groppi v. Wisconsin, 400 U. S. 505, 507 (1971); Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U. S. 684, 688 (1959). The only decision remaining for the Board therefore involved the exercise of its discretion as to what should be done to carry out the duties the law placed on the Board.
A
Respondents argue, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court held, that the choice presented for the Board’s decision is analogous to that involved in revocation of parole in Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, that the decision could be made only by an impartial decisionmaker, and that the Board was not impartial. In Morrissey the Court considered a challenge to state procedures employed in revoking the parole of state prisoners. There we noted that the parole revocation decision involved two steps: First, an inquiry whether the parolee had in fact violated the conditions of his parole; second, determining whether the violations found were serious enough to justify revocation of parole and the consequent deprivation of the parolee’s conditional liberty. With respect to the second step, the Court observed:
“The second question involves the application of expertise by the parole authority in making a prediction as to the ability of the individual to live in society without committing antisocial acts. This part of the decision, too, depends on facts, and therefore it is important for the board to know not only that some violation was committed but also to know accurately how many and how serious the violations were. Yet this second step, deciding what to do about the violation once it is identified, is not purely factual but also predictive and discretionary.” 408 U. S., at 480.
Nothing in this case is analogous to the first step in Morrissey, since the teachers admitted to being on strike. But respondents argue that the School Board’s decision in this case is, for constitutional purposes, the same as the second aspect of the decision to revoke parole. The Board cannot make a “reasonable” decision on this issue, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held and respondents argue, because its members are biased in some fashion that the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit.
Morrissey arose in a materially different context. We recognized there that a parole violation could occur at a place distant from where the parole revocation decision would finally be made; we also recognized the risk of factual error, such as misidentification. To minimize this risk, we held: “[D]ue process requires that after the arrest [for parole violation], the determination that reasonable ground exists for revocation of parole should be made by someone not directly involved in the case.” Id., at 485. But this holding must be read against our earlier discussion in Morrissey of the parole officer's role as counselor for and confidant of the parolee; it is this same officer who, on the basis of preliminary information, decides to arrest the parolee. A school board is not to be equated with the parole officer as an arresting officer; the school board is more like the parole board, for it has ultimate plenary authority to make its decisions derived from the state legislature. General language about due process in a holding concerning revocation of parole is not a reliable basis for dealing with the School Board's power as an employer to dismiss teachers for cause. We must focus more clearly on, first, the nature of the bias respondents attribute to the Board, and, second, the nature of the interests at stake in this case.
B
Respondents’ argument rests in part on doctrines that have no application to this case. They seem to argue that the Board members had some personal or official stake in the decision whether the teachers should be dismissed, comparable to the stake the Court saw in Turney v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927), or Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57 (1972); see also Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564 (1973), and that the Board has manifested some personal bitterness toward the teachers, aroused by teacher criticism of the Board during the strike, see, e. g., Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U. S. 488 (1974); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S. 455 (1971). Even assuming that those cases state the governing standards when the decisionmaker is a public employer dealing with employees, the teachers did not show, and the Wisconsin courts did not find, that the Board members had the kind of personal or financial stake in the decision that might create a conflict of interest, and there is nothing in the record to support charges of personal animosity. The Wisconsin Supreme Court was careful “not to suggest . . . that the board members were anything but dedicated public servants, trying to provide the district with quality education . . . within its limited budget.” 66 Wis. 2d, at 494, 225 N. W. 2d, at 671. That court’s analysis would seem to be confirmed by the Board’s repeated invitations for striking teachers to return to work, the final invitation being contained in the letter that notified them of their discharge.
The only other factor suggested to support the claim of bias is that the School Board was involved in the negotiations that preceded and precipitated the striking teachers’ discharge. Participation in those negotiations was a statutory duty of the Board. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that this involvement, without more, disqualified the Board from deciding whether the teachers should be dismissed:
“The board was the collective bargaining agent for the school district and thus was engaged in the collective bargaining process with the teachers' representative, the HEA. It is not difficult to imagine the frustration on the part of the board members when negotiations broke down, agreement could not be reached and the employees resorted to concerted activity. . . . They were . . . not uninvolved in the events which precipitated decisions they were required to make.” Id., at 493-494, 225 N. W. 2d, at 671.
Mere familiarity with the facts of a case gained by an agency in the performance of its statutory role does not, however, disqualify a decisionmaker. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 47 (1975); FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 700-703 (1948). Nor is a decisionmaker disqualified simply because he has taken a position, even in public, on a policy issue related to the dispute, in the absence of a showing that he is not “capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances.” United States v. Morgan, 313 U. S. 409, 421 (1941); see also FTC v. Cement Institute, supra, at 701.
Respondents’ claim and the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s holding reduce to the argument that the Board was biased because it negotiated with the teachers on behalf of the school district without reaching agreement and learned about the reasons for the strike in the course of negotiating. From those premises the Wisconsin court concluded that the Board lost its statutory power to determine that the strike and persistent refusal to terminate it amounted to conduct serious enough to warrant discharge of the strikers. Wisconsin statutes vest in the Board the power to discharge its employees, a power of every employer, whether it has negotiated with the employees before discharge or not. The Fourteenth Amendment permits a court to strip the Board of the otherwise unremarkable power the Wisconsin Legislature has given it only if the Board’s prior involvement in negotiating with the teachers means that it cannot act consistently with due process.
C
Due process, as this Court has repeatedly held, is a term that “negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation.” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 895 (1961). Determining what process is due in a given setting requires the Court to take into account the individual’s stake in the decision at issue as well as the State’s interest in a particular procedure for making it. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 168 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring) ; id., at 188 (White, J., concurring and dissenting); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 263-266 (1970). Our assessment of the interests of the parties in this case leads to the conclusion that this is a very different case from Morrissey v. Brewer, and that the Board’s prior role as negotiator does not disqualify it to decide that the public interest in maintaining uninterrupted classroom work required that teachers striking in violation of state law be discharged.
The teachers’ interest in these proceedings is, of course, self-evident. They wished to avoid termination of their employment, obviously an important interest, but one that must be examined in light of several factors. Since the teachers admitted that they were engaged in a work stoppage, there was no possibility of an erroneous factual determination on this critical threshold issue. Moreover, what the teachers claim as a property right was the expectation that the jobs they had left to go and remain on strike in violation of law would remain open to them. The Wisconsin court accepted at least the essence of that claim in defining the property right under state law, and we do not quarrel with its conclusion. But even if the property interest claimed here is to be compared with the liberty interest at stake in Morrissey, we note that both “the risk of an erroneous deprivation” and “the degree of potential deprivation” differ in a qualitative sense and in degree from those in Morrissey. Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, at 341.
The governmental interests at stake in this case also differ significantly from the interests at stake in Mor-rissey. The Board’s decision whether to dismiss striking teachers involves broad considerations, and does not in the main turn on the Board’s view of the “seriousness” of the teachers’ conduct or the factors they urge mitigated their violation of state law. It was not an adjudicative decision, for the Board had an obligation to make a decision based on its own answer to an important question of policy: What choice among the alternative responses to the teachers’ strike will best serve the interests of the school system, the interests of the parents and children who depend on the system, and the interests of the citizens whose taxes support it? The Board’s decision was only incidentally a disciplinary decision; it had significant governmental and public policy dimensions as well. See Summers, Public Employee Bargaining: A Political Perspective, 83 Yale L. J. 1156 (1974).
State law vests the governmental, or policymaking, function exclusively in the School Board and the State has two interests in keeping it there. First, the Board is the body with overall responsibility for the governance of the school district; it must cope with the myriad day-to-day problems of a modern public school system including the severe consequences of a teachers’ strike; by virtue of electing them the constituents have declared the Board members qualified to deal with these problems, and they are accountable to the voters for the manner in which they perform. Second, the state legislature has given to the Board the power to employ and dismiss teachers, as a part of the balance it has struck in the area of municipal labor relations; altering those statutory powers as a matter of federal due process clearly changes that balance. Permitting the Board to make the decision at issue here preserves its control over school district affairs, leaves the balance of power in labor relations where the state legislature struck it, and assures that the decision whether to dismiss the teachers will be made by the body responsible for that decision under state law.
Ill
Respondents have failed to demonstrate that the decision to terminate their employment was infected by the sort of bias that we have held to disqualify other decisionmakers as a matter of federal due process. A showing that the Board was “involved” in the events preceding this decision, in light of the important interest in leaving with the Board the power given by the state legislature, is not enough to overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity in policymakers with decisionmak-ing power. Cf. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S., at 47. Accordingly, we hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not guarantee respondents^ that the decision to terminate their employment would be made or reviewed by a body other than the School Board.
The judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
The National School Boards Association informs us that 45 States lodge the power to dismiss teachers in local school boards. Brief as Amicus Curiae 9 n. 4.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the discharge of the teachers during their 1973-1974 individual contracts, and the revocation of the Board’s individual offers of employment for the 1974W975 school year, deprived them of property. 66 Wis. 2d 469, 489, 225 N. W. 2d 658, 669 (1975). “Property interests . . . are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law — rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits. . . .” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577 (1972). We do not challenge the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conclusion that state law gave these teachers a “legitimate claim of entitlement to job tenure.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 602 (1972).
We are not required to determine whether the notice and hearing afforded by the Board, as matters separate from the Board’s ability fairly to decide the issue before it, were adequate to afford respondents due process. Respondents do not suggest here that the notice they received was constitutionally inadequate, and they refused to treat the dismissals on a case-by-case basis.
Respondents argue that the requirement that the Board’s decision be “reasonable” is in fact a requirement of state law. From that premise and from the premise that the “reasonableness” determination requires an evaluation of the Board’s negotiating stance, they argue that nothing but decision and review de novo by an “uninvolved” party will secure their right to a “reasonable” decision. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 58-59, n. 25 (1975). It is clear, however, that the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Board’s decision must be “reasonable,” not by virtue of state law, but because of its reading of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the Wisconsin court relied largely upon cases interpreting the Federal Constitution in this aspect of its holding. See 66 Wis. 2d, at 493, 225 N. W. 2d, at 671. Second, the only state case the Wisconsin Supreme Court cited for more than a general statement of federal requirements was Durkin v. Board of Police & Fire Comm’rs, 48 Wis. 2d 112, 180 N. W. 2d 1 (1970). There the Wisconsin Supreme Court interpreted a state statute that gave firemen and policemen the right to appeal a decision of the Board of Police and Fire Commissioners to a state court; the statute expressly provided that the court was to determine whether “upon the evidence the order of the Board was reasonable.” Id., at 117, 180 N. W. 2d, at 3. See Wis. Stat. Ann. §62.13 (5) (h) (1957). There is no comparable statutory provision giving teachers the right to review this standard. Finally, to impose a “reasonableness” requirement, or any other test that looks to evaluation by another entity, makes semantic sense only where review is contemplated by the statute. Review, and the standard for review, are concepts that go hand in hand. The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded both that review of the Board’s decision was necessary and that a “reasonableness” standard was appropriate as a result of its reading of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Respondents alleged before the Board, and argue here, that the Board’s decision to dismiss them was motivated by antiunion animus in addition to personal vindictiveness, and that their illegal strike should be excused because the Board provoked it. The Wisconsin Supreme Court suggested that the Board’s “decision to discharge was possibly a convenient alternative which would eliminate their labor problems in one fell swoop.” 66 Wis. 2d, at 494, 225 N. W. 2d, at 671. Given that Wisconsin statutes permitted the Board to dismiss striking teachers, and assuming, as did the Wisconsin court, that the Board’s decision was in other respects proper under state labor law, we do not agree that federal due process prevented the Board from pursuing a course of action that was within its explicit statutory authority and which, in its judgment, would serve the best interests of the school system. That the' result may also have been desirable for other reasons is irrelevant to the due process issue on which the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision turned, and if the other reasons are invalid under state law, respondents can resort to whatever forum the State provides.
Respondents argue that the School Board is free to defend its action in the de novo hearing authorized by the Wisconsin Supreme Court by attempting to demonstrate that policy considerations dictated its decision to dismiss the striking teachers. Policymaking is a process of prudential judgment, and we are not prepared to say that a judge can generally make a better policy judgment or, in this case, as good a judgment as the School Board, which is intimately familiar with all the needs of the school district, or that a school board must, at the risk of suspending school operations, wend its way through judicial processes not mandated by the legislature. More important, no matter what arguments the Board may make to the de novo trial judge, as we noted earlier it will be the School Board that will have to cope with the consequences of the decision and be responsible to the electorate for it. The privilege of oral argument to a judge is no substitute for the power to employ and dismiss vested by statute exclusively in the Board.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1341, restricts the power of federal district courts to prevent collection or enforcement of state taxes. It states: “The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” The statute, on its face, yields no exception to the jurisdictional bar save where the state remedy is wanting, but at least one other exception is established by our cases: The statute does not constrain the power of federal courts if the Umted States sues to protect itself or its instrumentalities from state taxation. Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355, 358 (1966). The present case explores the limits of this judicial exception. We decide here whether instrumentalities called Production Credit Associations, corporations chartered under federal law, are included within the exception when they sue by themselves. We hold they are not and so may not sue in federal court for an injunction against state taxation without the United States as co-plaintiff. The action must be dismissed, and, as a result, we do not reach the merits of the taxation dispute.
I
Production Credit Associations (PCAs) are corporations chartered by the Farm Credit Administration under the Farm Credit Act of 1971, 85 Stat. 583, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 2001 et seq. A PCA is a corporate financial institution organized by 10 or more farmers and designed in large part to make loans to farmers. §§2071, 2075. PCA’s have had differing tax-exempt status at different times, depending on whether the United States owned shares of their stock. See, e. g., Farm Credit Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 267. In the period relevant here (when all PCA stock has been in private hands) they have been exempted, by explicit federal statute, from state taxes on their “notes, debentures, and other obligations.” 12 U.S.C. §2077.
Four PCA’s, respondents here, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas claiming a tax exemption going beyond the express statutory language of § 2077. They assert immunity not only from the taxes described in the exemption statute we have quoted but also from Arkansas sales and income taxes. They seek a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the State from levying the taxes against them. The District Court granted the PCAs’ motion for summary judgment, and a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for' the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 76 F. 3d 961 (1996).
Entitlement to the immunity is the underlying substantive issue, were we to reach it. The Tax Injunction Act, however, is an initial obstacle, for by its terms it would bar the relief the PCA’s seek absent some exception. Seeking to overcome the bar under the Tax Injunction Act, the PCA’s, first in the trial court and now here, contended that they are instrumentalities of the United States and so not subject to the provisions of the Act any more than the United States itself. The first point is correct: PCA’s are instrumentalities of the United States because the statute which charters them says so. 12 U. S. C. §§ 2071(b)(7), 2077. The PCAs’ argument about what follows from the designation, however, is incorrect. Instrumentalities of the United States, by virtue of that designation alone, do not have the same right as does the United States to avoid the prohibitions of the Tax Injunction Act.
An observation is proper respecting our consideration of this threshold question. Although the trial court addressed the meaning and operation of the Tax Injunction Act, in the Court of Appeals the whole question seemed to disappear, though it goes to the heart of judicial authority. Neither party, we are advised, addressed the point and neither opinion in the Court of Appeals, majority or dissent, mentions it. While the question of the Act’s applicability was not raised in the State’s petition for certiorari, the United States, in an amicus brief in support of the petition, called our attention to the point. In granting the petition, we asked the parties to address, in addition to the merits, whether the District Court should have dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in light of the Act. 519 U. S. 805 (1997).
We have interpreted and applied the Tax Injunction Act as a “jurisdictional rule” and a “broad jurisdictional barrier.” Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U. S. 463, 470 (1976). In dismissing an action filed m a United States District Court to challenge state taxes we held that the Tax Injunction Act “deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to hear [the] challenges.” California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U. S. 393, 396 (1982). Further, we found no jurisdiction even though the defendant State argued in favor of the federal court’s jurisdiction. Id., at 417, n. 38. In explaining our holding in Grace Brethren that declaratory relief is as violative of the Tax Injunction Act as an injunction itself, we said the Act was first and foremost a vehicle “ ‘to limit drastically federal district court jurisdiction to interfere with so important a local concern as the collection of taxes.’” Id., at 408-409 (quoting Rosewell v. LaSalle Nat. Bank, 450 U. S. 503, 522 (1981)). These statements underscore the fundamental importance of the restrictions imposed by the Tax Injunction Act, restrictions we proceed to address.
II
The federal balance is well served when the several States define and elaborate their own laws through their own courts and administrative processes and without undue interference from the Federal Judiciary. The States’ interest in the integrity of their own processes is of particular moment respecting questions of state taxation. In our constitutional system, the power of the State to tax is a concurrent power. “That the power of taxation is one of vital importance; that it is retained by the States; that it is not abridged by the grant of a similar power to the government of the Union; that it is to be concurrently exercised by the two governments: are truths which have never been denied.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 425 (1819). The power to tax is basic to the power of the State to exist. Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 444 (1940); Rosewell, supra, at 522.
Enactment of the Tax Injunction Act of 1937 reflects a congressional concern to confine federal-court intervention in state government, a concern prominent after the Court’s ruling in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), that the Eleventh Amendment is not in all cases a bar to federal-court interference with individual state officers alleged to have acted in violation of federal law. See Rosewell, supra, at 522, n. 28; Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 104-115 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Given the systemic importance of the federal balance, and given the basic principle that statutory language is to be enforced according to its terms, federal courts must guard against interpretations of the Tax Injunction Act which might defeat its purpose and text.
Where the Government of the United States is a party, of course, the other side of the federal balance must be considered. In our constitutional system the National Government has sovereign interests of its own. The necessity to respect the authority and prerogatives of the National Government underlies the now settled rule that the Tax Injunction Act is not a constraint on federal judicial power when the United States sues to protect itself and its instrumentalities from state taxation. The importance of allowing the United States to proceed in federal court to determine tax immunity questions is no doubt one reason why the exception was established with little discussion in Department of Employment v. United States. There the Court indicated the exception was consistent with a well-settled understanding that the Government is not bound by its own legislative restrictions on the exercise of remedial rights unless the intent to bind it is express. 385 U. S., at 358, n. 6 (citing United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9, 12 (EDSC 1959) (three-judge District Court), aff’d, 364 U. S. 281 (1960); United States v. Arlington County, 326 F. 2d 929, 931 (CA4 1964); United States v. Bureau of Revenue of N. M., 291 F. 2d 677, 679 (CA10 1961)). See also Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). The Court concluded, “in accord with an unbroken line of authority, and convincing evidence of legislative purpose, that § 1341 does not act as a restriction upon suits by the United States to protect itself and its instrumentalities from unconstitutional state exactions.” 385 U. S., at 358 (footnotes omitted). In all the District Court and Court of Appeals cases cited in Department of Employment, the United States was either the sole plaintiff or a co-plaintiff. The United States had joined as co-plaintiff with the Red Cross in Department of Employment, arguing that the Red Cross was a federal instrumentality immune from state taxation, and we held that the Tax Injunction Act did not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction to decide the merits and order relief.
We have not before now considered whether federal in-strumentalities fall under the exception to the Tax Injunction Act when they sue without the United States as co-plaintiff. In Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, we reasoned that when the United States is not a party, the mere fact that a party challenging the tax has interests closely related to those of the Federal Government is not enough, in and of itself, to avoid the bar of the Act. We considered whether the Act barred the exercise of federal judicial power when Indian tribes were challenging the lawfulness and constitutionality of certain state taxes. Although the tribes did not have formal designations as instru-mentalities of the United States, we assumed the interests they asserted were aligned with the interests of the Federal Government. Reserving the question of the precise significance of a federal instrumentality designation, the Court said this congruence of interests was not sufficient to give the tribes an exemption from the Act. 425 U. S., at 471-472. We went on to find the tribes exempt from the Act only because a second federal statute granted sweeping federal-court jurisdiction where an Indian tribe was a party. Id., at 472 (citing 28 U. S. C. § 1362 (1976 ed.)). Moe is instructive here. As in Moe, the PCA’s say their own mission is defined and controlled by federal law and that their interests are the same as those of the United States. We conclude here, as we did in Moe, that this argument is insufficient to justify an exception to the Tax Injunction Act.
True, important consequences flow from the congressional decision to designate a PCA formed pursuant to statute as “an instrumentality of the United States.” 12 U. S. C. § 2071(b)(7). The tax immunity a PCA has under § 2077 is a permitted consequence of its status as a federal instrumentality. An instrumentality of the United States can enjoy the benefits and immunities conferred by explicit statutes, however, without the further inference that the instrumentality has all of the rights and privileges of the National Government.
Respondents attempt to counter this point by arguing that NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U. S. 138 (1971), is applicable here and supports their cause. Nash-Finch involved not the Tax Injunction Act, but the Anti-Injunction Act, the statute which restricts the authority of federal courts to enjoin proceedings in state courts. 28 U. S. C. § 2283. The Anti-Injunction Act provides: “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” Just as the Tax Injunction Act is inapplicable where the United States is a party, a parallel rule prevails under §2283. Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 220, 225-226 (1957) (The restrictions of § 2283 are inapplicable in a suit brought by the National Government). The question in Nash-Finch was whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) came within the United States’ exception to §2283. We held it did. In so ruling, we observed the NLRB’s regulatory power “pre-empts the field.” 404 U. S., at 144; see also id., at 147 (“The exclusiveness of the federal domain is clear . . .”). The case does not aid the PCA’s, for their powers are far different from those of the NLRB. As will be discussed in more detail below, the PCA’s more closely resemble the private entities Nash-Finch distinguished from the Federal Government and its agencies. Id., at 146.
As to the Tax Injunction Act itself, the Courts of Appeals have adopted different standards over time for deciding whether a federal instrumentality may sue in federal court to enjoin state taxation where the United States is not a co-plaintiff. Under the most restrictive approach, there is no exception to the Tax Injunction Act for federal instrumentalities unless the United States sues as a co-plaintiff. See, e. g., United States v. State Tax Commission, 481 F. 2d 963, 975 (CA1 1973) (“It is reasonable, as a prerequisite to by-passing normal state tax collection and litigation channels, that [the instrumentalities] persuade the Attorney General of the United States ... to join in their claim”); Housing Authority of Seattle v. State of Washington, Dept. of Revenue, 629 F. 2d 1307, 1311 (CA9 1980) (agreeing with the First Circuit in State Tax Commission that “such joinder [with the United States as co-plaintiff] is necessary before a federal instrumentality can overcome the restrictions” of the Tax Injunction Act). After its decision in State Tax Commission, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit modified what had seemed to be a bright-line rule to produce a different test: “[E]ach instrumentality must be examined in light of its governmental role and the wishes of Congress as expressed in relevant legislation.” Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation of Mass., 499 F. 2d 60, 64 (1974). Federal Reserve banks, the Court of Appeals noted, are not analogous to private corporations, but rather are “plainly and predominantly fiscal arms of the federal government” with interests “indistinguishable from those of the sovereign.” Id., at 62. The court also pointed to a federal statute giving a Federal Reserve bank “unrestricted access to the district courts,” id., at 63 (referring to 12 U. S. C. § 632); and to the Federal Reserve System’s unusual position “outside the executive chain of command,” 499 F. 2d, at 63. See also Bank of New England Old Colony v. Clark, 986 F. 2d 600, 602-603 (CA1 1993) (describing Federal Reserve bank standard as a “flexible test”).
Under any of the tests we have described, PCA’s would not be exempt from the restrictions of the Tax Injunction Act. The United States has not joined as a co-plaintiff and indeed opposes the District Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. We need not inquire whether the holding of Nash-Finch — to the effect that an agency with broad regulatory power is exempt from §2283 when it sues in its own name and not through the Attorney General or in the name of the United States — is applicable as well to the Tax Injunction Act. Whatever may be the rule under the Tax Injunction Act where a federal agency or body with substantial regulatory authority brings suit, PCA’s are not entities of that description. PCA’s are not granted the right to exercise government regulatory authority but rather serve specific commercial and economic purposes long associated with various corporations chartered by the United States. Other examples include the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company (chartered under an Act of 1866 to construct and maintain a railroad and telegraph line from Springfield, Missouri, to the Pacific Ocean, see Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 436-437 (1900)); the Rural Telephone Bank (7 U. S. C. § 941); the United States Enrichment Corporation (42 U. S. C. § 2297a, repealed effective on date of privatization, Pub. L. 104-134, §3116, 110 Stat. 1321). Indeed, in Smith v. Reeves, we treated the federally chartered corporation as a private citizen, not as an arm of the United States, and held it to be subject to the Eleventh Amendment bar on suits against States. 178 U. S., at 446-447.
The PCAs’ business is making commercial loans, and all their stock is owned by private entities. Their interests are not coterminous with those of the Government any more than most commercial interests. Despite their formal and undoubted designation as instrumentalities of the United States, and despite their entitlement to those tax immunities accorded by the explicit statutory mandate, PCA’s do not have or exercise power analogous to that of the NLRB or any of the departments or regulatory agencies of the United States. This suffices for us to conclude that instrumentality status does not in and of itself entitle an entity to the same exemption the United States has under the Tax Injunction Act.
The Tax Injunction Act is grounded in the need of States to administer their fiscal affairs without undue interference from federal courts. As all parties concede, respondents have a “speedy, plain, and efficient remedy” in state court. In holding that the PCA’s are subject to the Act’s restriction on federal-court jurisdiction, we further the State’s interests without sacrificing those of the Government of the United States.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the interpretation of 28 U. S. C. § 1450, which provides in pertinent part: “Whenever any action is removed from a State court to a district court of the United States... [a] 11 injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court.” The District Court held respondent Union in criminal contempt for violating a temporary restraining order issued by the California Superior Court on May 18, 1970, prior to the removal of the case from the Superior Court to the District Court. The Court of Appeals reversed, one judge dissenting, on the ground that the temporary restraining order had expired long before November 30, 1970, the date of the alleged contempt. 472 F. 2d 764 (CA9 1973). The court reasoned that under both § 527 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65 (b), the temporary restraining order must have expired no later than June 7, 1970, 20 days after its issuance. The court rejected petitioners’ contention that the life of the order was indefinitely prolonged by § 1450 “until dissolved or modified by the district court,” holding that the purpose of that statute “is to prevent a break in the force of an injunction or a restraining order that could otherwise occur when jurisdiction is being shifted,” 472 F. 2d, at 767, not to “create a special breed of temporary restraining orders that survive beyond the life span imposed by the state law from which they spring and beyond the life that the district court could have granted them had the orders initiated from the federal court.” Id., at 766.
As this understanding of the statute was in conflict 'with decisions of two other Circuits interpreting § 1450 to preclude the automatic termination of state court temporary restraining orders, we granted certiorari. 414 U. S. 816 (1973). Finding ourselves in substantial agreement with the analysis of the Ninth Circuit in the present case, we affirm.
I
On May 15, 1970, petitioners Granny Goose Foods, Inc., and Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California for the county of Alameda alleging that respondent, a local Teamsters Union, and its officers and agents, were engaging in strike activity in breach of national and local collective-bargaining agreements recently negotiated by multiunion-multiemployer bargaining teams. Although the exact nature of the underlying labor dispute is unclear, its basic contours are as follows: The Union was unwilling to comply with certain changes introduced in the new contracts; it believed it was not legally bound by the new agreements because it had not been a part of the multiunion bargaining units that negotiated the contracts; and it wanted to negotiate separate contracts with petitioner employers.
The same day the complaint was filed, the Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining all existing strike activity and ordering the defendants to show cause on May 26, 1970, why a preliminary injunction should not issue during the pendency of the suit. An amended complaint adding petitioner Standard Brands, Inc., was filed on May 18, and a modified temporary restraining order was issued that same day adding a prohibition against strike activities directed toward that employer.
On May 19, 1970, after having been served with the May 15 restraining order but before the scheduled hearing on the order to show cause, the Union and the individual defendants removed the proceeding to the District Court on the ground that the action arose under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185. On May 20, 1970, an amended removal petition was filed to take into account the modified temporary restraining order of May 18.
Simultaneously with the filing of the removal petition, the defendants filed a motion in the District Court to dissolve the temporary restraining order. The sole ground alleged in support of the motion was that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to maintain the restraining order under this Court’s decision in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195 (1962), where the Court held that notwithstanding § 301’s grant of jurisdiction to federal courts over suits between employers and unions for breach of collective-bargaining agreements, § 4 of the Norris-La Guardia Act, 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. § 104, barred federal courts from issuing an injunction against a strike allegedly in violation of a collective-bargaining agreement containing a no-strike clause.
The employers then filed a motion to remand the case to the Superior Court, alleging that the defendants had waived their right to removal by submitting to the jurisdiction of the state court. The Union’s motion to dissolve and the employers’ motion to remand came on for a hearing on May 27, 1970. The motion to remand was denied from the bench. With respect to the motion to dissolve, the employers brought to the attention of the District Court our grant of certiorari in Boys Markets v. Retail Clerks Union, 396 U. S. 1000 (1970), which was interpreted as an indication that the Court would re-examine its holding in Sinclair. As Boys Markets had been argued here in April 1970, the District Court refrained from taking any action on the motion to dissolve until it received further guidance from this Court. On June 1, 1970, we handed down our decision in Boys Markets v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U. S. 235, overruling Sinclair and holding that a district court could enjoin a strike in breach of a no-strike clause in a collective-bargaining agreement and order arbitration under the agreement. Three days later, on June 4, 1970, the District Court entered a brief order denying the motion to dissolve the state court temporary restraining order, citing Boys Markets.
Evidently picketing and strike activity stopped and the labor dispute remained dormant after June 4. The flame was rekindled, however, when on November 9, 1970, the Union sent, the employers telegrams requesting bargaining to arrive at a collective-bargaining agreement and expressing the Union’s continued belief that it was not bound by the national and local agreements negotiated by the multiunion-multiemployer groups. The employers answered that there was no need to bargain because, in their view, the Union was bound by the national and local agreements. The conflict remained unresolved, and on November 30, 1970, the Union commenced its strike activity once again.
The next day the employers moved the District Court to hold the Union, its agents, and officers in contempt of the modified temporary restraining order issued by the Superior Court on May 18. A hearing was held on the motion the following day. The Union’s argument that the temporary restraining order had long since expired was rejected by the District Court on two grounds. First, the court concluded that its earlier action denying the motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order gave the order continuing force and effect. Second, the court found that § 1450 itself served to continue the restraining order in effect until affirmatively dissolved or modified by the court. Concluding after the hearing that the Union had willfully violated the restraining order, the District Court held it in criminal contempt and imposed a fine of $200,000.
II
Leaving aside for the moment the question whether the order denying the motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order was effectively the grant of a preliminary injunction, it is clear that whether California law or Rule 65 (b) is controlling, the temporary restraining order issued by the Superior Court expired long before the date of the alleged contempt. Section 527 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, under which the order was issued, provides that temporary restraining orders must be returnable no later than 15 days from the date of the order, 20 days if good cause is shown, and unless the party obtaining the order then proceeds to submit its case for a preliminary injunction, the temporary restraining order must be dissolved. Similarly, under Rule 65 (b), temporary restraining orders must expire by their own terms within 10 days after entry, 20 days if good cause is shown.
Petitioners argue, however, that notwithstanding the time limitations of state law, § 1450 keeps all state court injunctions, including ex parte temporary restraining orders, in full force and effect after removal until affirmatively dissolved or modified by the district court. To the extent this reading of § 1450 is inconsistent with the time limitations of Rule 65 (b), petitioners contend the statute must control.
In our view, however, § 1450 can and should be interpreted in a manner which fully serves its underlying purposes, yet at the same time places it in harmony with the important congressional policies reflected in the time limitations in Rule 65 (b).
At the outset, we can find no basis for petitioners' argument that § 1450 was intended to turn ex parte state court temporary restraining orders of limited duration into federal court injunctions of unlimited duration. Section 1450 was simply designed to deal with the unique problem of a shift in jurisdiction in the middle of a case which arises whenever cases are removed from state to federal court. In this respect two basic purposes are served. Judicial economy is promoted by providing that proceedings had in state court shall have force and effect in federal court, so that pleadings filed in state court, for example, need not be duplicated in federal court. In addition, the statute ensures that •interlocutory orders entered by the state court to protect various rights of the parties will not lapse upon removal. Thus attachments, sequestrations, bonds, undertakings, securities, injunctions, and other orders obtained in state court all remain effective after the case is removed to federal court.
But while Congress clearly intended to preserve the effectiveness of state court orders after removal, there is no basis for believing that § 1450 was designed to give injunctions or other orders greater effect after removal to federal court than they would have had if the case had remained in state court. After removal, the federal court “takes the case up where the State court left it off.” Duncan v. Gegan, 101 U. S. 810, 812 (1880). The “full force and effect” provided state court orders after removal of the case to federal court was not intended to be more than the force and effect the orders would have had in state court.
More importantly, once a case has been removed to federal court, it is settled that federal rather than state law governs the future course of proceedings, notwithstanding state court orders issued prior to removal. Section 1450 implies as much by recognizing the district court's authority to dissolve or modify injunctions, orders, and all other proceedings had in state court prior to removal. This Court resolved this issue long ago in Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713 (1885). There it was argued that an order to take the deposition of a witness issued by the state court prior to removal was binding in federal court and could not be reconsidered by the federal court, notwithstanding its inconsistency with certain federal statutes governing procedure in federal courts. The Court rejected this contention, and said that the predecessor of § 1450
“declares orders of the State court, in a case after-wards removed, to be in force until dissolved or modified by the Circuit Court. This fully recognizes the power of the latter court over such orders. And it was not intended to enact that an order made in the State court, which affected or might affect the mode of trial yet to be had, could change or modify the express directions of an act of Congress on that subject.
“The petitioner having removed his case into the Circuit Court has a right to have its further progress governed by the law of the latter court, and not by that of the court from which it was removed; and if one of the advantages of this removal was an escape from this examination, he has a right to that benefit if his case was rightfully removed.” Id., at 725-726.
See also King v. Worthington, 104 U. S. 44 (1881); Freeman v. Bee Machine Co., 319 U. S. 448 (1943).
By the same token, respondent Union had a right to the protections of the time limitation in Rule 65 (b) once the case was removed to the District Court. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, like other provisions of federal law, govern the mode of proceedings in federal court after removal. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 81 (c). In addition, we may note that although the durational limitations imposed on ex parte restraining orders are now codified in a federal rule, they had their origin in § 17 of the Clayton Act of 1914, 38 Stat. 737. As the House Report recommending its enactment emphasized, the durational and other limitations imposed on temporary restraining orders were thought necessary to cure a serious problem of “ill-considered injunctions without notice.” The stringent restrictions imposed by § 17, and now by Rule 65, on the availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute. Ex parte temporary restraining orders are no doubt necessary in certain circumstances, cf. Carroll v. President and Comm’rs of Princess Anne, 393 U. S. 175, 180 (1968), but under federal law they should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.
We can find no indication that Congress intended § 1450 as an exception to its broader, longstanding policy of restricting the duration of ex parte restraining'orders. The underlying purpose of § 1450 — ensuring that no lapse in a state court temporary restraining order will occur simply by removing the case to federal court — and the policies reflected in Rule 65 (b) can easily be accommodated by applying the following rule: An ex parte temporary restraining order issued by a state court prior to removal remains in force after removal no longer than it would have remained in effect under state law, but in no event does the order remain in force longer than the time limitations imposed by Rule 65 (b), measured from the date of removal.
Applying our holding to the present case is simple. The temporary restraining order was issued by the Superior Court on May 18, 1970, and would have remained in effect in the state court no longer than 15 days, or until June 2. The case was removed to federal court on May 20, 1970. The temporary restraining order therefore expired on May 30, 1970, applying the 10-day limitation of Rule 65 (b) from the date of removal. Accordingly, no order was in effect on November 30, 1970, and the Union violated no order when it resumed its strike at that time.
Ill
We now turn to petitioners’ argument that, apart from the operation of § 1450, the District Court’s denial of the Union’s motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order effectively converted the order into a preliminary injunction of unlimited duration. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument out of hand, stating that “[t]he Union’s unsuccessful effort to dissolve the order before it died a natural death did not convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction or estop it from relying on the death certificate.” 472 F. 2d, at 767. We reach essentially the same conclusion.
As indicated earlier, once a case has been removed to federal court, its course is to be governed by federal law, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 65 (b) establishes a procedure whereby the party against whom a temporary restraining order has issued can move to dissolve or modify the injunction, upon short notice to the party who obtained the order. Situations may arise where the parties, at the time of the hearing on the motion to dissolve the restraining order, find themselves in a position to present their evidence and legal arguments for or against a preliminary injunction. In such circumstances, of course, the court can proceed with the hearing as if it were a hearing on an application for a preliminary injunction. At such hearing, as in any other hearing in which a preliminary injunction is sought, the party seeking the injunction would bear the burden of demonstrating the various factors justifying preliminary injunctive relief, such as the likelihood of irreparable injury to it if an injunction is denied and its likelihood of success on the merits.
On the other hand, situations might arise where the parties are not prepared and do not intend at the hearing on the motion to dissolve or modify the temporary restraining order to present their cases for or against a preliminary injunction. In such circumstances, the appropriate procedure would be for the district court to deal with the issues raised in the motion to dissolve or modify the restraining order, but to postpone for a later hearing, still within the time limitations of Rule 65 (b), the application for a preliminary injunction. See generally C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 2954, p. 523 (1973 ed.).
In the present case we think it plain that the hearing on the Union's motion to dissolve the restraining order cannot be considered to be a hearing on a preliminary-injunction, and that the District Court’s order denying the motion to dissolve cannot reasonably be construed as the grant of a preliminary injunction. There is no indication in the record that either party or the District Court itself treated the May 27 hearing as a hearing on an application for a preliminary injunction. The employers made no attempt at that time to present their case for a preliminary injunction. Likewise, the Union made no attempt at that time to present its defense that it was not bound by the new national and local agreements because it had made a timely withdrawal from the multiunion bargaining unit negotiating said contracts. See n. 3, supra. The court itself did not indicate that it was undertaking a hearing on a preliminary injunction. As far as we can tell, it never addressed itself at the hearing to the various equitable factors involved in considering a preliminary injunction, but only considered the employers' argument that the case should be remanded to the state court because the right to remove had been waived by the Union's appearing in the state proceeding and the Union’s argument that the temporary restraining order should be dissolved for want of jurisdiction under the Sinclair holding.
We cannot accept petitioners’ argument that the controlling factor is that the Union had the opportunity to be heard on the merits of the preliminary injunction when it moved in the District Court to dissolve the temporary restraining order. Rule 65 (b) does not place upon the party against whom a temporary restraining order has issued the burden of coming forward and presenting its case against a preliminary injunction. To the contrary, the Rule provides that “[i]n case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice, the motion for a preliminary injunction shall be set down for hearing at the earliest possible time... and when the motion comes on for hearing the party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall proceed with the application for a preliminary injunction and, if he does not do so, the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.” The burden was on the employers to show that they were entitled to a preliminary injunction, not on the Union to show that they were not.
Even were we to assume that the District Court had intended by its June 4 order to grant a preliminary injunction, its intention was not manifested in an appropriate form. Where a hearing on a preliminary injunction has been held after issuance of a temporary restraining order, and where the District Court decides to grant the preliminary injunction, the appropriate procedure is not simply to continue in effect the temporary restraining order, but rather to issue a preliminary injunction, accompanied by the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law. As stated by the Second Circuit:
“The fact that notice is given and a hearing held cannot serve to extend indefinitely beyond the period limited by [Rule 65 (b)] the time during which a temporary restraining order remains effective. The [Rule] contemplates that notice and hearing shall result in an appropriate adjudication, i. e., the issuance or denial of a preliminary injunction, not in extension of the temporary stay.” Pan American World Airways v. Flight Engineers’ Assn., 306 F. 2d 840, 842 (1962) (footnotes omitted).
See also Sims v. Greene, 160 F. 2d 512 (CA3 1947).
As the fine imposed in this case exemplifies, serious penalties can befall those who are found to be in contempt of court injunctions. Accordingly, one basic principle built into Rule 65 is that those against whom an injunction is issued should receive fair and precisely drawn notice of what the injunction actually prohibits.
“The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon. When it is founded upon a decree too vague to be understood, it can be a deadly one. Congress responded to that danger by requiring that a federal court frame its orders so that those who must obey them will know what the court intends to require and what it means to forbid.... The most fundamental postulates of our legal order forbid the imposition of a penalty for disobeying a command that defies comprehension.” International Longshoremen’s Assn. v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn., 389 U. S. 64, 76 (1967).
It would be inconsistent with this basic principle to countenance procedures whereby parties against whom an injunction is directed are left to guess about its intended duration. Rule 65 (b) provides that temporary restraining orders expire by their own terms within 10 days of their issuance. Where a court intends to supplant such an order with a preliminary injunction of unlimited duration pending a final decision on the merits or further order of the court, it should issue an order clearly saying so. And where it has not done so, a party against whom a temporary restraining order has issued may reasonably assume that the order has expired within the time limits imposed by Rule 65 (b). Here, since the only orders entered were a temporary restraining order of limited duration and an order denying a motion to dissolve the temporary order, the Union had no reason to believe that a preliminary injunction of unlimited duration had been issued.
Since neither § 1450 nor the District Court's denial of the Union’s motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order effectively converted that order izrto a preliminary injunction, no order was in effect on November 30, 1970, over six months after the temporary restraining order was issued. There being no order to violate, the District Court erred in holding the Union in contempt, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the District Court’s adjudication of contempt must be
Affirmed.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1450:
“Whenever any action is removed from a State court to a district court of the United States, any attachment or sequestration of the goods or estate of the defendant in such action in the State court shall hold the goods or estate to answer the final judgment or decree in the same manner as they would have been held to answer final judgment or decree had it been rendered by the State court.
“All bonds, undertakings, or security given by either party in such action prior to its removal shall remain valid and effectual notwithstanding such removal.
“All injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court.”
See Appalachian Volunteers, Inc. v. Clark, 432 F. 2d 530 (CA6 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 939 (1971); Morning Telegraph v. Powers, 450 F. 2d 97 (CA2 1971), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 954 (1972). See also The Herald Co. v. Hopkins, 325 F. Supp. 1232 (NDNY 1971); Peabody Coal Co. v. Barnes, 308 F. Supp. 902 (ED Mo. 1969).
This dispute was also the subject of a proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board. See Airco Industrial Gases, 195 N. L. R. B. 676 (1972). From the findings of fact in that proceeding, it appears that since 1964 it has been the practice in the trucking industry for representatives of a group of the various Teamsters locals and a group of various trucking employers to negotiate national agreements and supplemental agreements covering local areas. Agreements covering the 1967-1970 period had expired on March 31, 1970. Negotiations between the negotiating committees of the multiunion and multiemploj'er groups toward a contract for the 1970-1973 period began in January 1970 and continued in February and April. On April 29, the Teamsters negotiating committee approved the national and various supplemental agreements and on April 30, two representatives from each of the Teamsters locals in the multiunion group approved the agreements. Some time thereafter a nationwide referendum vote of all Teamsters members was conducted and it was determined that the employees had ratified the agreements.
The Union claimed it was not bound by the new agreements because it had made a timely withdrawal from the multiunion-multiemployer bargaining unit in a letter of January 28, 1970, to various employers, informing them of the Union’s intention to negotiate a separate agreement from the national and supplemental agreement. The Board ultimately determined that the Union’s withdrawal was not timely because negotiations had begun on January 7, 1970, prior to the attempted withdrawal. We, of course, express no view on this issue.
In Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 390 U. S. 557 (1968), we held that § 301 (a) suits initially brought in state courts may be removed to the designated federal forum under the federal-question removal jurisdiction delineated in 28 U. S. C. § 1441.
Three-fourths of the fine was conditioned on the Union’s failure to end the strike within 24 hours of the court’s order, one-half on failure to end the strike within 48 hours, and one-fourth on failure to end the strike within 72 hours.
Although we do not rest our decision on this point, there seems to be much evidence in the record suggesting that even if the restraining order remained in effect and had been violated, the violation was not willful. A finding that the violation was willful obviously presupposes knowledge on the part of the Union that the order was still in effect. Whether or not the order in fact remained in effect on November 30, the Union evidently believed it had expired. Prior to commencing its strike in November, the Union informed the employers through its attorney that it did “not understand from the file that there is presently in effect any order which forbids Local 70 from bargaining with the employer, or from pressing its position that it has a right to bargain for a separate contract. A motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order against economic action was denied by the federal court, but that temporary restraining order has long since become ineffective by virtue of the statutory limitation on its duration, and there has been no application for a preliminarj- injunction.
“Accordingly, the federal court case is pending, but there are no outstanding orders which affect the assertion by Local 70 of rights which it claims....” App. 67.
Section 527 (Supp. 1974) provides:
“An injunction may be granted at any time before judgment upon a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if the complaint in the one case, or the affidavits in the other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist therefor. A copy of the complaint or of the affidavits, upon which the injunction was granted, must, if not previously served, be served therewith.
“No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposite party; nor shall any temporary restraining order be granted without notice to the opposite party, unless it shall appear from facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice. In case a temporary restraining order shall be granted without notice, in the contingency above specified, the matter shall be made returnable on an order requiring cause to be shown why the injunction, should not be granted, on the earliest day that the business of the court will admit of, but not later than 15 days or, if good cause appears to the court, 20 dajcs from the date of such order. When the matter first comes up for hearing the party who obtained the temporary restraining order must be ready to proceed and must have served upon the opposite party at least two daj's prior to such hearing, a copy of the complaint and of all affidavits to be used in such application and a copy of his points and authorities in support of such application; if he be not ready, or if he shall fail to serve a copy of his complaint, affidavits and points and authorities, as herein required, the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order. The defendant, however, shall be entitled, as of course, to one continuance for a reasonable period, if he desire it, to enable him to meet the application for the preliminary injunction. The defendant may, in response to such order to show cause, present affidavits relating to the granting of the pre-liminar) injunction, and if such affidavits are served on the applicant at least two days prior to the hearing, the applicant shall not be entitled to any continuance on account thereof. On the day upon which such order is made returnable, such hearing shall take precedence of all other matters on the calendar of said day, except older matters of the same character, and matters to which special precedence maj' be given bj' law. When the cause is at issue it shall be set for trial at the earliest possible date and shall take precedence of all other cases, except older matters of the same character, and matters to which special precedence may be given by law."
The time limitation of § 527 has been strictly construed by the California courts. See, e. g., Smith v. Superior Court, 64 Cal. App. 722, 222 P. 857 (1923); Sharpe v. Brotzman, 145 Cal. App. 2d 354, 302 P. 2d 668 (1956); Oksner v. Superior Court, 229 Cal. App. 2d 672, 40 Cal. Rptr. 621 (1964); Agricultural Prorate Comm’n v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App. 2d 154, 85 P. 2d 898 (1938).
Petitioners argue that the time limitation of § 527 is not applicable here because it is operative only with respect to orders granted without notice to the adverse party. In the present case, petitioners indicate, telephonic notice was given to the Union’s counsel on May 15, the day the employers first sought the restraining order, counsel was served with all documents prior to a hearing arranged that day, and counsel was present in the courtroom and presented argument on behalf of the Union at that hearing.
We think it clear from § 527, however, that this kind of informal notice and hearing does not convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction of unlimited duration under state law. Section 527 provides that when a case comes up for a hearing on a preliminary injunction, the party seeking the injunction "must have served upon the opposite party at least two days prior to such hearing, a copy of the complaint and of all affidavits to be used in such application and a copy of his points and authorities in support of such application... (Emphasis added.) In providing that no preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposite party, we think the statute thus contemplates notice of at least two days, with a meaningful opportunity to prepare for the hearing, rather than the kind of informal, same-day notice that was given in this case.
This interpretation of state law is supported on the facts of this case. Even though the Superior Court held some sort of hearing, with Union counsel attending, before granting the temporary restraining order, the court obviously felt that the hearing was not a sufficient basis for ruling on the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, in the same order granting the temporary restraining order, the court set the case for a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction within the 15-day limit imposed by § 527.
In any event, we need not rest our holding on this interpretation of state law, for even if this restraining order could have had unlimited duration under California law, it was subject to the time limitations of Rule 65 (b) after the case was removed to federal court. See infra, at 437-440. Although by its terms Rule 65 (b), like § 527, only limits the duration of restraining orders issued without notice, we think it applicable to the order in this case even though informal notice was given. The 1966 Amendments to Rule 65 (b), requiring the party seeking a temporary restraining order to certify to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give either written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney, were adopted in recognition of the fact that informal notice and a hastily arranged hearing are to be preferred to no notice or hearing at all. See Advisory Committee’s Note, 28 U. S. C. App. 7831. But this informal, same-day notice, desirable though it may be before a restraining order is issued, is no substitute for the more thorough notice requirements which must be satisfied to obtain a preliminary injunction of potentially unlimited duration. The notice required by Rule 65 (a) before a preliminary injunction can issue implies a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity to oppose the application and to prepare for such opposition. Sims v. Greene, 161 F. 2d 87 (CA3 1947). The same-day notice provided in this case before the temporary restraining order was issued does not suffice. See Bailey v. Transportation Communication Employees Union, 45 F. R. D. 444 (ND Miss. 1968). See also C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil §2949, p. 468 (1973 ed.), reading into Rule 65 (a) a five-day-notice requirement based on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 6 (d).
Rule 65 (b) provides:
"(b) Temporary Restraining Order; Notice; Hearing; Duration.
“A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting his claim that notice should not be required. Every temporary restraining order granted without notice shall be indorsed with the date and hour of issuance; shall be filed forthwith in the clerk’s office and entered of record; shall define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice; and shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed 10 days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period. The reasons for the extension shall be entered of record. In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice, the motion for a preliminary injunction shall be set down for hearing at the earliest possible time and takes precedence of all matters except older matters of the same character; and when the motion comes on for hearing the party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall proceed with the application for a preliminary injunction and, if he does not do so, the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order. On 2 days' notice to the party who obtained the témpora^’ restraining order without notice or on such shorter notice to that party as the court may prescribe, the adverse party may appear and move its
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Article IV of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 provided a plan under which men inducted into the armed forces would continue to receive the protection of previously purchased commercial life insurance while in the service without paying premiums. Insurance companies were required to keep the policies of servicemen who elected to come under the Act in effect until one year after their military service ended even though these men made no further payments. The Government assured the insurance companies that the premiums would eventually be paid by giving its promissory certificates to the companies. The respondents, Plesha, Mabbutt, and Kern, who entered the Army in 1941, had previously purchased commercial life insurance. They invoked the benefits of the Act by filing proper applications with their companies and the Veterans’ Administration. They made no further payment of premiums but the policies were kept in effect by government certificates. After leaving the Army, they were notified by the Veterans’ Administration that unless they paid back premiums with interest their policies would lapse. Respondents allowed the policies to lapse and the Government paid the insuring companies the back premiums after first deducting the cash surrender value of the policies. In this case, the Government contends that it has a legal right to be reimbursed for these payments. The District Court agreed with this contention. 123 F. Supp. 593. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding servicemen had no statutory or contractual obligation to the Government to repay the premiums. 227 F. 2d 624. We affirm the judgment below because the language of the 1940 Act, its legislative history and its administrative interpretation demonstrate that Congress intended that ex-soldiers would not have to reimburse the Government.
1. The Act. — As the Government concedes, the 1940 Act contained no express provision which required reimbursement for premiums paid by the Government on a lapsed policy. But significantly it did contain specific provisions to reduce any losses the Government might incur in administering the insurance plan by giving the Government certain other rights. Under § 408 the United States had a lien upon the policy from the time it came under the protection of the Act. When a soldier died the insurance company was authorized by § 409 to deduct unpaid premiums from the proceeds payable under the policy. If after leaving the service the insured desired to maintain his policy, § 410 required him to pay the unpaid premiums to the insurance company. If he chose not to pay these premiums, § 410 further provided that the policy would lapse. And if a policy lapsed, § 411 provided that the United States should be given credit for the policy’s cash surrender value as an offset against the Government’s promise to pay the back premiums. There was nothing that indicated that an ex-soldier had to reimburse the Government for any balance that it paid.
2. The legislative history. — The Government’s claim for reimbursement is refuted by the legislative history. Article IV of the 1940 Act substantially reenacted the insurance provisions of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1918 and had little independent legislative history. We agree with the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs that this scant history “is of little, if any, help” in interpreting the 1940 Act. We must therefore examine the history of the 1918 bill. During the Senate Committee hearings on this bill, Senator Reed, who was the principal critic of its insurance provisions, interpreted them as permitting a soldier to let his policy lapse without any obligation to restore the premiums paid by the Government. He objected to the Government’s bearing any part of the cost and even suggested that the bill should be amended to authorize the Government to deduct the premiums from the soldier’s monthly pay. Professor John H. Wigmore, who as a major representing the Army had a dominant part in drafting the bill and presenting it to Congress, strongly objected to Senator Reed’s suggestions. Professor Wigmore pointed out that this benefit would be in keeping with the many new benefits which were being conferred on servicemen at that critical war period. When directly asked whether a soldier could be made to pay, he called attention to the fact that the Government had a lien on the policy and could recover the cash surrender value. He admitted, however, that the cash surrender value would not in all cases pay the entire amount of back premiums but predicted that the loss to the Government would be very slight. The Committee accepted Professor Wigmore’s position and reported the bill in the form he urged.
The House Judiciary Committee made a comprehensive report on the 1918 bill. It referred to the insurance sections as providing a method for the Government to "carry” the premiums upon servicemen’s policies in private companies. The Committee recognized that carrying this insurance would cost the Government money, but expressed the hope that this burden would not be large because:
“In the first place the Government only guarantees the payment of the premiums. If the soldier dies the insurance company will get its premiums out of the policy and the Government’s guaranty will not be called upon. If the soldier comes back from the war he will repay the premiums if he continues the policy, and if he lets the policy lapse the Government will be subrogated to his rights.”
Thus, the Committee apparently thought that the Government must look to the cash surrender value to mitigate its loss where a policy was allowed to lapse.
In 1942, the 1940 Act was amended to require ex-servicemen to reimburse the Government for back premiums paid by it on their lapsed policies. The Government contends that this 1942 Amendment was to clarify and reaffirm the meaning of the 1940 Act. However it appears that the Veterans’ Administration requested the 1942 Amendment to . . eliminate the possibility of requiring the Government to pay premiums on insurance which the insured does not intend to carry except during his period of active service . . . .” And during a hearing before the House Committee on Military Affairs a Veterans’ Administration representative testified, “[t]he insured is liable for all of the premiums of the $5,000 policy, the Government acting really as a guarantor. However, if there is a default [by the ex-serviceman], there would not be any liability for the whole amount, in excess of the cash [surrender] value under present construction of existing law.” If the legislative history of the 1942 Act indicates anything, it is that Congress thought that it was changing the law by changing the language of the Act.
3. The administrative interpretation. — The administration of the 1918 and 1940 Acts does not support the Government’s claim for reimbursement. The Government relies on the fact that a few soldiers who invoked the protection of the 1918 Act and allowed their policies to lapse were later required to reimburse it. However these collections were so sporadic and so insignificant that instead of supporting the Government’s position they contradict it. Under the 1940 Act, § 401 (2) required the Veterans’ Administration to issue notices explaining the Act. None of the notices promulgated prior to 1943 suggested any duty on the part of servicemen to reimburse the Government. But public statements of Veterans’ Administration officials gave the Act a squarely contrary construction.
Section 401 (1) required soldiers seeking the benefit of the 1940 Act to file applications on forms prepared in accordance with the regulations of the Veterans’ Administration. The respondents here filed such an application which included within its terms the following agreement:
“In consideration hereof, I hereby consent and agree that the United States shall be protected in the amount of any premiums and interest guaranteed on the above numbered policy in the event of its maturity as a claim, or out of the cash surrender value of the policy, at the expiration of the period of protection under the Act.”
This contract, prepared by the Veterans’ Administration, contained no suggestion to soldiers that they would be expected to reimburse the Government for its payment of premiums if they permitted their policies to lapse. Had the Veterans’ Administration construed the Act as imposing such a liability on soldiers, we think it would have mentioned the obligation in the contract that it asked them to sign.
Congress passed the 1918 and 1940 Acts at a time when men were being called from civilian life into the Army in the face of impending war. Great efforts were made to ease the burden on these men and their dependents. Among these, the Government generously provided family allotments, disability payments, and low-cost government insurance. Similarly the provisions under consideration here were adopted to assist soldiers who had bought insurance before entering the Army and did not require them to reimburse the Government.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons given by Circuit Judge Huxman in United States v. Hendler, 225 F. 2d 106.
54 Stat. 1183, 50 U. S. C. App. (1940 ed.) § 540.
Plesha brought suit against the Government to recover a dividend declared on his National Service Life Insurance policy. The Government attempted to offset the amount it had paid on his commercial insurance. The other respondents intervened to litigate the same basic issue.
We granted certiorari, 350 U. S. 1013, because this holding was in conflict with United States v. Hendler, 225 F. 2d 106.
The Government contends that such an obligation should be implied from the Act and from general principles of the common law — particularly the doctrine that a guarantor who pays the debt of another is entitled to reimbursement. In regard to the common-law right of a guarantor, we are not persuaded from the record that the insured servicemen were indebted to the insurance companies for the wartime premiums either under the Act or the terms of their policies. Where no debt exists there is no basis for applying the common-law rules of guaranty. In any event, we would be very hesitant to infer a right to reimbursement from these servicemen in favor of the Government based on a common-law doctrine which was not referred to in the Act or in its congressional history. Cf. United States v. Gilman, 347 U. S. 507.
40 Stat. 444. “The only change in this article [insurance] relates to method of administration.” H. R. Rep. No. 3001, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 4.
Decisions of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, No. 742 (April 1947), Vol. 1, Supp. 1, pp. 93, 98. The Government relies here on a discussion between Congressmen Voorhis and Arends during the House debates on the 1940 Act. 86 Cong. Rec., Part 12, 13132-13133. Apparently these gentlemen were not familiar with the specific provisions of the Act. This is not surprising since neither was a sponsor of the measure. Moreover, since the 1940 Act was a substantial reenactment of the 1918 Act, there were no committee hearings to inform congressmen of the precise scope and effect of the Act. As neither Mr. Voorhis nor Mr. Arends were lawyers, it cannot be assumed that they were aware of the technical common-law theory of guaranty which the Government relies on here. We think the Veterans’ Administrator was correct in concluding that the legislative history, which includes the Voorhis-Arends colloquy, “is of little, if any, help” to the Government’s claim.
See Boone v. Lightner, 319 U. S. 561, 565.
“If he comes back and wants to keep his insurance in effect, I take it the proposition here is that he must then pay the Government; but if he does not want to keep this policy in effect he still has the option to walk away and leave it.” Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S. 2859 and H. It. 6361, 65th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess. 135.
In closing the argument over requiring the soldiers to pay, the following colloquy took place between Major Wigmore and Senator Reed:
“Senator Reed: . . . Now, do you think that would be undesirable, Major, or do you think it would be greatly to be preferred that the Government just carry the risk?
“Maj. Wigmore: I can only speak for myself in that respect; but, speaking from my own judgment, it would seem to me that that is going further than this Nation ought to wish to go against its soldiers and sailors. . . .
“Senator Reed: ... You really think it is desirable that the Government should carry it, regardless of the attempt to reimburse itself out of the man's pay?
“Maj. Wigmore: I only want to point out the fact that the Government, in the war-risk insurance bill . . . has offered to give Government insurance to soldiers and sailors at a rate of, I think, $8 a thousand, which I am told means that the Government pays the entire expenses of administration of that insurance .... They have therefore contributed that already to soldiers and sailors in providing insurance. If the Government has gone that far, it seems to me it would be inconsistent with that, in principle, not to go this far.”
Id., at 137-138.
H. R. Rep. No. 181, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.
Id., at 8.
“The amount paid by the United States to an insurer on account of applications approved under the provisions of this article, as amended, shall become a debt due to the United States by the insured on whose account payment was made . . . .” (Emphasis added.) 56 Stat. 775.
Letter of the Veterans’ Administrator to the President of the Senate, appended to S. Rep. No. 716, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 6.
Hearings before the House Committee on Military Affairs on H. R. 7029, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 38.
Even the Veterans’ Administration stated in a formal decision in 1947 that:
“Fairness compels admission that the legislative history of the 1942 act reflects a probable belief, though an incorrect one, on the part of the Seventy-seventh Congress that the 1940 act (passed by the Seventy-sixth Congress) had been construed as not giving rise to a debt owing by the insured to the Government upon the latter’s payment to the insurer of the amount by which the premiums with interest exceeded the cash surrender value.” Decisions of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, No. 742 (April 1947), Vol. 1, Supp. 1, pp. 93, 103.
According to the Government’s figures, 7,745 policies were brought within the protection of the 1918 Act; 476 of these policies were allowed to lapse. The total amount of back premiums paid by the Government on these policies was less than $20,000 or approximately $42 per policy, showing that Major Wigmore’s prophecy as to the smallness of the Government’s losses was a correct one. The Government sought reimbursement on only 10 of these 476 lapsed policies and total collections were $484.42. Records submitted show that all collections were obtained from soldiers who were still in the Army at the time they were called on to pay. The demands for payment went through regular military channels.
Apparently the first time the Veterans’ Administration ever officially interpreted the Act as authorizing the Government to be reimbursed for its payment of premiums on lapsed policies was in Administrator’s Decision No. 513, March 1, 1943. This decision held that the Government’s agreement to carry policies under the 1940 Act was a “gratuitous assumption of liability” which had been retroactively changed by the 1942 Amendment. Decisions of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, No. 513 (March 1943), Vol. 1, 781. However we agree with the view expressed in a later Administrator’s Decision, No. 742, that a serviceman’s liability under the 1940 Act must be determined under it and not under the 1942 Act. And see Lynch v. United States, 292 U. S. 571.
Less than two months after the 1940 Act was passed, the Director of Insurance for the Veterans’ Administration replying to a telegraphic inquiry stated that “No provision is made in the Act for collecting from insured the amount paid by Government to insurer.” Shortly afterwards the Director made a similar statement to an insurance company representative.
In the meantime the Assistant Director made the following statement for publication in an insurance journal: “There is no provision in the Act at this time for collecting from the insured the amount that the premium with interest may exceed the cash surrender value at the time of termination.” This same interpretation was given by the Assistant Director when testifying before the House Committee on Military Affairs in favor of the 1942 Amendment. See text at 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: | 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 motions to dispense with printing the petition for a writ of certiorari and the respondent’s brief are granted. The petition for writ of certiorari is also granted and the judgments are affirmed. City of Greenwood v. Peacock, ante, p. 808.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Fortas would reverse the judgments for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in City of Greenwood v. Peacock, ante, at 835.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
For present purposes the facts may be briefly stated. The railroad brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against Ol-berding, the owner of a truck, which, while on temporary business in Kentucky, collided with an overpass of the railroad, causing a subsequent derailment. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship, plaintiff being an Illinois corporation and Olberding a citizen of Indiana. Olberding was apprised of the action through service of process on the Secretary of State in Frankfort, Kentucky, according to the Kentucky Non-resident Motorist Statute. He entered a special appearance and moved that the case be dismissed on the ground of improper venue. The motion was overruled and the case went to trial, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, 201 F. 2d 582. Its ruling on venue, in the situation here presented, is in direct conflict with that of the First Circuit in Martin v. Fischbach Trucking Co., 183 F. 2d 53, with which the Third Circuit has recently agreed, McCoy v. Siler, 205 F. 2d 498. To resolve the conflict, we granted certiorari. 345 U. S. 950.
This is a horse soon curried. Congress, in conferring jurisdiction on the district courts in cases based solely on diversity of citizenship, has been explicit to confine such suits to “the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.” 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (a). This is not a qualification upon the power of the court to adjudicate, but a limitation designed for the convenience of litigants, and, as such, may be waived by them. The plaintiff, by bringing the suit in a district other than that authorized by the statute, relinquished his right to object to the venue. But unless the defendant has also consented to be sued in that district, he has a right to invoke the protection which Congress has afforded him. The requirement of venue is specific and unambiguous; it is not one of those vague principles which, in the interest of some overriding policy, is to be given a “liberal” construction.
It is not claimed that either the corporate plaintiff or the individual defendant here was a “resident” of Kentucky. The sole reason why the plaintiff was allowed to bring this action in the federal court of Kentucky was that a consent to be sued in that state was attributed to the defendant. And this attribution was then made the basis of a waiver of his rights under the federal venue provision. Concededly the defendant did not in fact consent. He impliedly consented, so the argument runs, to be sued in the federal court of Kentucky simply by driving his automobile on the highways of Kentucky, which has the familiar statute holding non-resident motorists amenable to suit for accidents caused by their negligent operations within the State.
It is true that in order to ease the process by which new decisions are fitted into pre-existing modes of analysis there has been some Active talk to the effect that the reason why a non-resident can be subjected to a state’s jurisdiction is that the non-resident has “impliedly” consented to be sued there. In point of fact, however, jurisdiction in these cases does not rest on consent at all. See Scott, Jurisdiction over Nonresident Motorists, 39 Harv. L. Rev. 563. The defendant may protest to high heaven his unwillingness to be sued and it avails him not. The liability rests on the inroad which the automobile has made on the decision of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, as it has on so many aspects of our social scene. The potentialities of damage by a motorist, in a population as mobile as ours, are such that those whom he injures must have opportunities of redress against him provided only that he is afforded an opportunity to defend himself. We have held that this is a fair rule of law as between a resident injured party (for whose protection these statutes are primarily intended) and a non-resident motorist, and that the requirements of due process are therefore met. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352. But to conclude from this holding that the motorist, who never consented to anything and whose consent is altogether immaterial, has actually agreed to be sued and has thus waived his federal venue rights is surely to move in the world of Alice in Wonderland. The fact that a non-resident motorist who comes into Kentucky can, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, be subjected to suit in the appropriate Kentucky state court has nothing whatever to do with his rights under 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (a).
This conclusion is entirely loyal to the decision and reasoning of Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Corp., 308 U. S. 165. There the defendant, a Delaware corporation, was sued by a non-resident of New York in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and we found the venue requirements of what is now 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (a) satisfied because Bethlehem had designated an agent in New York “upon whom a summons may be served within the State of New York.” 308 U. S., at 175. We held that this constituted an “actual consent” to be sued in New York, not the less so because it was “part of the bargain by which Bethlehem enjoys the business freedom of the State of New York.” Ibid. We further held, following Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369, 377, that this consent extended to all courts sitting in New York, both federal and state. Of course this doctrine would equally apply to an individual defendant in situations where a state may validly require the designation of an agent for service of process as a condition of carrying on activities within its borders, and such designation has in fact been made. See Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160. But here no such designation was required or made, and hence the Neirbo case has no applicability.
The judgment is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas concurs in the result.
Ky. Rev. Stat., 1953, §§ 188.020-188.030. The Kentucky statute, like the one upheld in Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352, in substance provides that a non-resident motorist who operates his automobile on the state’s highways makes the Secretary of State his agent for service of process in any civil action arising out of such operation. There is also set up a procedure for serving the summons on the Secretary of State, who in turn is to notify the non-resident defendant by registered mail.
On the other hand, the statute under consideration in Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, specifically required the non-resident motorist to register his vehicle annually and formally to designate the Secretary of State an agent upon whom process might be served. Penalties were provided for use of the state’s roads without complying with these requirements.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the 1972 Amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress, acting under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, authorized federal courts to award money damages in favor of a private individual against a state government found to have subjected that person to employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin/' The principal question presented by these cases is whether, as against the shield of sovereign immunity afforded the State by the Eleventh Amendment, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974), Congress has the power to authorize federal courts to enter such an award against the State as a means of enforcing the substantive guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the effect of our decision in Edelman was to foreclose Congress’ power. We granted certiorari to resolve this important constitutional question. 423 IT. S. 1031 (1975). We reverse.
I
Petitioners in No. 75-251 sued in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all present and retired male employees of the State of Connecticut. Their amended complaint asserted, inter alia, that certain provisions in the State’s statutory retirement benefit plan discriminated against them because of their sex, and therefore contravened Title VII of the 1964 Act, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV). Title VII, which originally did not include state and local govern-merits, had in the interim been amended to bring the States within its purview.
The District Court held that the Connecticut State Employees Retirement Act violated Title VII's prohibition against sex-based employment discrimination. 390 F. Supp. 278, 285-288 (1974). It entered prospective injunctive relief in petitioners’ favor against respondent state officials. Petitioners also sought an award of retroactive retirement benefits as compensation for losses caused by the State's discrimination, as well as “a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.” But the District Court held that both would constitute recovery of money damages from the State’s treasury, and were therefore precluded by the Eleventh Amendment and by this Court’s decision in Edelman v. Jordan, supra.
On petitioners’ appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It agreed with the District Court that the action, “insofar as it seeks damages, is in essence against the state and as such is subject to the Eleventh Amendment.” 519 P. 2d 559, 565 (1975). The Court of Appeals also found that under the 1972 Amendments to Title VII, “Congress intended to authorize a private suit for backpay by state employees against the state.” Id., at 568. Notwithstanding this statutory authority, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court and held that under Edelman a “private federal action for retroactive damages” is not a “constitutionally permissible method of enforcing Fourteenth Amendment rights.” 519 F. 2d, at 569. It reversed the District Court and remanded as to attorneys’ fees, however, reasoning that such an award would have only an “ancillary effect” on the state treasury of the kind permitted under Edelman, supra, at 667-668. 519 F. 2d, at 571. The petition filed here by the state employees in No. 75-251 contends that Congress does possess the constitutional power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to authorize their Title VII damages action against the State. The state officials’ cross-petition, No. 75-283, argues that under Edelman the Eleventh Amendment bars any award of attorneys’ fees here because it would be paid out of the state treasury.
II
In Edelman this Court held that monetary relief awarded by the District Court to welfare plaintiffs, by reason of wrongful denial of benefits which had occurred previous to the entry of the District Court’s determination of their wrongfulness, violated the Eleventh Amendment. Such an award was found to be indistinguishable from a monetary award against the State itself which had been prohibited in Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459, 464 (1945). It was therefore controlled by that ease rather than by Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), which permitted suits against state officials to obtain prospective relief against violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Edelman went on to hold that the plaintiffs in that case could not avail themselves of the doctrine of waiver expounded in cases such as Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 (1964), and Employees v. Missouri Public Health Dept., 411 U. S. 279 (1973), because the necessary predicate for that doctrine was congressional intent to abrogate the immunity conferred by the Eleventh Amendment. We concluded that none of the statutes relied upon by plaintiffs in Edelman contained any authorization by Congress to join a State as defendant. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, had been held in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 187-191 (1961), to exclude cities and other municipal corporations from its ambit; that being the case, it could not have been intended to include States as parties defendant. The provisions of the Social Security Act relied upon by plaintiffs were held by their terms not to “authorize suit against anyone,” 415 U. S., at 674, and they, too, were incapable of supplying the predicate for a claim of waiver on the part of the State.
All parties in the instant litigation agree with the Court of Appeals that the suit for retroactive benefits by the petitioners is in fact indistinguishable from that sought to be maintained in Edelman, since what is sought here is a damages award payable to a private party from the state treasury.
Our analysis begins where Edelman ended, for in this Title VII case the “threshold fact of congressional authorization,” id., at 672, to sue the State as employer is clearly present. This is, of course, the prerequisite found present in Farden and wanting in Employees. We are aware of the factual differences between the type of state activity involved in Farden and that involved in the present case, but we do not think that difference is material for our purposes. The congressional authorization involved in Parden was based on the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause; here, however, the Eleventh Amendment defense is asserted in the context of legislation passed pursuant to Congress’ authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As ratified by the States after the Civil War, that Amendment quite clearly contemplates limitations on their authority. In relevant part, it provides:
“Section 1. . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The substantive provisions are by express terms directed at the States. Impressed upon them by those provisions are duties with respect to their treatment of private individuals. Standing behind the imperatives is Congress’ power to “enforce” them “by appropriate legislation.”
The impact of the Fourteenth Amendment upon the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and the reach of congressional power under § 5, were examined at length by this Court in Ex 'parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 (1880). A state judge had been arrested and indicted under a federal criminal statute prohibiting the exclusion on the basis of race of any citizen from, service as a juror in a state court. The judge claimed that the statute was beyond Congress’ power to enact under either the Thirteenth or the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court first observed that these Amendments “were intended to be, what they really are, limitations of the power of the States and enlargements of the power of Congress.” Id., at 345. It then addressed the relationship between the language of § 5 and the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment:
“The prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment are directed to the States, and they are to a degree restrictions of State power. It is these which Congress is empowered to enforce, and to enforce against State action, however put forth, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial. Such enforcement is no invasion of State sovereignty. No law can be, which the people of the States have, by the Constitution of the United States, empowered Congress to enact. ... It is said the selection of jurors for her courts and the administration of her laws belong to each State; that they are her rights. This is true in the general. But in exercising her rights, a State cannot disregard the limitations which the Federal Constitution has applied to her power. Her rights do not reach to that extent. Nor can she deny to the general government the right to exercise all its granted powers, though they may interfere with the full enjoyment of rights she would have if those powers had not been thus granted. Indeed, every addition of power to the general government involves a corresponding diminution of the governmental powers of the States. It is carved out of them.
“The argument in support of the petition for a habeas corpus ignores entirely the power conferred upon Congress by the Fourteenth Amendment. Were it not for the fifth section of that amendment, there might be room for argument that the first section is only declaratory of the moral duty of the State .... But the Constitution now expressly gives authority for congressional interference and compulsion in the cases embraced within the Fourteenth Amendment. It is but a limited authority, true, extending only to a single class of cases; but within its limits it is complete." Id., at 346-348.
Ex parte Virginia’s early recognition of this shift in the federal-state balance has been carried forward by more recent decisions of this Court. See, e: g., South Carolina v. Katsenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 308 (1966); Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 238-239 (1972).
There can be no doubt that this line of cases has sanctioned intrusions by Congress, acting under the Civil War Amendments, into the judicial, executive, and legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States. The legislation considered in each case was grounded on the expansion of Congress’ powers— with the corresponding diminution of state sovereignty— found to be intended by the Framers and made part of the Constitution upon the States’ ratification of those Amendments, a phenomenon aptly described as a “carv[ing] out” in Ex parte Virginia, supra, at 346.
It is true that none of these previous cases presented the question of the relationship between- the Eleventh Amendment and the enforcement power granted to Congress under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But we think that the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, see Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In that section Congress is expressly granted authority to enforce “by appropriate legislation” the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which themselves embody significant limitations on state authority. When Congress acts pursuant to § 5, not only is it exercising legislative authority that is plenary within the terms of the constitutional grant, it is exercising that authority under one section of a constitutional Amendment whose other sections by their own terms embody limitations on state authority. We think that Congress may, in determining what is “appropriate legislation” for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provide for private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974); Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459 (1945).
Ill
In No. 75-283, the state officials contest the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that an award of attorneys’ fees in this case would under Edelman have only an “ancillary effect” on the state treasury and could therefore be permitted as falling outside the Eleventh Amendment under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908). 415 U. S., at 667-668. We need not address this question, since, given the express congressional authority for such an award in a case brought under Title VII, it follows necessarily from our holding in No. 75-251 that Congress’ exercise of power in this respect is also not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment in No. 75-283 on this basis.
The judgment in No. 75-251 is
Reversed.
The judgment in No. 75-283 is
Affirmed.
Section 703 (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter 1964 Act), 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a) (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), provides:
“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
“(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or “(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
As relevant here, the definition of “person” in § 701 (a) of the 1964 Act, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U. S. C. §2000e (a), was amended by § 2 (1) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (hereinafter the 1972 Amendments), 86 Stat. 103, 42 U. S. C. §2000e (a) (1970 ed., Supp, IV), to include “governments, governmental agencies, [and] political subdivisions.”
The express exclusion of “a State or political subdivision thereof” provided in § 701 (b) of the former was stricken by § 2 (2) of the latter, 86 Stat. 103, 42 U. S. C. §2000e (b) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Section 2 (5) of the 1972 Amendments, 86 Stat. 103, 42 U. S. C. §2000e(f) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), amended § 701(f) of the 1964 Act, 42 U. S, C. § 2000e (f), to include within the definition of “employee” those individuals “subject to the civil service laws of a State government, governmental agency or political subdivision.”
The 1972 Amendments retained the right of an individual aggrieved by an employer’s unlawful employment practice to sue on his or her own behalf, upon satisfaction of the statutory procedural prerequisites, and made clear that that right was being extended to persons aggrieved by public employers. See 1972 Amendments, § 4 (a), 86 Stat. 104, 42 U. S. C. §§2000o-5 (a)-(g) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
Petitioners had also alleged that the retirement plan was contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but in view of its ruling under Title VII the District Court found no reason to address the constitutional claim. 390 F. Supp., at 290.
In No. 75-251, respondent Bitzer is the Chairman of the State Employees’ Retirement Commission, and the other respondents are the Treasurer and the Comptroller of the State of Connecticut. These officials are cross-petitioners in No. 75-283.
Section 706 (g) of the 1964 Act, 78 Stat. 261, as amended, 86 Stat. 107, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (g) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), provides in part:
“If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay (payable by the employer, employment agency, or labor organization, as the case may be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice), or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. Back pay liability shall not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of a charge with the Commission.”
See § 706 (k) of the 1964 Act, 78 Stat. 261, 42 TJ. S. C. § 2000e-5(k).
Respondent state oficiáis did not appeal from the District Court’s finding of a Title VII violation and the entry of prospective in-junctive relief.
The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ arguments that the retroactive benefits would not be paid out of public funds from the state treasury, and that the rule in Edelman and Ford Motor Co. was therefore inapplicable. 519 F. 2d, at 564-565. Petitioners have not challenged this ruling here.
There is no dispute that in enacting the 1972 Amendments to Title VII to extend coverage to the States as employers, Congress exercised its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 19 (1971); S. Rep. No. 92-415, pp. 10-11 (1971). Cf. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S. 833 (1976).
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
“Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Apart from their claim that the Eleventh Amendment bars enforcement of the remedy established by Title VII in this case, respondent state officials do not contend that the substantive provisions of Title VII as applied here are not a proper exercise of congressional authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
See n. 6, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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. Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U. S. 249; Kaiser Co. v. Baskin, 340 U. S. 886; Baskin v. Industrial Accident Commission, 338 U. S. 854; Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Moores, 335 U. S. 874.
Mr. Justice Reed took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, Raphael Konigsberg, graduated from the Law School of the University of Southern California in 1953 and four months later satisfactorily passed the California bar examination. Nevertheless, the State Committee of Bar Examiners, after several hearings, refused to certify him to practice law on the grounds he had failed to prove (1) that he was of good moral character and (2) that he did not advocate overthrow of the Government of the United States or California by unconstitutional means. As permitted by state law, Konigs-berg asked the California Supreme Court to review the Committee’s refusal to give him its certification. He contended that he had satisfactorily proved that he met all the requirements for admission to the bar, and that the Committee’s action deprived him of rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The State Supreme Court, without opinion, and with three of its seven justices dissenting, denied his petition for review. We granted certiorari because the constitutional questions presented were substantial. 351
Before reaching the merits, we must first consider the State’s contention that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the case. The State argues (1) that petitioner did not present his constitutional claims to the California Supreme Court in the manner prescribed by that court’s rules, and (2) that the state court’s decision not to grant him relief can be attributed to his failure to conform to its procedural rules rather than to a rejection of his constitutional claims.
In considering actions of the Committee of Bar Examiners the California Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction and is not restricted to the limited review made by an appellate court. For example, that court declared in In re Lacey, 11 Cal. 2d 699, at 701, 81 P. 2d 935, at 936:
“That, this court has the inherent power and authority to admit an applicant to practice law in this state or to reinstate an applicant previously disbarred despite an unfavorable report upon' such application by the Board of Bar Governors of the State Bar, we think is now well settled in this state.... The recommendation of the Board of Bar Governors is advisory only.... [T]he final determination in all these matters rests with this court, and its powers in that regard are plenary and its judgment conclusive.”
The California Supreme Court has a special rule, Rule 59 (b), which governs review of actions of the Bar Examiners. Rule 59 (b) requires that a petition for review “shall specify the grounds relied on and shall be accompanied by petitioner’s brief.” Konigsberg complied with this rule. In his petition for review he specifically charged that the findings of the Committee were not supported by any lawful evidence. The petition then went on to assert that the Committee’s action, which was based on findings that the petition had previously alleged were not supported by evidence, was an attempt by the State of California in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to deprive him “of liberty or property without due process of law” and to deny him “the equal protection of the laws.”
Throughout the hearings before the Bar Examiners Konigsberg repeatedly objected to questions about his beliefs and associations asserting that such inquiries infringed rights guaranteed him by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He urged that the Committee would abridge freedom of speech, press and assembly, violate due process, and deny equal protection of the laws if it denied his application because of his political opinions, writings, and affiliations. He asserted that he had affirmatively proved his good moral character and that there was no legal basis for finding that he was morally unfit to practice law. He insisted that in determining whether he was qualified the Committee had to comply with due process of law and cited as supporting his position Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, and Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, where this Court condemned arbitrary findings as offensive to due process. Since Konigsberg challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in his petition for review, it seems clear that the State Supreme Court examined the entire record of the hearings before the Bar Examiners and must have been aware of the constitutional arguments made by Konigsberg during the hearings and the authorities relied on to support these arguments.
The State contends, however, that it was not enough for Konigsberg to raise his constitutional objections in his petition, in the manner prescribed by Rule 59 (b), and at the hearings. It claims that under California practice the State Supreme Court will not consider a contention unless it is supported by an argument and citation of authorities in a brief submitted by the person seeking review. Because Konigsberg’s brief did not repeat, precisely and in detail, the constitutional objections set forth in his petition, the argument continues, this Court is compelled to hold that the State Supreme Court could have refused relief to petitioner on a narrow procedural ground. But the California cases cited by the State do not require such a conclusion. It is true that the State Supreme Court has insisted that on appeal in ordinary civil cases alleged errors should be pointed out clearly and concisely, with reasons why they are erroneous, and with reference to supporting authorities. However this case was not reviewed under the rules of appeal which apply to the ordinary civil case but rather under a special rule applying to original proceedings. We are pointed to nothing which indicates that the State Supreme Court has adopted any rule in this type of case which requires that contentions raised in the petition for review must also be set out in the brief. The one case cited, Johnson v. State Bar of California, 4 Cal. 2d 744, 52 P. 2d 928, indicates the contrary. In challenging the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the State Bar that he be suspended from the practice of law, Johnson alleged, apparently in an offhand way, that the entire State Bar Act was “unconstitutional.” He made no argument and cited no authority to support this bare, sweeping assertion. While the court said that this was an insufficient presentation of the issue it nevertheless went ahead to consider and reject Johnson's argument and to hold the Act constitutional.
Counsel for California concedes that the state courts in criminal cases often pass on issues ineptly argued in a defendant’s brief or sometimes not raised there at all. As counsel states, the reasons for relaxing this standard in criminal cases are obvious — such cases may involve forfeiture of the accused’s property, liberty, or life. While this is not a criminal case, its consequences for Konigsberg take it out of the ordinary run of civil cases. The Committee’s action prevents him from earning a living by practicing law. This deprivation has grave consequences for a man who has spent years of study and a great deal of money in preparing to be a lawyer.
In view of the grounds relied on in Konigsberg’s petition for review, his repeated assertions throughout the hearings of various federal constitutional rights, and the practices of the California Supreme Court, we cannot conclude that that court, with three of its seven justices dissenting, intended to uphold petitioner’s exclusion from the practice of law because his lawyer failed to elaborate in his brief the constitutional claims set forth in his petition for review and in the record of the hearings. Our conclusion is that the constitutional issues are before us and we must consider them.
II.
We now turn to the merits. In passing on Konigsberg’s application, the Committee of Bar Examiners conducted a series of hearings. At these hearings Konigsberg was questioned at great length about his political affiliations and beliefs. Practically all of these questions were directed at finding out whether he was or ever had been a member of the Communist Party. Konigsberg declined to respond to this line of questioning, insisting that it was an intrusion into areas protected by the Federal Constitution. He also objected on the ground that California law did not require him to divulge his political associations or opinions in order to qualify for the Bar and that questions about these matters were not relevant.
The Committee of Bar Examiners rejected Konigs-berg’s application on the ground that the evidence in the record raised substantial doubts about his character and his loyalty which he had failed to dispel. At the conclusion of the hearings, the Committee sent a formal written notice — which later served as the basis for his petition to the California Supreme Court — stating that his application was denied because:
1. He failed to demonstrate that he was a person of good moral character and
2. He failed to show that he did not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State by force, violence or other unconstitutional means.
He was not denied admission to the California Bar simply because he refused to answer questions.
In Konigsberg’s petition for review to the State Supreme Court there is no suggestion that the Committee had excluded him merely for failing to respond to its inquiries. Nor did the Committee in its answer indicate that this was the basis for its action. After responding to Konigs-berg’s allegations, the Bar Committee set forth a defense of its action which in substance repeated the reasons it had given Konigsberg in the formal notice of denial for rejecting his application.
There is nothing in the California statutes, the California decisions, or even in the Rules of the Bar Committee, which has been called to our attention, that suggests that failure to answer a Bar Examiner’s inquiry is, ipso jacto, a basis for excluding an applicant from the Bar, irrespective of how overwhelming is his showing of good character or loyalty or how flimsy are the suspicions of the Bar Examiners. Serious questions of elemental fairness would be raised if the Committee had excluded Konigsberg simply because he failed to answer questions without first explicitly warning him that he could be barred for this reason alone, even though his moral character and loyalty were unimpeachable, and then giving him a chance to comply. In our opinion, there is nothing in the record which indicates that the Committee, in a matter of such grave importance to Konigsberg, applied a brand new exclusionary rule to his application— all without telling him that it was doing so.
If it were possible for us to say that the Board had barred Konigsberg solely because of his refusal to respond to its inquiries into his political associations and his opinions about matters of public interest, then we would be compelled to decide far-reaching and complex questions relating to freedom of speech, press and assembly. There is no justification for our straining to reach these difficult problems when the Board itself has not seen fit, at any time, to base its exclusion of Konigsberg on his failure to answer. If and when a State makes failure to answer a question an independent ground for exclusion from the Bar, then this Court, as the cases arise, will have to determine whether the exclusion is constitutionally permissible. We do not mean to intimate any view on that problem here nor do we mean to approve or disapprove Konigsberg’s refusal to answer the particular questions asked him.
We now pass to the issue which we believe is presented in this case: Does the evidence in the record support any reasonable doubts about Konigsberg’s good character or his loyalty to the Governments of State and Nation? In considering this issue, we must, of course, take into account the Committee’s contention that Konigsberg’s failure to respond to questions was evidence from which some inference of doubtful character and loyalty can be drawn.
Konigsberg claims that he established his good moral character by overwhelming evidence and carried the burden of proving that he does not advocate overthrow of the Government. He contends here, as he did in the California court, that there is no evidence in the record which rationally supports a finding of doubt about his character or loyalty. If this contention is correct, he has been denied the right to practice law although there was no basis for the finding that he failed to meet the qualifications which the State demands of a person seeking to become a lawyer. If this is true, California’s refusal to admit him is a denial of due process and of equal protection of the laws because both arbitrary and discriminatory. After examination of the record, we are compelled to agree with Konigsberg that the evidence does not rationally support the only two grounds upon which the Committee relied in rejecting his application for admission to the California Bar.
A. Good Moral Character. — The term “good moral character” has long been used as a qualification for membership in the Bar and has served a useful purpose in this respect. However the term, by itself, is unusually ambiguous. It can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways for any definition will necessarily reflect the attitudes, experiences, and prejudices of the definer. Such a vague qualification, which is easily adapted to fit personal views and predilections, can be a dangerous instrument for arbitrary and discriminatory denial of the right to practice law.
While we do not have the benefit of a definition of “good moral character” by the California Supreme Court in this case, counsel for the State tells us that the definition of that term adopted in California “stresses elements of honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation.” The decisions of California courts cited here do not support so broad a definition as claimed by counsel. These cases instead appear to define “good moral character” in terms of an absence of proven conduct or acts which have been historically considered as manifestations of “moral turpitude.” To illustrate, California has held that an applicant did not have good character who had been convicted of forgery and had practiced law without a license, or who had obtained money by false representations and had committed fraud upon a court, or who had submitted false affidavits to the Committee along with his application for admission. It should be emphasized that neither the definition proposed by counsel nor those appearing in the California cases equates unorthodox political beliefs or membership in lawful political parties with bad moral character. Assuming for purposes of this case that counsel’s broad definition of “good moral character” is the one adopted in California, the question is whether on the whole record a reasonable man could fairly find that there were substantial doubts about Konigsberg’s “honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation.”
A person called on to prove his character is compelled to turn to the people who know him. Here, forty-two individuals who had known Konigsberg at different times during the past twenty years attested to his excellent character. These testimonials came from persons in every walk of life. Included among them were a Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi, lawyers, doctors, professors, businessmen and social workers. The following are typical of the statements made about Konigsberg:
An instructor at the University of Southern California Law School:
“He seems to hold the Constitution in high esteem and is a vigorous supporter of civil rights.... He indicated to me an open-mindedness seemingly inconsistent with any calculated disregard of his duty as a loyal and conscientious citizen.”
A rabbi:
“I unreservedly recommend Mr. Konigsberg as a person who is morally and ethically qualified to serve as a member of [the bar].”
A lawyer:
“I recommend Mr. Konigsberg unreservedly as a person of high moral principle and character.... He is a much more profound person than the average bar applicant and exhibits a social consciousness which, in my opinion, is unfortunately too rare among applicants.”
A Catholic Monsignor:
“I do not hesitate to recommend him to you. I am satisfied that he will measure up to the high requirements established for members of the legal profession.”
Other witnesses testified to Konigsberg’s belief in democracy and devotion to democratic ideas, his principled convictions, his honesty and integrity, his conscientiousness and competence in his work, his concern and affection for his wife and children and his loyalty to the country. These, of course, have traditionally been the kind of qualities that make up good moral character. The significance of the statements made by these witnesses about Konigsberg is enhanced by the fact that they had known him as an adult while he was employed in responsible professional positions. Even more significant, not a single person has testified that Konigsberg’s moral character was bad or questionable in any way.
Konigsberg’s background, which was also before the Committee, furnished strong proof that his life had always been honest and upright. Born in Austria in 1911, he was brought to this country when eight years old. After graduating from Ohio State University in 1931, he taught American history and literature for a time in a Cleveland high school. In 1934 he was given a scholarship to Ohio State University and there received his Master of Arts degree in Social Administration. He was then employed by the District of Columbia as a supervisor in its Department of Health. In 1936 he went to California where he worked as an executive for several social agencies and at one time served as District Supervisor for the California State Relief Administration. With our entry into the Second World War, he volunteered for the Army and was commissioned a second lieutenant. He was selected for training as an orientation officer in the Army’s information and education program and in that capacity served in North Africa, Italy, France, and Germany. He was promoted to captain and while in Germany was made orientation officer for the entire Seventh Army. As an orientation officer one of his principal functions was to explain to soldiers the advantages of democracy as compared with totalitarianism. After his honorable discharge in 1946 he resumed his career in social work. In 1950, at the age of thirty-nine, Konigsberg entered the Law School of the University of Southern California and was graduated in 1953. There is no criticism in the record of his professional work, his military service, or his performance at the law school.
Despite Konigsberg’s forceful showing of good moral character and the fact that there is no evidence that he has ever been convicted of any crime or has ever done anything base or depraved, the State nevertheless argues that substantial doubts were raised about his character by: (1) the testimony of an ex-Communist that Konigsberg had attended meetings of a Communist Party unit in 1941; (2) his criticism of certain public officials and their policies; and (3) his refusal to answer certain questions about his political associations and beliefs. When these items are analyzed, we believe that it cannot rationally be said that they support substantial doubts about Konigsberg’s moral fitness to practice law.
(1) Testimony of the Ex-Communist. — The suspicion that Konigsberg was or had been a Communist was based chiefly on the testimony of a single ex-Communist that Konigsberg had attended meetings of a Communist Party unit in 1941. From the witness’ testimony it appears that this unit was some kind of discussion group. On cross-examination she conceded that her sole basis for believing that Konigsberg was a member of that party was his attendance at these meetings. Her testimony concerned events that occurred many years before and her identification of Konigsberg was not very convincing. She admitted that she had not known him personally and never had any contact with him except at these meetings in 1941. Konigsberg denied that he had ever seen her or known her. And in response to a Bar Examiner’s question as to whether he was a communist, in the philosophical sense, as distinguished from a member of the Communist Party, Konigsberg replied: “If you want a categorical answer to 'Are you a communist?’ the answer is no.”
Even if it be assumed that Konigsberg was a member of the Communist Party in 1941, the mere fact of membership would not support an inference that he did not have good moral character. There was no evidence that he ever engaged in or abetted any unlawful or immoral activities — or even that he knew of or supported any actions of this nature. It may be, although there is no evidence in the record before us to that effect, that some members of that party were involved in illegal or disloyal activities, but petitioner cannot be swept into this group solely on the basis of his alleged membership in that party. In 1941 the Communist Party was a recognized political party in the State of California. Citizens of that State were free to belong to that party if they wanted to do so. The State had not attempted to attach penalties of any kind to membership in the Communist Party. Its candidates' names were on the ballots California submitted to its voters. Those who accepted the State at its word and joined that party had a right to expect that the State would not penalize them, directly or indirectly, for doing so thereafter.
(2) Criticism of Certain Public Officials and Their Policies. — In 1950 Konigsberg wrote a series of editorials for a local newspaper. In these editorials he severely criticized, among other things, this country's participation in the Korean War, the actions and policies of the leaders of the major political parties, the influence of “big business” in American life, racial discrimination, and this Court’s decisions in Dennis and other cases. When read in the light of the ordinary give-and-take of political controversy the editorials Konigsberg wrote are not unusually extreme and fairly interpreted only say that certain officials were performing their duties in a manner that, in the opinion of the writer, was injurious to the public. We do not believe that an inference of bad moral character can rationally be drawn from these editorials. Because of the very nature of our democracy such expressions of political views must be permitted. Citizens have a° right under our constitutional system to criticize government officials and agencies. Courts are not, and should not be, immune to such criticism. Government censorship can no more be reconciled with our national constitutional standard of freedom of speech and press when done in the guise of determining “moral character,” than if it should be attempted directly.
(3) Refusal to Answer Questions. — During the prolonged hearings before the Committee of Bar Examiners, Konigsberg was not asked directly about his honesty, trustworthiness, or other traits which are generally thought of as related to good character. Almost all of the Bar Examiners’ questions concerned his political affiliations, editorials and beliefs. Konigsberg repeatedly declined to answer such questions, explaining that his refusal was based on his understanding that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution a State could not inquire into a person’s political opinions or associations and that he had a duty not to answer. Essentially, this is the same stand he had taken several years before when called upon to answer similar questions before the Tenney Committee.
The State argues that Konigsberg’s refusal to tell the Examiners whether he was a member of the Communist Party or whether he had associated with persons who were members of that party or groups which were allegedly Communist dominated tends to support an inference that he is a member of the Communist Party and therefore a person of bad moral character. We find it unnecessary to decide if Konigsberg’s constitutional objections to the Committee’s questions were well founded. Prior decisions by this Court indicate that his claim that the questions were improper was not frivolous and we find nothing in the record which indicates that his position was not taken in good faith. Obviously the State could not draw unfavorable inferences as to his truthfulness, candor or his moral character in general if his refusal to answer was based on a belief that the United States Constitution prohibited the type of inquiries which the Committee was making. On the record before us, it is our judgment that the inferences of bad moral character which the Committee attempted to draw from Konigsberg’s refusal to answer questions about his political affiliations and opinions are unwarranted.
B. Advocating the Overthrow of Government by Force. — The Committee also found that Konigsberg had failed to prove that he did not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States or California by force and violence. Konigsberg repeatedly testified under oath before the Committee that he did not believe in nor advocate the overthrow of any government in this country by any unconstitutional means. For example, in response to one question as to whether he advocated overthrowing the Government, he emphatically declared: “I answer specifically I do not, I never did or never will.” No witness testified to the contrary. As a matter of fact, many of the witnesses gave testimony which was utterly inconsistent with the premise that he was •disloyal. And Konigsberg told the Committee that he was ready at any time to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California.
Even if it be assumed that Konigsberg belonged to the Communist Party in 1941, this does not provide a reasonable basis for a belief that he presently advocates overthrowing the Government by force. The ex-Communist, who testified that Konigsberg attended meetings of a Communist unit in 1941, could not remember any statements by him or anyone else at those meetings advocating the violent overthrow of the Government. And certainly there is nothing in the newspaper editorials that Konigsberg wrote that tends to support a finding that he champions violent overthrow. Instead, the editorials expressed hostility to such a doctrine. For example, Konigsberg wrote:
“It is vehemently asserted that advocacy of force and violence is a danger to the American government and that its proponents should be punished. With this I agree. Such advocacy is un-Ameri-can and does undermine our democratic processes. Those who preach it must be punished.”
Counsel for California offers the following editorial as evidence that Konigsberg advocates overthrow of the Government by force and violence:
“Loyalty to America, in my opinion, has always meant adherence to the basic principles of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence — not loyalty to any man or group of men. Loyalty to America means belief in and militant support of her noble ideals and the faith of her people. Loyalty to America today, therefore, must mean opposition to those who are betraying our country’s traditions, who are squandering her manpower, her honor and her riches.”
On its surface this editorial does not appear to be a call for armed revolution. To the contrary, it manifests a strongly held conviction for our constitutional system of government. However, the State attempts to draw an inference adverse to Konigsberg from his use of the word “militant” which it points out in one sense means “warlike.” To us it seems far-fetched to say that exhortation to “militant” support of America’s “noble ideals” demonstrates a willingness to overthrow our democratic institutions.
We recognize the importance of leaving States free to select their own bars, but it is equally important that the State not exercise this power in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner nor in such way as to impinge on the freedom of political expression or association. A bar composed of lawyers of good character is a worthy objective but it is unnecessary to sacrifice vital freedoms in order to obtain that goal. It is also important both to society and the bar itself that lawyers be unintim-idated — free to think, speak, and act as members of an Independent Bar. In this case we are compelled to conclude that there is no evidence in the record which rationally justifies a finding that Konigsberg failed to establish his good moral character or failed to show that he did not advocate forceful overthrow of the Government. Without some authentic reliable evidence of unlawful or immoral actions reflecting adversely upon him, it is difficult to comprehend why the State Bar Committee rejected a man of Konigsberg’s background and character as morally unfit to practice law. As we said before, the mere fact of Konigsberg’s past membership in the Communist Party, if true, without anything more, is not an adequate basis for concluding that he is disloyal or a person of bad character. A lifetime of good citizenship is worth very little if it is so frail that it cannot withstand the suspicions which apparently were the basis for the Committee’s action.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Under California procedure the State Supreme Court may admit a person to the bar upon certification by the Committee of Bar Examiners that he meets the necessary requirements. California Business and Professions Code, 1937, § 6064. Section 6060 (c) requires that an applicant must have “good moral character” before he can be certified. Section 6064.1 provides that no person “who advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of this State by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, shall be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to practice law.”
See also Preston v. State Bar of California, 28 Cal. 2d 643, 171 P. 2d 435; Brydonjack v. State Bar of California, 208 Cal. 439, 281 P. 1018.
Rule 59 (b) is set out at 36 Cal. 2d 43. Generally, the California Supreme Court divides its rules into two main parts: (1) “Rules on Appeal,” which govern appeals in civil and criminal cases; and (2) “Rules on Original Proceedings in Reviewing Courts.”
The petition asserted:
“1. That the petitioner sustained his burden of proof of establishing his good moral character and all other requirements established by law in the State of California for applicants for admission to the bar.
“2. That the committee erred in asserting that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proof of establishing his good moral character.
“3. That no lawful evidence was received or exists supporting the denial of the application of the petitioner.”
He also referred to Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, and Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U. S. 583.
Cf. In re Admission to Practice Law, 1 Cal. 2d 61, 33 P. 2d 829.
The brief did refer to pages of the record where constitutional arguments were made and cases cited to support them.
People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 67 P. 770; Title G. & T. Co. v. Fraternal Finance Co., 220 Cal. 362, 30 P. 2d 515.
See, e. g., People v. Hadley, 175 Cal. 118, 119, 165 P. 442, 443; People v. Yaroslawsky, 110 Cal. App. 175, 176, 293 P. 815, 816; People v. Buck, 72 Cal. App. 322, 237 P. 63.
Cf. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, 67; Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226; Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. 116.
The record, when read as a whole, shows that Konigsberg took the position that he would answer all questions about his character or loyalty except those directed to his political views and beliefs and to questions about membership in the Communist Party. The record also shows that the Committee made no effort to pursue any other course of interrogation.
Neither the Committee as a whole nor any of its members ever intimated that Konigsberg would be barred just because he refused to answer relevant inquiries or because he was obstructing the Committee. Some members informed him that they did not necessarily accept his position that they were not entitled to inquire into his political associations and opinions and said that his failure to answer would have some bearing on their determination of whether he was qualified. But they never suggested that his failure to answer their questions was, by itself, a sufficient independent ground for denial of his application.
The answer, in pertinent part, read as follows :
“ [P] etitioner was invited to appear at a hearing before the Southern Subcommittee of the Committee of Bar Examiners on the 25th day of September, 1953, at which time he was informed of evidence raising doubts as to his fitness to practice law, and was questioned concerning such evidence and other matters relevant to his qualifications to become a member of the State Bar of California.
“On or before the 8th day of February, 1954 the Southern Subcommittee of the Committee of Bar Examiners considered all oj the evidence which had been presented, and determined that petitioner had jailed to show his good moral character so that his application must be denied. On or about the 8th day of February, 1954 said Subcommittee informed the petitioner in writing of the denial of his application and the reasons therefor.
“On or prior to the 17th day of May, 1954 [the Full Committee] considered all oj the evidence which had been introduced and determined that petitioner had not sustained the burden oj proof that he was possessor of the good moral character required by California Business and Professions Code, Section 6060 (c) and that he had not complied with Section 6064.1 of said Code, so that his application must be denied. Petitioner was notified of this decision and the reasons therefor by letter dated May 17, 1954.
“Petitioner has not complied with the requirements of California Business and Professions Code, Sections 6060 (c) and 6064.1 and so is not entitled to be and should not be admitted to practice law in the State of California.” (Emphasis supplied.)
As pointed out in note 1, supra, § 6064.1 excludes applicants who advocate the overthrow of the Government of California or the United States by “unconstitutional means,” while § 6060 (c) requires that an applicant must have good moral character.
Cf. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196, 201.
In presenting its version of the questions before this Court, the Bar Committee did not suggest that the denial of Konigsberg’s application could be upheld merely because he had failed to answer questions. Nor was such a position taken on oral argument. Counsel, instead, reiterated what the Bar Committee had contended throughout, namely, that Konigsberg was rejected because he failed to dispel substantial doubts raised by the evidence in the record about his character and loyalty.
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, ante, p. 232; cf. Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183.
Cf. Local Union No. 10 v. Graham, 345 U. S. 192, 197.
See Jordan v. De George, 341 U. S. 223, 232 (dissenting opinion); United States ex rel. Iorio v. Day, 34 F. 2d 920, 921; Cahn, Authority and Responsibility, 51 Col. L. Rev. 838.
In re Garland, 219 Cal. 661, 28 P. 2d 354.
In re Wells, 174 Cal. 467, 163 P. 657.
Spears v. State Bar of California, 211 Cal. 183, 294 P. 697.
This testimony was in the form of written statements. Konigs-berg offered to produce witnesses to testify in person but the Board preferred to have their statements in writing.
Counsel for the Bar Committee acknowledged this in oral argument. He stated: “Now Mrs. Bennett’s testimony left much to be desired, that I concede. Her identification of this man is not all that you might wish.”
Konigsberg gave this answer during the first hearing held by the Committee. He was not represented by counsel at the time. At a subsequent hearing he stated that his earlier willingness to answer this question was inconsistent with his general position that the Committee had no right to inquire into his political associations and beliefs. He said he would not answer if the same question were then presented to him.
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, ante, p. 232; Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 136.
Cf. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, where this Court struck down an attempt to exclude from the practice of law individuals who had taken up arms against the United States in the War Between the States. See also Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Brown and Fassett, Loyalty Tests for Admission to the Bar, 20 U. of Chi. L. Rev. 480 (1953).
For example, petitioner wrote:
"When the Supreme Court of these benighted states can refuse to review the case of the Hollywood Ten thus
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Me. Justice Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, Ventresca, was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts of possessing and operating an illegal distillery. The conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals (one judge dissenting) on the ground that the affidavit for a search warrant pursuant to which the still was found was insufficient to establish probable cause. 324 F. 2d 864.
The affidavit upon which the warrant was issued was made and submitted to a United States Commissioner on August 31, 1961, by Walter Mazaka, an Investigator for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service. He stated that he had reason to believe that an illegal distillery was in operation in respondent, Ventresca’s, house at 148y2 Coburn Avenue in Worcester, Massachusetts. The grounds for this belief were set forth in detail in the affidavit, prefaced with the following statement:
“Based upon observations made by me, and based upon information received officially from other Investigators attached to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division assigned to this investigation, and reports orally made to me describing the results of their observations and investigation, this request for the issuance of a search warrant is made.”
The affidavit then described seven different occasions between July 28 and August 30,1961, when a Pontiac car was driven into the yard to the rear of Ventresca’s house. On four occasions the car carried loads of sugar in 60-pound bags; it made two trips loaded with empty tin cans; and once it was merely observed as being heavily laden. Garry, the car’s owner, and Incardone, a passenger, were seen on several occasions loading the car at Ventresca’s house and later unloading apparently full five-gallon cans at Garry’s house late in the evening. On August 28, after a delivery of empty tin cans to Ven-tresca’s house, Garry and Incardone were observed carrying from the house cans which appeared to be filled and placing them in the trunk of Garry’s car. The affidavit went on to state that at about 4 a. m. on August 18, and at about 4 a. m. on August 30, “Investigators” smelled the odor of fermenting mash as they walked along the sidewalk in front of Ventresca’s house. On August 18 they heard, “[a]t or about the same time, . . . certain metallic noises.” On August 30, the day before the warrant was applied for, they heard (as they smelled the mash) “sounds similar to that of a motor or a pump coming from the direction of” Ventresca’s house. The affidavit concluded: “The foregoing information is based upon personal knowledge and information which has been obtained from Investigators of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Internal Revenue Service, who have been assigned to this investigation.”
The District Court upheld the validity of the warrant on a motion to suppress. The divided Court of Appeals held the warrant insufficient because it read the affidavit as not specifically stating in so many words that the information it contained was based upon the personal knowledge of Mazaka or other reliable investigators. The Court of Appeals reasoned that all of the information recited in the affidavit might conceivably have been obtained by investigators other than Mazaka, and it could not be certain that the information of these other investigators was not in turn based upon hearsay received from unreliable informants rather than their own personal observations. For this reason the court found that probable cause had not been established. 324 F. 2d, at 868-870. We granted certiorari to consider the standards by which a reviewing court should approach the interpretation of affidavits supporting warrants which have been duly issued by examining magistrates. 377 U. S. 989. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I.
The Fourth Amendment states:
“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.”
We begin our analysis of this constitutional rule mindful of the fact that in this case a search was made pursuant to a search warrant. In discussing the Fourth Amendment policy against unnecessary invasions of privacy, we stated in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108:
“An evaluation of the constitutionality of a search warrant should begin with the rule that ‘the informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates empowered to issue warrants . . . are to be preferred over the hurried action of officers . . . who may happen to make arrests.’ United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452, 464. The reasons for this rule go to the foundations of the Fourth Amendment.” 378 U. S., at 110-111.
In Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 270, this Court, strongly supporting the preference to be accorded searches under a warrant, indicated that in a doubtful or marginal case a search under a warrant may be sustainable where without one it would fall. In Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, and Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610, the Court, in condemning searches by officers who invaded premises without a warrant, plainly intimated that had the proper course of obtaining a warrant from a magistrate been followed and had the magistrate on the same evidence available to the police made a finding of probable cause, the search under the warrant would have been sustained. Mr. Justice Jackson stated for the Court in Johnson:
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate’s disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people’s homes secure only in the discretion of police officers.” Johnson v. United States, supra, at 13-14.
The fact that exceptions to the requirement that searches and seizures be undertaken only after obtaining a warrant are limited underscores the preference accorded police action taken under a warrant as against searches and seizures without one.
While a warrant may issue only upon a finding of “probable cause,” this Court has long held that “the term ‘probable cause’ . . . means less than evidence which would justify condemnation,” Locke v. United States, 7 Cranch 339, 348, and that a finding of “probable cause” may rest upon evidence which is not legally competent in a criminal trial. Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307, 311. As the Court stated in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 173, “There is a large difference between the two things to be proved [guilt and probable cause], as well as between the tribunals which determine them, and therefore a like difference in the quanta and modes of proof required to establish them.” Thus hearsay may be the basis for issuance of the warrant “so long as there [is] a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.” Jones v. United States, supra, at 272. And, in Aguilar we recognized that “an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant,” so long as the magistrate is “informed of some of the underlying circumstances” supporting the affiant's conclusions and his belief that any informant involved “whose identity need not be disclosed . . . was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable.’ ” Aguilar v. Texas, supra, at 114.
These decisions reflect the recognition that the Fourth Amendment’s commands, like all constitutional requirements, are practical and not abstract. If the teachings of the Court’s cases are to be followed and the constitutional policy served, affidavits for search warrants, such as the one involved here, must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a commonsense and realistic fashion. They are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Technical requirements of elaborate specificity once exacted under common law pleadings have no proper place in this area. A grudging or negative attitude by reviewing courts toward warrants will tend to discourage police officers from submitting their evidence to a judicial officer before acting.
This is not to say that probable cause can be made out by affidavits which are purely conclusory, stating only the affiant’s or an informer’s belief that probable cause exists without detailing any of the “underlying circumstances” upon which that belief is based. See Aguilar v. Texas, supra. Recital of some of the underlying circumstances in the affidavit is essential if the magistrate is to perform his detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police. However, where these circumstances are detailed, where reason for crediting the source of the information is given, and when a magistrate has found probable cause, the courts should not invalidate the warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a hypertech-nical, rather than a commonsense, manner. Although in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants. Jones v. United States, supra, at 270.
II.
The application of the principles stated above leads us to reverse the Court of Appeals. The affidavit in this case, if read in a commonsense way rather than technically, shows ample facts to establish probable cause and allow the Commissioner to issue the search warrant. The affidavit at issue here, unlike the affidavit held insufficient in Aguilar, is detailed and specific. It sets forth not merely “some of the underlying circumstances” supporting the officer’s belief, but a good many of them. This is apparent from the summary of the affidavit already recited and from its text which is reproduced in the Appendix.
The Court of Appeals did not question the specificity of the affidavit. It rested its holding that the affidavit was insufficient on the ground that “[t]he affidavit failed to clearly indicate which of the facts alleged therein were hearsay or which were within the affiant’s own knowledge,” and therefore “[t]he Commissioner could only conclude that the entire affidavit was based on hearsay.” 324 F. 2d, at 868. While the Court of Appeals recognized that an affidavit based on hearsay will be sufficient, “so long as a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay is presented,” Jones v. United States, supra, at 269, it felt that no such basis existed here because the hearsay consisted of reports by “Investigators,” and the affidavit did not recite how the Investigators obtained their information. The Court of Appeals conceded that the affidavit stated that the Investigators themselves smelled the odor of fermenting mash, but argued that the rest of their information might itself have been based upon hearsay thus raising “the distinct possibility of hearsay-upon-hearsay.” 324 F. 2d, at 869. For this reason, it held that the affidavit did not establish probable cause.
We disagree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. Its determination that the affidavit might have been based wholly upon hearsay cannot be supported in light of the fact that Mazaka, a Government Investigator, swore under oath that the relevant information was in part based “upon observations made by me” and “upon personal knowledge” as well as upon “information which has been obtained from Investigators of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Internal Revenue Service, who have been assigned to this investigation.” It also seems to us that the assumption of the Court of Appeals that all of the information in Mazaka’s affidavit may in fact have come from unreliable anonymous informers, passed on to Government Investigators, who in turn related this information to Mazaka is without foundation. Mazaka swore that, insofar as the affidavit was not based upon his own observations, it was “based upon information received officially from other Investigators attached to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division assigned to this investigation, and reports orally made to me describing the results of their observations and investigation.” (Emphasis added.) The Court of Appeals itself recognized that the affidavit stated that “ ‘Investigators’ [employees of the Service] smelled the odor of fermenting mash in the vicinity of the suspected dwelling.” 324 F. 2d, at 869. A qualified officer’s detection of the smell of mash has often been held a very strong factor in determining that probable cause exists so as to allow issuance of a warrant. Moreover, upon reading the affidavit as a whole, it becomes clear that the detailed observations recounted in the affidavit cannot fairly be regarded as having been made in any significant part by persons other than full-time Investigators of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service. Observations of fellow officers of the Government engaged in a common investigation are plainly a reliable basis for a warrant applied for by one of their number. We conclude that the affidavit showed probable cause and that the Court of Appeals misapprehended its judicial function in reviewing this affidavit by giving it an unduly technical and restrictive reading.
This Court is alert to invalidate unconstitutional searches and seizures whether with or without a warrant. See Aguilar v. Texas, supra; Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476; Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364; Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89. By doing so, it vindicates individual liberties and strengthens the administration of justice by promoting respect for law and order. This Court is equally concerned to uphold the actions of law enforcement officers consistently following the proper constitutional course. This is no less important to the administration of justice than the invalidation of convictions because of disregard of individual rights or official overreaching. In our view the officers in this case did what the Constitution requires. They obtained a warrant from a judicial officer “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the . . . things to be seized.” It is vital that having done so their actions should be sustained under a system of justice responsive both to the needs of individual liberty and to the rights of the community.
Reversed.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Affidavit for Search Warrant
Before W. Arthur Garrity, Worcester, Massachusetts The undersigned being duly sworn deposes and says:
That he has reason to believe that on the premises known as a one-family light green wooden frame dwelling house located at 148% Coburn- Avenue, Worcester, occupied by Giacomo Ventresca and his family, together with all approaches and appurtenances thereto, in the District of Massachusetts, there is now being concealed certain property, namely an unknown quantity of material and certain apparatus, articles and devices, including a still and distilling apparatus setup with all attachments thereto, together with an unknown quantity of mash, an unknown quantity of distilled spirits, and other material used in the manufacture of non-tax-paid liquors; which are being held and possessed, and which have been used and are intended for use, in the distillation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of non-tax-paid liquors, in violation of the provisions of 26 USC 5171 (a), 5173, 5178, 5179 (a), 5222 (a), 5602, and 5686.
And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant are as follows:
See Attached Sheet
/s/ Walter A. Mazaka
Investigator, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Div., Internal Revenue Service
Sworn to before me, and subscribed in my presence, August 31st, 1961
/s/ W. Arthur Garrity
United States Commissioner
Based upon observations made by me, and based upon information received officially from other Investigators attached to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division assigned to this investigation, and reports orally made to me describing the results of their observations and investigation, this request for the issuance of a search warrant is made.
On or about July 28, 1961, about 6:45 P.M., an observation was made covering a Pontiac automobile owned by one Joseph Garry. Garry and one Joseph Incardone put thirteen bags of sugar into the car. These bags of sugar weighed sixty pounds each. Ten such bags were put into the trunk, and three were placed in the rear seat. Those in the rear seat were marked “Domino.” The others appeared to have similar markings. After the sugar was loaded into the car, Garry together with Incardone drove it to the vicinity of 148 Coburn Avenue, Worcester, Massachusetts, where the car was parked. Sometime later, the car with its contents was driven into the yard to the rear of 148 and between the premises 148 and 148% Coburn Avenue. After remaining there about twenty-five minutes, the same two men drove in the direction of Boston.
On August 2, 1961 a Pontiac car owned by Garry, and driven by Garry with Incardone as a passenger, was followed from Boston to Worcester. The car appeared heavily laden. Thé car was again driven into the driveway at 148 and 148% Coburn Avenue to the rear of the yard and between the above-numbered houses.
On August 7, 1961 at least six sixty-pound bags of Domino Sugar were loaded into the Pontiac owned by Garry. The loading was done by Garry and Incardone. The car traveled from Boston to Worcester, then to Holden, and returned with its contents and entered the driveway at 148 and 148% Coburn Avenue, where the car was parked at the rear between the two houses.
On August 11, 1961 new empty metal or tin cans were transferred from a car owned by Incardone to the Pontiac owned by Garry on Highland Street in Hyde Park. The Pontiac was driven by Garry with Incardone as a passenger to Worcester, and into the yard at 148 and 148% Co-burn Avenue to the rear and between the two numbered premises.
On August 16, 1961 the Pontiac was observed. In the back seat bags of sugar were observed covered with a cloth or tarpaulin. A sixty-pound bag of sugar was on the front seat. Garry was observed after loading the above-described sugar into the car placing a carton with various five-pound bags of sugar on the top of the tarpaulin. The car was then driven by Garry with Incardone as a passenger to Worcester together with its contents into the yard at 148 and 148% Coburn Avenue to the rear of and between the two houses. About Midnight on the same night, the Pontiac driven by Garry with Incardone as a passenger was seen pulling up to the premises at 59 Highland Street, Hyde Park, where Garry lives. Garry opened the trunk of his car, and removed ten five-gallon cans therefrom, and placed them on the sidewalk. He then entered the house, and opened a door on the side. Incardone made five trips from the sidewalk to the side of the house carrying two five-gallon cans on each such trip. It appeared that the cans were filled. On each of these trips, Incardone passed the two cans to someone standing in the doorway. Immediately after the fifth such trip, Garry came out of the door and joined Incardone. They walked to the sidewalk, and talked for a few moments. Incardone then drove away, and Garry went into his home.
On August 18, 1961 Investigators smelled an odor of fermenting mash on two occasions between 4:00 A.M. and 5:00 A.M. The first such odor was detected as they walked along the sidewalk in front of 148 Coburn Avenue, and the second such odor was detected from the side of 148 Coburn Avenue. At or about the same time, the Investigators heard certain metallic noises which cannot be further identified by source or sound.
On August 24,1961 the Pontiac was observed parked at a bowling alley and coffee shop off Route 9. The back of the car contained what appeared to be boxes covered by a cloth or tarpaulin, but which cannot be more specifically identified. On the front seat of the car was observed a sixty-pound bag of Revere Sugar. Garry and Incardone were observed in the restaurant or coffee shop eating. Later the car was seen driven to the rear of 148 between 148 and 148% Coburn Avenue, Worcester.
About Midnight the Pontiac was observed pulling up in front of Garry’s house at 59 Highland Street, Hyde Park. Garry was driving, and Incardone was a passenger. They both got out of the car. Garry opened the trunk, and then entered his house. From the trunk of the car there was removed eleven five-gallon cans which appeared to be filled. Incardone made six trips to a door on the side of the house. He carried two five-gallon cans on each trip, except the sixth trip. On that trip he carried one can, having passed the others to somebody in the doorway, and on the last trip he entered the house. He remained there at least forty-five minutes, and was not observed to leave.
On August 28, 1961 Garry drove Incardone in his car to Worcester. On Lake Ave. they met Giacomo Ven-tresca, who lives at 148% Coburn Avenue, Worcester. Ventresca entered the car driven by Garry. The car was then driven into the yard to the rear of 148 and between 148 and 148% Coburn Avenue. An observation was made that empty metal cans, five-gallon size, were being taken from the car owned by Garry, and brought into the premises at 148% Coburn Avenue, which was occupied by Ventresca. Later, new cans similar in size, shape and appearance were observed being placed into the trunk of Garry’s car while parked at the rear of 148 and in front of 148% Coburn Avenue. The manner in which the cans were handled, and the sound [s] which were heard during the handling of these cans, were consistent with that of cans containing liquid.
On August 30, 1961, at about 4:00 A.M., an odor of fermenting mash was detected while Investigators were walking on the sidewalk in front of 148 Coburn Avenue. At the same time, they heard sounds similar to that of a motor or a pump coming from the direction of 148% Coburn Avenue.
The foregoing information is based upon personal knowledge and information which has been obtained from Investigators of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Internal Revenue Service, who have been assigned to this investigation.
/s/ Walter A. Mazaka
The Fourth Amendment's policy against unreasonable searches and seizures finds expression in Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The exceptions are illustrated by cases in which “seizure is impossible except without warrant,” Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 156, such as a search of a moving object 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, supra, at 153, and those in which search is incident to a lawful arrest. This latter exception is itself a limited one. We stated in Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364:
“Unquestionably, when a person is lawfully arrested, the police have the right, without a search warrant, to make a contemporaneous search of the person of the accused for weapons or for the fruits of or implements used to commit the crime. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30 (1925). This right to search and seize without a search warrant extends to things under the accused’s immediate control, Carroll v. United States, supra, 267 U. S., at 158, and, to an extent depending on the circumstances of the case, to the place where he is arrested, Agnello v. United States, supra, 269 U. S., at 30; Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192, 199 (1927); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56, 61-62 (1950). The rule allowing contemporaneous searches is justified, for example, by the need to seize weapons and other things which might be used to assault an officer or effect an escape, as well as by the need to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime — things which might easily happen where the weapon or evidence is on the accused’s person or under his immediate control. But these justifications are absent where a search is remote in time or place from the 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.” 376 U. S., at 367.
See, e. g., Monnette v. United States, 299 F. 2d 847, 850 (C. A. 5th Cir.). Cf. Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610; Steeber v. United States, 198 F. 2d 615, 616, 618 (C. A. 10th Cir.); United States v. Kaplan, 89 F. 2d 869 (C. A. 2d Cir.).
See, e. g., Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U. S. 528; Chin Kay v. United States, 311 F. 2d 317, 320 (C. A. 9th Cir.); United States v. McCormick, 309 F. 2d 367, 372 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Weise v. United States, 251 F. 2d 867, 868 (C. A. 9th Cir.).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U. S. 244.
. Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result on the premises stated in his separate opinion in Peterson v. City of Greenville and Avent v. North Carolina, 373 U. S., at 248.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a regulation of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it completely bans promotional advertising by an electrical utility.
I
In December 1973, the Commission, appellee here, ordered electric utilities in New York State to cease all advertising that “promot[es] the use of electricity.” App. to Juris. Statement 31a. The order was based on the Commission’s finding that “the interconnected utility system in New York State does not have sufficient fuel stocks or sources of supply to continue furnishing all customer demands for the 1973-1974 winter.” Id., at 26a.
Three years later, when the fuel shortage had eased, the Commission requested comments from the public on its proposal to continue the ban on promotional advertising. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., the appellant in this case, opposed the ban on First Amendment grounds. App. A10. After reviewing the public comments, the Commission extended the prohibition in a Policy Statement issued on February 25, 1977.
The Policy Statement divided advertising expenses “into two broad categories: promotional — advertising intended to stimulate the purchase of utility services — and institutional and informational, a broad category inclusive of all advertising not clearly intended to promote sales.” App. to Juris. Statement 35a. The Commission declared all promotional advertising contrary to the national policy of conserving energy. It acknowledged that the ban is not a perfect vehicle for conserving energy. For example, the Commission’s order prohibits promotional advertising to develop consumption during periods when demand for electricity is low. By limiting growth in “off-peak” consumption, the ban limits the “beneficial side effects” of such growth in terms of more efficient use of existing powerplants. Id., at 37a. And since oil dealers are not under the Commission’s jurisdiction and thus remain free to advertise, it was recognized that the ban can achieve only “piecemeal conservationism” Still, the Commission adopted the restriction because it was deemed likely to “result in some dampening of unnecessary growth” in energy consumption. Ibid.
The Commission’s order explicitly permitted “informational” advertising designed to encourage “shifts of consumption” from peak demand times to periods of low electricity demand. Ibid, (emphasis in orginal). Informational advertising would not seek to increase aggregate consumption, but would invite a leveling of demand throughout any given 24-hour period. The agency offered to review “specific proposals by the companies for specifically described [advertising] programs that meet these criteria.” Id., at 38a.
When it rejected requests for rehearing on the Policy Statement, the Commission supplemented its rationale for the advertising ban. The agency observed that additional electricity probably would be more expensive to produce than existing output. Because electricity rates in New York were not then based on marginal cost, the Commission feared that additional power would be priced below the actual cost of generation. The additional electricity would be subsidized by all consumers through generally higher rates. Id., at 57a-58a. The state agency also thought that promotional advertising would give “misleading signals” to the public by appearing to encourage energy consumption at a time when conservation is needed. Id., at 59a.
Appellant challenged the order in state court, arguing that the Commission had restrained commercial speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Commission’s order was upheld by the trial court and at the intermediate appellate level. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed. It found little value to advertising in “the noncompetitive market in which electric corporations operate.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 47 N. Y. 2d 94, 110, 390 N. E. 2d 749, 757 (1979). Since consumers “have no choice regarding the source of their electric power,” the court denied that “promotional advertising of electricity might contribute to society’s interest in ‘informed and reliable’ economic decisionmaking.” Ibid. The court also observed that by encouraging consumption, promotional advertising would only exacerbate the current energy situation. Id., at 110, 390 N. E. 2d, at 758. The court concluded that the governmental interest in the prohibition outweighed the limited constitutional value of the commercial speech at issue. We noted probable jurisdiction, 444 U. S. 962 (1979), and now reverse.
The Commission’s order restricts only commercial speech, that is, expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience. Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748, 762 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350, 363-364 (1977); Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U. S. 1, 11 (1979). The First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation. Virginia Pharmacy Board, 425 U. S., at 761-762. Commercial expression not only serves the economic interest of the speaker, but also assists consumers and furthers the societal interest in the fullest possible dissemination of information. In applying the First Amendment to this area, we have rejected the “highly paternalistic” view that government has complete power to suppress or regulate commercial speech. “[P]eople will perceive their own best interests if only they are well enough informed, and . . . the best means to that end is to open the channels of communication, rather than to close them. . . .” Id., at 770; see Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85, 92 (1977). Even when advertising communicates only an incomplete version of the relevant facts, the First Amendment presumes that some accurate information is better than no information at all. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, supra, at 374.
Nevertheless, our decisions have recognized "the ‘commonsense’ distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech.” Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447, 455-456 (1978); see Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, supra, at 381; see also Jackson & Jeffries, Commercial Speech: Economic Due Process and the First Amendment, 65 Ya. L. Rev. 1, 38-39 (1979). The Constitution therefore accords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression. 436 U. S., at 456, 457. The protection available for particular commercial expression turns on the nature both of the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation.
The First Amendment’s concern for commercial speech is based on the informational function of advertising. See First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 783 (1978). Consequently, there can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public about lawful activity. The government may ban forms of communication more likely to deceive the public than to inform it, Friedman v. Rogers, supra, at 13, 15-16; Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., supra, at 46A-465, or commercial speech related to illegal activity, Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm’n, 413 U. S. 376, 388 (1973).
If the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity, the government’s power is more circumscribed. The State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech. Moreover, the regulatory technique must be in proportion to that interest. The limitation on expression must be designed carefully to achieve the State’s goal. Compliance with this requirement may be measured by two criteria. First, the restriction must directly advance the state interest involved; the regulation may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government’s purpose. Second, if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the excessive restrictions cannot survive.
Under the first criterion, the Court has declined to uphold regulations that only indirectly advance the state interest involved. In both Bates and Virginia Pharmacy Board, the Court concluded that an advertising ban could not be imposed to protect the ethical or performance standards of a profession. The Court noted in Virginia Pharmacy Board that “[t]he advertising ban does not directly affect professional standards one way or the other.” 425 U. S., at 769. In Bates, the Court overturned an advertising prohibition that was designed to protect the “quality” of a lawyer’s work. “Restraints on advertising . . . are an ineffective way of deterring shoddy work.” 433 U. S., at 378.
The second criterion recognizes that the First Amendment mandates that speech restrictions be “narrowly drawn.” In re Primus, 436 U. S. 412, 438 (1978). The regulatory technique may extend only as far as the interest it serves. The State cannot regulate speech that poses no danger to the asserted state interest, see First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra, at 794-795, nor can it completely suppress information when narrower restrictions on expression would serve its interest as well. For example, in Bates the Court explicitly did not “foreclose the possibility that some limited supplementation, by way of warning or disclaimer or the like, might be required” in promotional materials. 433 U. S., at 384. See Virginia Pharmacy Board, supra, at 773. And in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678, 701-702 (1977), we held that the State’s “arguments ... do not justify the total suppression of advertising concerning contraceptives.” This holding left open the possibility that the State could implement more carefully drawn restrictions. See id., at 712 (Powell, J., concurring in part and in judgment) ; id., at 716-717 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and in judgment).
In commercial speech cases, then, a four-part analysis has developed. At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.
Ill
We now apply this four-step analysis for commercial speech to the Commission’s arguments in support of its ban on promotional advertising.
A
The Commission does not claim that the expression at issue either is inaccurate or relates to unlawful activity. Yet the New York Court of Appeals questioned whether Central Hudson’s advertising is protected commercial speech. Because appellant holds a monopoly over the sale of electricity in its service area, the state court suggested that the Commission’s order restricts no commercial speech of any worth. The court stated that advertising in a "noncompetitive market” could not improve the decisionmaking of consumers. 47 N. Y. 2d, at 110, 390 N. E. 2d, at 757. The court saw no constitutional problem with barring commercial speech that it viewed as conveying little useful information.
This reasoning falls short of establishing that appellant’s advertising is not commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. Monopoly over the supply of a product provides no protection from competition with substitutes for that product. Electric utilities compete with suppliers of fuel oil and natural gas in several markets, such as those for home heating and industrial power. This Court noted the existence of interfuel competition 45 years ago, see West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 294 U. S. 63, 72 (1935). Each energy source continues to offer peculiar advantages and disadvantages that may influence consumer choice. For consumers in those competitive markets, advertising by utilities is just as valuable as advertising by unregulated firms.
Even in monopoly markets, the suppression of advertising reduces the information available for consumer decisions and thereby defeats the purpose of the First Amendment. The New York court’s argument appears to assume that the providers of a monopoly service or product are willing to pay for wholly ineffective advertising. Most businesses— even regulated monopolies — are unlikely to underwrite promotional advertising that is of no interest or use to consumers. Indeed, a monopoly enterprise legitimately may wish to inform the public that it has developed new services or terms of doing business. A consumer may need information to aid his decision whether or not to use the monopoly service at all, or how much of the service he should purchase. In the absence of factors that would distort the decision to advertise, we may assume that the willingness of a business to promote its products reflects a belief that consumers are interested in the advertising. Since no such extraordinary conditions have been identified in this case, appellant’s monopoly position does not alter the First Amendment’s protection for its commercial speech.
B
The Commission offers two state interests as justifications for the ban on promotional advertising. The first concerns energy conservation. Any increase in demand for electricity— during peak or off-peak periods — means greater consumption of energy. The Commission argues, and the New York, court agreed, that the State’s interest in conserving energy is sufficient to support suppression of advertising designed to increase consumption of electricity. In view of our country’s dependence on energy resources beyond our control, no one can doubt the importance of energy conservation. Plainly, therefore, the state interest asserted is substantial.
The Commission also argues that promotional advertising will aggravate inequities caused by the failure to base the utilities’ rates on marginal cost. The utilities argued to the Commission that if they could promote the use of electricity in periods of low demand, they would improve their utilization of generating capacity. The Commission responded that promotion of off-peak consumption also would increase consumption during peak periods. If peak demand were to rise, the absence of marginal cost rates would mean that the rates charged for the additional power would not reflect the true costs of expanding production. Instead, the extra costs would be borne by all consumers through higher overall rates. Withqut promotional advertising, the Commission stated, this inequitable turn of events would be less likely to occur. The choice among rate structures involves difficult and important questions of economic supply and distributional fairness. The State’s concern that rates be fair and efficient represents a clear and substantial governmental interest.
C
Next, we focus on the relationship between the State’s interests and the advertising ban. Under this criterion, the Commission’s laudable concern over the equity and efficiency of appellant’s rates does not provide a constitutionally adequate reason for restricting protected speech. The link between the advertising prohibition and appellant’s rate structure is, at most, tenuous. The impact of promotional advertising on the equity of appellant’s rates is highly speculative. Advertising to increase off-peak usage would have to increase peak usage, while other factors that directly affect the fairness and efficiency of appellant’s rates remained constant. Such conditional and remote eventualities simply cannot justify silencing appellant’s promotional advertising.
In contrast, the State’s interest in energy conservation is directly advanced by the Commission order at issue here. There is an immediate connection between advertising and demand for electricity. Central Hudson would not contest the advertising ban unless it believed that promotion would increase its sales. Thus, we find a direct link between the state interest in conservation and the Commission’s order.
D
We come finally to the critical inquiry in this case: whether the Commission’s complete suppression of speech ordinarily protected by the First Amendment is no more extensive than necessary to further the State’s interest in energy conservation. The Commission’s order reaches all promotional advertising, regardless of the impact of the touted service on overall energy use. But the energy conservation rationale, as important as it is, cannot justify suppressing information about electric devices or services that would cause no net increase in total energy use. In addition, no showing has been made that a more limited restriction on the content of promotional advertising would not serve adequately the State’s interests.
Appellant insists that but for the ban, it would advertise products and services that use energy efficiently. These include the “heat pump,” which both parties acknowledge to be a major improvement in electric heating, and the use of electric heat as a “backup” to solar and other heat sources. Although the Commission has questioned the efficiency of electric heating before this Court, neither the Commission’s Policy Statement nor its order denying rehearing made findings on this issue. In the absence of authoritative findings to the contrary, we must credit as within the realm of possibility the claim that electric heat can be an efficient alternative in some circumstances.
The Commission’s order prevents appellant from promoting electric services that would reduce energy use by diverting demand from less efficient sources, or that would consume roughly the same amount of energy as do alternative sources. In neither situation would the utility’s advertising endanger conservation or mislead the public. To. the extent that the Commission’s order suppresses speech that in no way impairs the State’s interest in energy conservation, the Commission’s order violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and must be invalidated. See First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765 (1978).
The Commission also has not demonstrated that its interest in conservation cannot be protected adequately by more limited regulation of appellant’s commercial expression. To further its policy of conservation, the Commission could attempt to restrict the format and content of Central Hudson’s advertising. It might, for example, require that the advertisements include information about the relative efficiency and expense of the offered service, both under current conditions and for the foreseeable future. Cf. Banzhaf v. FCC, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 14, 405 F. 2d 1082 (1968), cert. denied sub nom. Tobacco Institute, Inc. v. FCC, 396 U. S. 842 (1969). In the absence of a showing that more limited speech regulation would be ineffective, we cannot approve the complete suppression of Central Hudson’s advertising.
IV
Our decision today in no way disparages the national interest in energy conservation. We accept without reservation the argument that conservation, as well as the development of alternative energy sources, is an imperative national goal. Administrative bodies empowered to regulate electric utilities have the authority — and indeed the duty — -to take appropriate action to further this goal. When, however, such action involves the suppression of speech, the First and Fourteenth Amendments require that the restriction be no more extensive than is necessary to serve the state interest. In this case, the record before us fails to show that the total ban on promotional advertising meets this requirement.
Accordingly, the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
The dissenting opinion attempts to construe the Policy Statement to authorize advertising that would result “in a net energy savings” even if the advertising encouraged consumption of additional electricity. Post, at 604-605. The attempted construction fails, however, since the Policy Statement is phrased only in terms of advertising that promotes “the purchase of utility services” and “sales” of electricity. Plainly, the Commission did not intend to permit advertising that would enhance net energy efficiency by increasing consumption of electrical services.
“Marginal cost” has been defined as the “extra or incremental cost of producing an extra unit of output.” P. Samuelson, Economics 463 (19th ed. 1976) (emphasis in original).
Central Hudson also alleged that the Commission’s order reaches beyond the agency’s statutory powers. This argument was rejected by the New York Court of Appeals, Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 47 N. Y. 2d 94, 102-104, 390 N. E. 2d 749, 752-754 (1979), and was not argued to this Court.
Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 63 App. Div. 2d 364, 407 N. Y. S. 2d 735 (1978); App. to Juris. Statement 22a (N. Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 17, 1978).
In an opinion concurring in the judgment, Mr. Justice SteveNS suggests that the Commission's order reaches beyond commercial speech to suppress expression that is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment. See post, at 580-581. We find no support for this claim in the record of this case. The Commission’s Policy Statement excluded “institutional and informational” messages from the advertising ban, which was restricted to all advertising “clearly intended to promote sales.” App. to Juris. Statement 35a. The complaint alleged only that the “prohibition of promotional advertising by Petitioner is not reasonable regulation of Petitioner’s commercial speech. . . .” Id., at 70a. Moreover, the state-court opinions and the arguments of the parties before this Court also viewed this litigation as involving only commercial speech. Nevertheless, the concurring opinion of Me. Justice SteveNS views the Commission’s order as suppressing more than commercial speech because it would outlaw, for example, advertising that promoted electricity consumption by touting the environmental benefits of such uses. See post, at 581. Apparently the opinion would accord full First Amendment protection to all promotional advertising that includes claims “relating to . . . questions frequently discussed and debated by our political leaders.” Ibid.
Although this approach responds to the serious issues surrounding our national energy policy as raised in this case, we think it would blur further the line the Court has sought to draw in commercial speech cases. It would grant broad constitutional protection to any advertising that links a product to a current public debate. But many, if not most, products may be tied to public concerns with the environment, energy, economic policy, or individual health and safety. We rule today in Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, ante, p. 530, that utilities enjoy the full panoply of First Amendment protections for their direct comments on public issues. There is no reason for providing similar constitutional protection when such statements are made only in the context of commercial transactions. In that context, for example, the State retains the power to “insur[e] that the stream of commercial information flow[s] cleanly as well as freely.” Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748, 772 (1975). This Court’s decisions on commercial expression have rested on the premise that such speech, although meriting some protection, is of less constitutional moment than other forms of speech. As we stated in Ohralik, the failure to distinguish between commercial and noncommercial speech “could invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the [First] Amendment’s guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech.” 436 U. S., at 456.
In most other contexts, the First Amendment prohibits regulation based on the content of the message. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, ante, at 537-540. Two features of commercial speech permit regulation of its content. First, commercial speakers have extensive knowledge of both the market and their products. Thus, they are well situated to evaluate the accuracy of their messages and the lawfulness of the underlying activity. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350, 381 (1977). In addition, commercial speech, the offspring of economic self-interest, is a hardy breed of expression that is not “particularly susceptible to being crushed by overbroad regulation.” Ibid.
In Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85, 95-96 (1977), we observed that there was no definite connection between the township’s goal of integrated housing and its ban on the use of “For Sale” signs in front of houses.
This analysis is not an application of the “overbreadth” doctrine. The latter theory permits the invalidation of regulations on First Amendment grounds even when the litigant challenging the regulation has engaged in no constitutionally protected activity. E. g., Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290 (1951). The overbreadth doctrine derives from the recognition that unconstitutional restriction of expression may deter protected speech by parties not before the court and thereby escape judicial review. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 612-613 (1973); see Note, The First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 844, 853-858 (1970). This restraint is less likely where the expression is linked to “commercial well-being” and therefore is not easily deterred by “over-broad regulation.” Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, supra, at 381.
In this case, the Commission’s prohibition acts directly against the promotional activities of Central Hudson, and to the extent the limitations are unnecessary to serve the State’s interest, they are invalid.
We review with special care regulations that entirely suppress commercial speech in order to pursue a nonspeech-related policy. In those circumstances, a ban on speech could screen from public view the underlying governmental policy. See Virginia Pharmacy Board, 425 U. S., at 780, n. 8 (Stewart, J., concurring). Indeed, in recent years this Court has not approved a blanket ban on commercial speech unless the expression itself was flawed in some way, either because it was deceptive or related to unlawful activity.
Several commercial speech decisions have involved enterprises subject to extensive state regulation. E. g., Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U. S. 1, 4-5 (1979) (optometrists); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 (1977) (lawyers); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, supra, at 750-752 (pharmacists).
There may be a greater incentive for a utility to advertise if it can use promotional expenses in determining its rate of return, rather than pass those costs on solely to shareholders. That practice, however, hardly distorts the economic decision whether to advertise. Unregulated businesses pass on promotional costs to consumers, and this Court expressly approved the practice for utilities in West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Comrn’n, 294 U. S. 63, 72 (1935).
See W. Jones, Regulated Industries 191-287 (2d ed. 1976).
The Commission also might consider a system of previewing advertising campaigns to insure that they will not defeat conservation policy. It has instituted such a program for approving “informational” advertising under the Policy Statement challenged in this case. See supra, at 560. We have observed that commercial speech is such a sturdy brand of expression that traditional prior restraint doctrine may not apply to it. Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S., at 771-772, n. 24. And in other areas of speech regulation, such as obscenity, we have recognized that a prescreening arrangement can pass constitutional muster if it includes adequate procedural safeguards. Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965).
In view of our conclusion that the Commission’s advertising policy violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, we do not reach appellant’s claims that the agency’s order also violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that it is both overbroad and vague.
The Commission order at issue here was not promulgated in response to an emergency situation. Although the advertising ban initially was prompted by critical fuel shortage in 1973, the Commission makes no claim that an emergency now exists. We do not consider the powers that the State might have over utility advertising in emergency circumstances. See State v. Oklahoma Oas & Electric Co., 536 P. 2d 887, 895-896 (Okla. 1975).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search may be of a person, a thing, or a place. So too a seizure may be of a person, a thing, or even a place. A search or a seizure may occur singly or in combination, and in differing sequence. In some cases the validity of one determines the validity of the other. The instant case involves the search of a place (an apartment dwelling) and the seizure of a person. But here, though it is acknowledged that the search was lawful,.it does not follow that the seizure was lawful as well. The seizure of the person is quite in question. The issue to be resolved is whether the seizure of the person was reasonable when he was stopped and detained at some distance away from the premises to be searched when the only justification for the detention was to ensure the safety and efficacy of the search.
I
A
At 8:45 p.m. on July 28, 2005, local police obtained a warrant to search a residence for a .380-caliber handgun. The residence was a basement apartment at 103 Lake Drive, in Wyandanch, New York. A confidential informant had told police he observed the gun when he was at the apartment to purchase drugs from “a heavy set black male with short hair” known as “Polo.” App. 16-26. As the search unit began preparations for executing the warrant, two officers, Detectives Richard Sneider and Richard Gorbecki, were conducting surveillance in an unmarked car outside the residence. About 9:56 p.m., Sneider and Gorbecki observed two men—later identified as petitioner Chunon Bailey and Bryant Middleton—leave the gated area above the basement apartment and enter a car parked in the driveway. Both matched the general physical description of “Polo” provided by the informant. There was no indication that the men were aware of the officers’ presence or had any knowledge of the impending search. The detectives watched the car leave the driveway. They waited for it to go a few hundred yards down the street and followed. The detectives informed the search team of their intent to follow and detain the departing occupants. The search team then executed the search warrant at the apartment.
Detectives Sneider and Gorbecki tailed Bailey’s car for about a mile—and for about five minutes—before pulling the vehicle over in a parking lot by a fire station. They ordered Bailey and Middleton out of the car and did a patdown search of both men. The officers found no weapons but discovered a ring of keys in Bailey’s pocket. Bailey identified himself and said he was coming from his home at 103 Lake Drive. His driver’s license, however, showed his address as Bay-shore, New York, the town where the confidential informant told the police the suspect, “Polo,” used to live. Id., at 89. Bailey’s passenger, Middleton, said Bailey was giving him a ride home and confirmed they were coming from Bailey’s residence at 103 Lake Drive. The officers put both men in handcuffs. When Bailey asked why, Gorbecki stated that they were being detained incident to the execution of a search warrant at 103 Lake Drive. Bailey responded: “I don’t live there. Anything you find there ain’t mine, and I’m not cooperating with your investigation.” Id., at 57, 77.
The detectives called for a patrol cár to take Bailey and Middleton back’ to the Lake Drive apartment. Detective Sneider drove the unmarked car back, while Detective Gor-becki used Bailey’s set of keys to drive Bailey’s car back to the search scene. By the time the group returned to 103 Lake Drive, the search team had discovered a gun and drugs in plain view inside the apartment. Bailey and Middleton were placed under arrest, and Bailey’s keys were seized incident to the arrest. Officers later discovered that one of Bailey’s keys opened the door of the basement apartment.
B
Bailey was charged with three federal offenses: possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii); possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense, in violation of § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). At trial Bailey moved to suppress the apartment key and the statements he made when stopped by Detectives Sneider and Gorbecki. That evidence, Bailey argued, derived from an unreasonable seizure. After an evidentiary hearing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the motion to suppress. The District Court held that Bailey’s detention was permissible under Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692 (1981), as a detention incident to the execution of a search warrant. In the alternative, it held that Bailey’s detention was lawful as an investigatory detention supported by reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). After a trial the jury found Bailey guilty on all three counts.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that Bailey’s detention was proper and affirmed denial of the suppression motion. It interpreted this Court’s decision in Summers to “authoriz[e] law enforcement to detain the occupant of premises subject to a valid search warrant when that person is seen leaving those premises and the detention is effected as soon as reasonably practicable.” 652 F. 3d 197, 208 (2011). Having found Bailey’s detention justified under Summers, the Court of Appeals did not address the District Court’s alternative holding that the stop was permitted under Terry.
The Federal Courts of Appeals have reached differing conclusions as to whether Michigan v. Summers justifies the detention of occupants beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises covered by a search warrant. This Court granted certiorari to address the question. 566 U. S. 1033 (2012).
H—i
The Fourth Amendment, applicable through the- Four- ' teenth Amendment to the States, provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This Court has stated “the general rule that Fourth Amendment seizures are ‘reasonable’ only if based on probable cause” to believe that the individual has committed a crime. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 213 (1979). The standard of probable cause, with “roots that are deep in our history,” Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 100 (1959), “represent[s] the accumulated wisdom of precedent and experience as to the minimum justification necessary to make the kind of intrusion involved in an arrest ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment.” Dunaway, supra, at 208.
Within the framework of these fundamental rules there is some latitude for police to detain where “the intrusion on the citizen’s privacy ‘was so much less severe’ than that involved in a traditional arrest that ‘the opposing interests in crime prevention and detection and in the police officer’s safety’ could support the seizure as reasonable.” Summers, supra, at 697-698 (quoting Dunaway, supra, at 209); see also Terry, supra, at 27 (holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop).
In Summers, the Court defined an important category of cases in which detention is allowed without probable cause to arrest for a crime. It permitted officers executing a search warrant “to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” 452 U. S., at 705. The rule in Summers extends further than some earlier exceptions because it does not require law enforcement to have particular suspicion that an individual is involved in criminal activity or poses a specific danger to the officers. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U. S. 93 (2005). In Muehler, applying the rule in Summers, the Court stated: “An officer’s authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the ‘quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.’ ” 544 U. S., at 98 (quoting Summers, supra, at 705, n. 19). The rule, announced in Summers allows detention incident to the execution of a search warrant “because the character of the additional intrusion caused by detention is slight and because the justifications for detention are substantial.” Muehler, supra, at 98.
In Summers and later cases, the occupants detained were found within or immediately outside a residence at the moment the police officers executed the search warrant. In Summers, the defendant was detained on a walk leading down from the front steps of the house. See Tr. of Oral Arg. in O. T. 1980, No. 79-1794, pp. 41-42; see also Muehler, supra, at 96 (detention of occupant in adjoining garage); Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550 U. S. 609, 611 (2007) (per curiam) (detention of occupants in bedroom). Here, however, petitioner left the apartment before the search began; and the police officers waited to detain him until he was almost a mile away. The issue is whether the reasoning in Summers can justify detentions beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises being searched. An exception to the Fourth Amendment rule prohibiting detention absent probable cause must not diverge from its purpose and rationale. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 500 (1983) (plurality opinion) (“The scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification”)- It is necessary, then, to discuss the reasons for the rule explained in Summers to determine if its rationale extends to a detention like the one here.
A
In Summers, the Court recognized three important law enforcement interests that, taken together, justify the detention of an occupant who is on the premises during the execution of a search warrant: officer safety, facilitating the completion of the search, and preventing flight. 452 U. S., at 702-703.
1
The first interest identified in Summers was “the interest in minimizing the risk of harm to the officers.” Id., at 702. There the Court held that “the execution of a warrant to search for narcotics is the kind of transaction that may give rise to sudden violence or frantic efforts to conceal or destroy evidence,” and “[t]he risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.” Id., at 702-703.
When law enforcement officers execute a search warrant, safety considerations require that they secure the premises, which may include detaining current occupants. By taking “unquestioned command of. the situation,” id., at 703, the officers can search without fear that occupants, who are on the premises and able to observe the course of the search, will become disruptive, dangerous, or otherwise frustrate the search.
After Summers, this Court decided Muehler v. Mena. The reasoning and conclusions in Muehler in applying the Summers rule go quite far in allowing seizure and detention of persons to accommodate the necessities of a search. There, the person detained and held in handcuffs was not suspected of the criminal activity being investigated; but, the Court held, she could be detained nonetheless, to secure the premises while the search was underway. The “safety risk inherent in executing a search warrant for weapons was sufficient to justify the use of handcuffs, [and] the need to detain multiple occupants made the use of handcuffs all the more reasonable.” 544 U. S., at 100. While the Court in Muehler did remand for consideration of whether the detention there—alleged to have been two or three hours—was necessary in light of all the circumstances, the fact that so prolonged a detention indeed might have been permitted illustrates the far-reaching authority the police have when the detention is made at the scene of the search. This in turn counsels caution before extending the power to detain persons stopped or apprehended away from the premises where the search is being conducted.
It is likely, indeed almost inevitable in the case of a resident, that an occupant will return to the premises at some point; and this might occur when the officers are still conducting the search. Officers can and do mitigate that risk, however, by taking routine precautions, for instance by erecting barricades or posting someone on the perimeter or at the door. In the instant case Bailey had left the premises, apparently without knowledge of the search. He posed little risk to the officers at the scene. If Bailey had rushed back to his apartment, the police could have apprehended and detained him under Summers. There is no established principle, however, that allows the arrest of anyone away from the premises who is likely to return.
The risk, furthermore, that someone could return home during the execution of a search warrant is not limited to occupants who depart shortly before the start of a search. The risk that a resident might return home, either for reasons unrelated to the search or after being alerted by someone at the scene, exists whether he left five minutes or five hours earlier. Unexpected arrivals by occupants or other persons accustomed to visiting the premises might occur in many instances. Were police to have the authority to detain those persons away from the premises, the authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant would reach beyond the rationale of ensuring the integrity of the search by detaining those who are in fact on the scene.
The Court of Appeals relied on an additional safety consideration. It concluded that limiting the application of the authority to detain to the immediate vicinity would put law enforcement officers in a dilemma. They would have to choose between detaining an individual immediately (and risk alerting occupants still inside) or allowing the individual to leave (and risk not being able to arrest him later if incriminating evidence were discovered). 652 F. 3d, at 205-206. Although the danger of alerting occupants who remain inside may be of real concern in some instances, as in the case when a no-knock warrant has been issued, this safety rationale rests on the false premise that a detention must take place. If the officers find that it would be dangerous to detain a departing individual in front of a residence, they are not required to stop him. And, where there are grounds to believe the departing occupant is dangerous, or involved in criminal activity, police will generally not need Summers to detain him at least for brief questioning, as they can rely instead on Terry.
The risk that a departing occupant might notice the police surveillance and alert others still inside the residence is also an insufficient safety rationale to justify expanding the existing categorical authority to detain so that it extends beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. If extended in this way the rationale would justify detaining anyone in the neighborhood who could alert occupants that the police are outside, all without individualized suspicion of criminal activity or connection to the residence to be •searched. This possibility demonstrates why it is necessary to confine the Summers rule to those who are present when and where the search is being conducted.
2
The second law enforcement interest relied on in Summers was that “the orderly completion of the search may be facilitated if the occupants of the premises are present.” 452 U. S., at 703. This interest in efficiency derives from distinct, but related, concerns.
If occupants are permitted to wander around the premises, there is the potential for interference with the execution of the search warrant. They can hide or destroy evidence, seek to distract the officers, or simply get'in the way. Those risks are not presented by an occupant who departs beforehand. So, in this case, after Bailey drove away from the Lake Drive apartment, he was not a threat to the proper execution of the search. Had he returned, officers would have been free to detain him at that point. A general interest in avoiding obstruction of a search, however, cannot justify detention beyond the vicinity of the premises to be searched.
Summers also noted that occupants can assist the officers. Under the reasoning in Summers, the occupants’ “self-interest may induce them to open locked doors or locked containers to avoid the use of force that is not only damaging to property but may also delay the completion of the task at hand.” Ibid. This justification must be confined to those persons who are on site and so in a position, when detained, to at once observe the progression of the search; and it would have no limiting principle were it to be applied to persons beyond the premises of the search. Here, it appears the police officers decided to wait until Bailey had left the vicinity of the search before detaining him. In any event it later became clear to the officers that Bailey did not wish to cooperate. See App. 57, 77 (“I don’t live there. Anything you find there ain’t mine, and I’m not cooperating with your investigation”). And, by the time the officers brought Bailey back to the apartment, the search team had discovered contraband. Bailey’s detention thus served no purpose in ensuring the efficient completion of the search.
a
The third law enforcement interest addressed in Summers was the “the legitimate law enforcement interest in preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found.” 452 U. S., at 702. The proper interpretation of this language, in the context of Summers and in the broader context of the reasonableness standard that must govern and inform the detention incident to a search, is that the police can prohibit an occupant from leaving the scene of the search. As with the other interests identified in Summers, this justification serves to preserve the integrity of the search by controlling those persons who are on the scene. If police officers are concerned about flight, and have to keep close supervision of occupants who are not restrained, they might rush the search, causing unnecessary damage to property or compromising its careful execution. Allowing officers to secure the scene by detaining those present also prevents the search from being impeded by occupants leaving with the evidence being sought or the means to find it.
The concern over flight is not because of the danger of flight itself but because of the damage that potential flight can cause to the integrity of the search. This interest does not independently justify detention of an occupant beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. The need to prevent flight, if unbounded, might be used to argue for detention, while a search is underway, of any regular occupant regardless of his or her location at the time of the search. If not circumscribed, the rationale of preventing flight would justify, for instance, detaining a suspect who is 10 miles away, ready to board a plane. The interest in preventing escape from police cannot extend this far without undermining the usual rules for arrest based on probable cause or a brief stop for questioning under standards derived from Terry. Even if the detention of a former occupant away from the premises could facilitate a later arrest should incriminating evidence be discovered, “the mere fact that law enforcement may be made more efficient can never by itself justify disregard of the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393 (1978).
In sum, of the three law enforcement interests identified to justify the detention in Summers, none applies with the same or similar force to the detention of recent occupants beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. Any of the individual interests is also insufficient, on its own, to justify an expansion of the rule in Summers to permit the detention of a former occupant, wherever he may be found away from the scene of the search. This would give officers too much discretion. The categorical authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant must be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.
B
In Summers, the Court recognized the authority to detain occupants incident to the execution of a search warrant not only in light of the law enforcement interests at stake but also because the intrusion on personal liberty was limited. The Court held detention of a current occupant “represents only an incremental intrusion on personal liberty when the search of a home has been authorized by a valid warrant.” 452 U. S., at 703. Because the detention occurs in the individual’s own home, “it could add only minimally to the public stigma associated with the search itself and would involve neither the inconvenience nor the indignity associated with a compelled visit to the police station.” Id., at 702.
Where officers arrest an individual away from his home, however, there is an additional level of intrusiveness. A public detention, even if merely incident to a search, will resemble a full-fledged arrest. As demonstrated here, detention beyond the immediate vicinity can involve an initial detention away from the scene and a second detention at the residence. In between, the individual will suffer the additional indignity of a compelled transfer back to the premises, giving all the appearances of an arrest. The detention here was more intrusive than a usual detention at the search scene. Bailey’s car was stopped; he was ordered to step out and was detained in full public view; he was handcuffed, transported in a marked patrol car, and detained further outside the apartment. These facts illustrate that detention away from a premises where police are already present often will be more intrusive than detentions at the scene.
C
Summers recognized that a rule permitting the detention of occupants on the premises during the execution of a search warrant, even absent individualized suspicion, was reasonable and necessary in light of the law enforcement interests in conducting a safe and efficient search. Because this exception grants substantial authority to police officers to detain outside of the traditional rules of the Fourth Amendment, it must be circumscribed.
A spatial constraint defined by the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched is therefore required for detentions incident to the execution of a séarch warrant. The police action permitted here—the .search of a residence—has a spatial dimension, and so a spatial or geographical boundary can be used to determine the area within which both the search and detention incident to that search may occur. Limiting the rule in Summers to the area in which an occupant poses a real threat to the safe and efficient execution of a search warrant ensures that the scope of the detention incident to a search is confined to its underlying justification. Once an occupant is beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, the search-related law enforcement interests are diminished and the. intrusiveness of the detention is more severe.
Here, petitioner was detained at a point beyond any reasonable understanding of the immediate vicinity of the premises in question; and so this case presents neither the necessity nor the occasion to further define the meaning of immediate vicinity. In closer cases courts can consider a number of factors to determine whether an occupant was detained within the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, including the lawful limits of the premises, whether the occupant was within the line of sight of his dwelling, the ease of reentry from the occupant’s location, and other relevant factors.
Confining an officer’s authority to detain under Summers to the immediate vicinity of a premises to be searched is a proper limit because it accords with the rationale of the rule. The rule adopted by the Court of Appeals here, allowing detentions of a departed occupant “as soon as reasonably practicable,” departs from the spatial limit that is necessary to confine the rule in light of the substantial intrusions on the liberty of those detained. Because detention is justified by the interests in executing a safe and efficient search, the decision to detain must be acted upon at the scene of the search and not at a later time in a more remote place. If officers elect to defer the detention until the suspect or departing occupant leaves the immediate vicinity, the lawfulness of detention is controlled by other standards, including, of course, a brief stop for questioning based on reasonable suspicion under Terry or an arrest based on probable cause. A suspect’s particular actions in leaving the scene, including whether he appears to be armed or fleeing with the evidence sought, and any information the officers acquire from those who are conducting the search, including information that incriminating evidence has been discovered, will bear, of course, on the lawfulness of a later stop or detention. For example, had the search team radioed Detectives Sneider and Gorbecki about the gun and drugs discovered in the Lake Drive apartment as the officers stopped Bailey and Middleton, this may have provided them with probable cause for an arrest.
Ill
Detentions incident to the execution of a search warrant are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the limited intrusion on personal liberty is outweighed by the special law enforcement interests at stake. Once an individual has left the immediate vicinity of a premises to be searched, however, detentions must be justified by some other rationale. In this respect it must be noted that the District Court, as an alternative ruling, held that stopping petitioner was lawful under Terry. This opinion expresses no view on that issue. It will be open, on remand, for the Court of Appeals to address the matter and to determine whether, assuming the Terry stop was valid, it yielded information that justified the detention the officers then imposed.
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.
Mr. Justice Murphy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A problem arising under the Bankruptcy Act is presented by the unique facts of this case.
On June 10, 1926, Harvey C. Stineman was adjudicated a bankrupt upon a voluntary petition and the case was referred to a referee. The principal asset of the bankrupt estate was an undivided one-sixth interest in a large acreage of valuable coal lands, a large portion of which was operated by lessees and was producing substantial royalties. The value of the interest of the bankrupt estate in this asset is alleged to have been appraised at $90,000.
More than four months prior to the date when the petition was filed and the adjudication made, the United States National Bank of Johnstown, Pa., and the First National Bank of South Fork, Pa., had procured judgments against Stineman. These two judgments constituted first and second liens, respectively, on Stineman’s interest in the coal lands. This interest had no other encumbrances upon it.
On January 8,1927, the Johnstown bank filed its secured claim in the bankruptcy proceedings in the amount of $10,000, reciting as its security the first lien on the interest in the coal lands. This claim was allowed. Subsequently, in 1932, the Johnstown bank filed an amended claim in the amount of $13,685, interest accruing after bankruptcy having been added to the original claim. The amended claim was allowed in the amount filed and formed the basis for the bank’s participation in the dividends from the general fund, mentioned hereinafter. A court order in 1944 reduced this claim to $10,000.
The South Fork bank, on June 29, 1926, filed its secured claim with the referee for $11,290, reciting the second lien as its security, along with unsecured claims for $7,173.45. Dividends from the general fund were subsequently paid to the bank on the basis of the full amount of all its claims, $18,463.45.
Numerous general, unsecured claims were filed by other creditors, approximating $225,000 in amount. Included among these was the claim of the Chase National Bank of the City of New York, a claim which was allowed in the amount of $55,231.98.
The referee held a meeting of the creditors on December 31,1929, more than three and a half years after the adjudication. The motive for this meeting appears to have been the fact that the Johnstown and South Fork banks, the judgment lien creditors, were pressing for payment of their secured claims. This meeting was attended by the bankrupt, the trustee in bankruptcy and representatives of the two judgment creditors, the Chase National Bank and certain other general creditors. Apparently not all of the general creditors appeared at this meeting. The consensus of opinion among those present was that the real estate had a value in excess of the liens but that “if the lien creditors foreclosed upon their liens, little, if anything, would be left for general creditors.”
One of the attorneys present, P. J. Little, then made a suggestion. Mr. Little at this time was serving as counsel for the trustee, the Chase National Bank and several other general creditors. His suggestion was “that under the law the estate should be divided into two items; one item showing funds arising wholly from real estate which does not include any of the leases or the funds from any of the leases; the other fund should be made up of all royalties, rentals, or dividends on stocks or bonds. The first fund to go to the first judgment creditor, the second fund to be divided pro rata among all the creditors.”
The parties apparently agreed to this proposal. Although no supporting order of the referee appears in the record, the administration of the bankrupt estate proceeded as if a supporting order had been entered. The two judgment lien creditors assented to this course of events and it is asserted that all the creditors understood that the liens were to remain intact until the underlying claims had been paid in full.
Thereafter, four dividends were declared and distributed from the real estate fund, while seven dividends were declared and distributed from the general fund. The Johnstown bank received at least $1,364.76 from the real estate fund; the South Fork bank appears to have received nothing from that fund. Both of these banks shared with the other creditors in the seven distributions from the general fund, the Johnstown bank receiving $2,435.06 and the South Fork bank, $3,285.35. No exceptions were ever taken to any of the various orders of distributions. In addition, these two banks have carefully revived their judgments during each five-year period, making the trustee in bankruptcy a party to the proceedings.
In October, 1942, the Chase National Bank filed petitions for a decree to the effect that the two banks had waived their liens by sharing in the distributions from the general fund along with the general creditors and that the Johnstown bank should be compelled to return the $1,364.76 it had received from the real estate fund. The referee, however, held that both the Johnstown and South Fork banks were entitled to maintain their positions as lien creditors and at the same time participate in the distributions from the general fund. The District Court reversed the referee’s decision, feeling that participation in distributions from both the real estate and general funds was contrary to accepted bankruptcy practice. In re Stineman, 56 F. Supp. 190. On rehearing, the District Court changed its mind; it became convinced that the Chase National Bank had recommended the arrangement, had acquiesced in its execution and was now estopped from objecting. In re Stineman, 61 F. Supp. 151. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the parties had completely disregarded the pertinent provisions of the Bankruptcy Act and that the Johnstown and South Fork banks had waived their liens and were entitled to share in the bankruptcy estate only as general creditors. In re Stineman, 155 F. 2d 755.
Sections 65 (a) and 57 (h) of the Bankruptcy Act are the ones pertinent to this case. Section 65 (a) provides: “Dividends of an equal per centum shall be declared and paid on all allowed claims, except such as have priority or are secured.” 11 U. S. C. § 105 (a). Section 57 (h) provides: “The value of securities held by secured creditors shall be determined by converting the same into money according to the terms of the agreement pursuant to which such securities were delivered to such creditors, or by such creditors and the trustee by agreement, arbitration, compromise or litigation, as the court may direct, and the amount of such value shall be credited upon such claims, and a dividend shall be paid only on the unpaid balance. Such determination shall be under the supervision and control of the court.” 11 U. S. C. § 93 (h).
Under these provisions, there are several avenues of action open to a secured creditor of a bankrupt. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed.) pp. 149-157, 255-259. (1) He may disregard the bankruptcy proceeding, decline to file a claim and rely solely upon his security if that security is properly and solely in his possession. In re Cherokee Public Service Co., 94 F. 2d 536; Ward v. First Nat. Bank, 202 F. 609. (2) He must file a secured claim, however, if the security is within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and if he wishes to retain his secured status, inasmuch as that court has exclusive jurisdiction over the liquidation of the security. Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co., 282 U. S. 734. (3) He may surrender or waive his security and prove his entire claim as an unsecured one. In re Medina Quarry Co., 179 F. 929; Morrison v. Rieman, 249 F. 97. (4) He may avail himself of his security and share in the general assets as to the unsecured balance. Merrill v. National Bank of Jacksonville, 173 U. S. 131; Ex parte City Bank, 3 How. 292, 315.
Section 57 (h) is a codification of this fourth possibility. It permits the secured creditor to receive dividends along with the general creditors only on the balance remaining after the value of the security has been determined and deducted from the claim. This rule, commonly known as the bankruptcy rule, is designed to preclude any unwarranted advantage from accruing to the secured creditor. Grounded upon the statutory principle of equality and ratable distribution, it prohibits the secured creditor from reaping the whole benefit of his security while simultaneously taking dividends from the general assets on the basis of his entire claim as if he had no security. This rule differs from the one in equity, which allows the secured creditor to receive dividends on the full amount of his claim, crediting all dividends received and reserving the security against any deficiency. Merrill v. National Bank of Jacksonville, supra. And see 3 Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed.) p. 153; Hanson, “The Secured Creditor’s Share of an Insolvent Estate,” 34 Mich. L. Rev. 309; 12 Ford. L. Rev. 77.
It is argued that the plan adopted in this case cannot be sanctioned under the foregoing principles. This plan allegedly called for the use of something similar to the equity rule of distribution. The judgment lien creditors were to retain their liens while sharing fully in the dividends from the general funds as if they had no liens, crediting the dividends received against their claims. But § 57 (h) is said plainly to outlaw the use of that rule; if the judgment lien creditors wished to retain their liens, they could share in the dividends only to the extent that their claims exceeded the value of their liens. Since they did not follow the provisions of § 57 (h), the conclusion is reached that they have waived their liens and must now be considered solely as unsecured creditors.
At this point it should be noted that the incomplete record before us fails to reveal the value of the interest in the coal lands to which the liens attached. The judgment lien creditors claim that the value was fixed at $90,000, but no such valuation appears in the record. That it might be less than $90,000 is indicated by the statement of these creditors that if they had foreclosed on their combined liens of $21,290, “there would have been little, if anything, left for the general creditors.” But in the setting of this case, we believe it immaterial whether the value of the interest in the coal lands was greater or less than the amount of the secured claims. In either event, the problem before us concerns itself with the present validity of the liens. Has the conduct of the judgment lien creditors been such as to constitute a waiver of their judgment liens? That question we answer in the negative.
The fact that the judgment lien creditors received general dividends contrary to the scheme of § 57 (h) does not necessarily mean that they thereby waived their liens. Nothing in the language of § 57 (h) or of any other section of the Act makes such a receipt the necessary equivalent of a waiver. It is generally true that participation by a secured creditor in distributions from the general assets on the basis of his full claim indicates a waiver of the security and an election to be treated as an unsecured creditor. See In re O’Gara Coal Co., 12 F. 2d 426. But that is not an invariable result flowing from the application of any rigid statutory rule. The result depends, rather, upon the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the dividends. And in exceptional cases, those circumstances may demonstrate the continued vitality of the security as well as indicate that it would be inequitable to declare the security forfeited. See Wuerpel v. Commercial Germania Trust & Savings Bank, 238 F. 269; Maxwell v. McDaniels, 195 F. 426; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Coggin, 78 F. 2d 471; Standard Oil Co. v. Hawkins, 74 F. 395.
In the rare case where there is reasonable doubt as to whether a waiver has occurred, a careful examination must therefore be made to determine the conditions under which the dividends from the general assets were distributed to the secured creditor. And that examination must be made in the light of the recognized principles of equity. It has long been established that “courts of bankruptcy are essentially courts of equity, and their proceedings inherently proceedings in equity.” Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U. S. 234, 240; Pepper v. Litton, 308 U. S. 295, 304. In determining whether a waiver of liens has taken place, the bankruptcy court must accordingly look to the equities involved as well as to the intention of the parties. A waiver may be inequitable or unfair to the secured creditor; the receipt of dividends may not have caused permanent injury to the unsecured creditors; the dividends may have been received under a mistake of law or fact or pursuant to court approval; the objecting party may be estopped from questioning the validity of the liens. Such equitable considerations may well be decisive of a waiver or forfeiture in a particular case.
It is at once evident in this case that the judgment lien creditors received dividends from the general fund in good faith and without any intent to waive their liens. The principal asset of the estate was the interest in the coal lands and it was that interest to which the liens attached. Representatives of various general creditors believed that it would be to their advantage to have this interest remain intact, without being liquidated in whole or in part in order to satisfy the liens. Their thought was that by maintaining undiminished the royalties and rentals from this interest the unsecured claims could more rapidly be satisfied. To that end it was proposed that the judgment lien creditors refrain from immediate liquidation of their claims and share in the dividends from the general fund, a fund which included the royalties and rentals from the interest in the coal lands. The judgment lien creditors accepted this proposal, being willing to postpone any immediate realization of their security. But they did so with the distinct understanding that their liens were not forfeited and they took pains to renew the underlying judgments every succeeding five years in order to keep the liens alive. There is thus absent any element of an intentional waiver of the liens or any action inconsistent with a desire to retain the liens in the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the dividends by the judgment lien creditors. Cf. Thomas v. Taggart, 209 U. S. 385; In re Kaplan & Myers, 241 F. 459.
Nor do we perceive any equitable reason why these liens should be declared forfeited. The incomplete record in this case does not indicate whether the referee or the bankruptcy court ever gave formal approval to the agreement under which the judgment lien creditors received dividends along with the unsecured creditors. But the bankruptcy proceedings went forward for more than twelve years as if such approval had been given, authorization being given for the distribution of numerous dividends pursuant to the plan. Certainly the agreement had the implied, if not the express, blessing of the referee and the bankruptcy court. Hence the judgment lien creditors cannot be accused of having participated in a plan which was unknown to, or disapproved by, those responsible for the proper administration of the proceedings. A forfeiture of the liens would only penalize unfairly the judgment lien creditors, who joined the plan in good faith and without any apparent intention of harming others or of securing any undue advantage for themselves.
It is further significant that the plan was proposed by an attorney for Chase National Bank, the general creditor now objecting. Apparently not all the general creditors were present or represented at the meeting on December 31,1929, when the proposal was made and accepted. But the agreement, with its various dividend distributions taking place between 1935 and 1942, must have come to the attention of all the general creditors sooner or later; yet none of them raised any objection to the various distributions or to the agreement during this long period of time. No reason suggests itself why any of these general creditors should now be permitted to question the dividends received in the past by the judgment lien creditors or to demand that the liens be declared forfeited because of the receipt of such dividends. Especially is this so as to Chase National Bank. As the District Court noted, 61 F. Supp. at 152, its counsel recommended and had full knowledge of the agreement; and Chase had knowledge of the subsequent dividend distributions, to which it did not demur. At this late stage, it is equitably estopped from raising any objection to the validity of the liens on the basis of the operation of the plan which it proposed. Cf. Merchants Bank v. Sexton, 228 U. S. 634; In re National Public Service Corporation, 68 F. 2d 859; In re American S. S. Nav. Co., 14 F. Supp. 106.
Moreover, the record does not indicate that any permanent injury to Chase National Bank or to the other general creditors resulted from the operation of the plan. The whole scheme was adopted with the idea that they would be benefited and we cannot say that this purpose has failed of achievement. Having proposed and acquiesced in the plan, the Chase National Bank cannot now be heard to complain of any resulting injury, especially an injury that is not apparent in the record.
We conclude from these various considerations that the liens should be held to be valid and in existence despite the failure to follow the provisions of § 57 (h) and despite the distribution of dividends contrary to § 65 (a). There was never any intention to waive the security and those who might have objected to the distributions are now estopped. But in view of the fact that the bankruptcy proceedings have been unduly prolonged for over twenty years, the bankruptcy court should now take steps to wind up the estate in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. Those provisions are designed to bring about the speedy distribution of the bankrupt’s assets, a distribution of the type which definitely has not occurred in this case.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
is of opinion that the order of the District Court should be restored on the ground that the creditors entered into an agreement which was not objectionable under § 57 (h) of the Bankruptcy Act, whereby the liens of the petitioners were saved.
Mr. Justice Jackson concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Douglas 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: | 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 State of Missouri has issued a warrant for the execution of Winford Stokes, which expires at 11:59 p.m. CDT on May 11, 1990. Stokes was convicted of capital murder in 1979 and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court. State v. Stokes, 638 S. W. 2d 715 (1982) (en banc). Stokes has since filed three separate petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts, each of which was denied. See Stokes v. Armontrout, 851 F. 2d 1085 (CA8 1988), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 1019 (1989); Stokes v. Armontrout, 893 F. 2d 152 (CA8 1989), stay of execution denied, post, p. 926; Stokes v. Armontrout, No. 89-0133C(6) (ED Mo., Mar. 16, 1990). On May 10, 1990, this Court denied a stay of execution pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari relating to one of Stokes’ first three habeas petitions. Post, p. 926.
While his application for stay of execution was pending in this Court, and within a matter of days before the scheduled execution, Stokes filed in the District Court a new application for stay of execution pending consideration of a fourth federal habeas petition. On the afternoon of May 9, the District Court granted a stay of execution, stating that “the issues raised by petitioner’s claim that his right to equal protection of the laws was violated by the Missouri state courts’ selective application of the rules governing lesser included offense instructions in capital murder cases warrant the imposition of a stay of execution. See Williams v. Armontrout, 891 F. 2d 656, 658-59 (8th Cir. 1989), vacated upon grant of rehearing en banc (February 7, 1990).” No. 90-0505C(6) (ED Mo.). On the morning of May 11, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the State’s motion to vacate the stay, one judge dissenting. The State then asked the en banc Court of Appeals to vacate the stay. That motion was also denied. The State has now filed with this Court an application to vacate the stay of execution.
A stay of execution pending disposition of a second or successive federal habeas petition should be granted only when there are “substantial grounds upon which relief might be granted.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 895 (1983). There are no “substantial grounds” present in this case, because respondent’s fourth federal habeas petition clearly constitutes an abuse of the writ. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254 Rule 9(b); 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b). Stokes’ claim that he was entitled to a lesser included offense instruction, and that the Missouri Supreme Court has selectively applied its rules relating to that claim, could have been raised in his first petition for federal habeas corpus. The equal protection principles asserted by respondent are not novel and could have been developed long before this last minute application for stay of execution. Indeed, Stokes himself cites dissenting opinions filed in the Missouri Supreme Court in 1983 to support his contention. See, e. g., State v. Holland, 653 S. W. 2d 670, 679 (en banc) (Welliver, J., dissenting).
The fourth federal habeas petition now pending in the District Court “is another example of abuse of the writ.” Woodard v. Hutchins, 464 U. S. 377, 378-380 (1984) (Powell, J., concurring, joined by four other Justices) (vacating stay of execution where claims in a successive petition could, and should, have been raised in a first petition for federal habeas corpus). The District Court abused its discretion in granting a stay of execution. The application to vacate the stay is granted.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On November 24, 1948, the respondent's vessel, the S. S. Oregon, was berthed at a pier in the North River, New York City. About noon on that day Joseph Kermarec came aboard to visit Henry Yves, a member of the ship’s crew. The purpose of the visit was entirely personal, to pay a social call upon Yves and to give him a package to be delivered to a mutual friend in France. In accordance with customary practice permitting crew members to entertain guests aboard the vessel, Yves had obtained a pass from the executive officer authorizing Kermarec to come aboard. As he started to leave the ship several hours later, Kermarec fell and was injured while descending a stairway.
On the theory that his fall had been caused by the defective manner in which a canvas runner had been tacked to the stairway, Kermarec brought an action for personal injuries in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging unseaworthiness of the vessel and negligence on the part of its crew. Federal jurisdiction was invoked by reason of the diverse citizenship of the parties, and a jury trial was demanded.
The district judge was of the view that the substantive law of New York was applicable. Accordingly, he eliminated the unseaworthiness claim from the case and instructed the jury that Kermarec was “a gratuitous licensee” who could recover only if the defendant had failed to warn him of a dangerous condition within its actual knowledge, and only if Kermarec himself had been entirely free of contributory negligence.
The jury returned a verdict in Kermarec’s favor. Subsequently the trial court granted a motion to set the verdict aside and dismiss the complaint, ruling that there had been a complete failure of proof that the shipowner had actually known that the stairway was in a dangerous or defective condition. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed. The opinion of that court does not make clear whether affirmance was based upon agreement with the trial judge that New York law was applicable, or upon a determination that the controlling legal principles would in any event be no different under maritime law. 245 F. 2d 175. Certiorari was granted to examine both of these issues. 355 U. S. 902.
The District Court was in error in ruling that the governing law in this case was that of the State of New York. Kermarec was injured aboard a ship upon navigable waters. It was there that the conduct of which he complained occurred. The legal rights and liabilities arising from that conduct were therefore within the full reach of the admiralty jurisdiction and measurable by the standards of maritime law. See The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Philadelphia & Havre de Grace Steam Tugboat Co., 23 How. 209, 215; The Commerce, 1 Black 574, 579; The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 213, 215; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 640; Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U. S. 626, 630; The Admiral Peoples, 295 U. S. 649, 651. If this action had been brought in a state court, reference to admiralty law would have been necessary to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255, 259. Where the plaintiff exercises the right conferred by diversity of citizenship to choose a federal forum, the result is no different, even though he exercises the further right to a jury trial. Whatever doubt may once have existed on that score was effectively laid to rest by Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 410-411. It thus becomes necessary to consider whether prejudice resulted from the court’s application of the substantive law of New York.
In instructing the jury that contributory negligence on Kermarec’s part would operate as a complete bar to recovery, the district judge was clearly in error. The jury should have been told instead that Kermarec’s contributory negligence was to be considered only in mitigation of damages. The Max Morris, 137 U. S. 1; Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 408-409. It is equally clear, however, that this error did not prejudice Kermaree. By returning a verdict in his favor, the jury necessarily found that Kermaree had not in fact been guilty of contributory negligence “even in the slightest degree.”
The district judge refused to submit the issue of unseaworthiness to the jury for the reason that an action for unseaworthiness is unknown to the common law of New York. Although the basis for its action was inappropriate, the court was correct in eliminating the unseaworthiness claim from this case.- Kermaree was not a member of the ship’s company, nor of that broadened class of workmen to whom the admiralty law has latterly extended the absolute right to a seaworthy ship. See Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., 321 U. S. 96; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85; Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406. Kermaree was aboard not to perform ship’s work, but simply to visit a friend.
It is apparent, therefore, that prejudicial error occurred in this case only if the maritime law imposed upon the shipowner a standard of care higher than the duty which the district judge found owing to a gratuitous licensee under the law of New York. If, in other words, the shipowner owed Kermaree the duty of exercising ordinary care, then upon this record Kermaree was entitled to judgment, the jury having resolved the factual issues in his favor under instructions less favorable to him than should have been given. Stated broadly, the decisive issue is thus whether admiralty recognizes the same distinctions between an invitee and a licensee as does the common law.
It is a settled principle of maritime law that a shipowner owes the duty of exercising reasonable care towards those lawfully aboard the vessel who are not members of the crew. Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U. S. 626; The Max Morris, 137 U. S. 1; The Admiral Peoples, 295 U. S. 649. But this Court has never determined whether a different and lower standard of care is demanded if the ship’s visitor is a person to whom the label “licensee” can be attached. The issue must be decided in the performance of the Court’s function in declaring the general maritime law, free from inappropriate common-law concepts. The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; The Max Morris, 137 U. S. I.
The distinctions which the common law draws between licensee and invitee were inherited from a culture deeply rooted to the land, a culture which traced many of its standards to a heritage of feudalism. In an effort to do justice in an industrialized urban society, with its complex economic and individual relationships, modern common-law courts have found it necessary to formulate increasingly subtle verbal refinements, to create subclassifications among traditional common-law categories, and to delineate fine gradations in the standards of care which the landowner owes to each. Yet even within a single jurisdiction, the classifications and sub-classifications bred by the common law have produced confusion and conflict. As new distinctions have been spawned, older ones have become obscured. Through this semantic morass the common law has moved, unevenly and with hesitation, towards “imposing on owners and occupiers a single duty of reasonable care in all the circumstances.”
For the admiralty law at this late date to import such conceptual distinctions would be foreign to its traditions of simplicity and practicality. The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, at 575. The incorporation of such concepts appears particularly unwarranted when it is remembered that they originated under a legal system in which status depended almost entirely upon the nature of the individual’s estate with respect to real property, a legal system in that respect entirely alien to the law of the sea. We hold that the owner of a ship in navigable waters owes to all who are on board for purposes not inimical to his legitimate interests the duty of exercising reasonable care under the circumstances of each case. It follows that in the present case the judgment must be vacated and the case remanded to the District Court with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict and enter judgment accordingly.
It is so ordered.
The pass contained the following language: “The person accepting this pass in consideration thereof assumes all risks of accidents, and expressly agrees that the Compagnie Generale Transatlantique shall not be held liable under any circumstances whether by negligence of their employees, or otherwise, for any injury to his person or for any loss or injury to his property.” The district judge instructed the jury that this attempted disclaimer could have no effect unless it had been made known to Kermarec. The evidence showed that Kermarec had not seen the pass. By its verdict the jury implicitly found that Kermarec had not been informed of the language appearing on- it. Since that finding is not disputed here, we need not consider what effect the attempted disclaimer would have had if Kermarec had been aware of it. See Moore v. American Scantic Line, Inc., 121 F. 2d 767. Compare 46 U. S. C. § 183c.
“With respect to the first issue of fact, namely, the alleged negligence of the defendant, you must bear in mind that the owner of a ship such as the defendant is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to a gratuitous licensee, such as the plaintiff, by any artificial condition on board the ship, only if both of the following conditions are present: (1) if the defendant knows of the unsafe condition and realizes that it involves an unreasonable risk to the plaintiff and has reason to believe that the plaintiff will not discover the condition or realize the risk; and (2) if the defendant invites or permits the plaintiff to enter or remain upon the ship without exercising reasonable care either to make the condition reasonably safe or to warn the plaintiff of the condition and risk involved therein.
“In short, in order that the plaintiff recover in this case, he must establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knew of the unsafe condition and invited the plaintiff aboard without either correcting the condition or warning him of it.
“In connection with damages, if you find that the plaintiff’s injuries were the proximate result óf the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s own contributory negligence, even in the slightest degree, then the plaintiff cannot recover at all.”
The record clearly justifies a finding that the canvas runner was defectively tacked to the stairway, and that this caused a dangerous condition of which the shipowner’s agent would have known in the exercise of ordinary care. By its verdict, the jury found that much and more.
Cf. The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158.
Where there is no impingement upon legislative policy. Cf. United States v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 343 U. S. 236; Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U. S. 282.
Random selection of almost any modern decision will serve to illustrate the point. E. g., Chicago G. W. R. Co. v. Beecher, 150 F. 2d 394 (licensee by express invitation; licensee by implied invitation; bare licensee).
For example, the duty of an occupier toward a licensee under the law of New York, which the District Court thought applicable in the present case, appears far from clear. Compare Fox v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co., 204 N. Y. 240, 245, 97 N. E. 497, 498; Mendelowitz v. Neisner, 258 N. Y. 181, 184, 179 N. E. 378, 379; Paquet v. Barker, 250 App. Div. 771, 293 N. Y. S. 983 (2d Dept.); Byrne v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 362, 10 N. E. 539; Higgins v. Mason, 255 N. Y. 104, 109, 174 N. E. 77, 79; Ehret v. Village of Scarsdale, 269 N. Y. 198, 208, 199 N. E. 56, 60; Mayer v. Temple Properties, 307 N. Y. 559, 563-564, 122 N. E. 2d 909, 911-913; Friedman v. Berkowitz, 206 Misc. 889, 136 N. Y. S. 2d 81.
See Chief Judge Clark’s dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals. 245 F. 2d 175, at 180. A survey here of the thousands of judicial decisions in this area during the last hundred years is as unnecessary as it would be impossible. A recent critical review is to be found in 2 Harper and James, The Law of Torts, c. xxvn, passim (1956). See also, Prosser, Business Visitors and Invitees, 26 Minn. L. Rev. 573; Marsh, The History and Comparative Law of Invitees, Licensees and Trespassers, 69 L. Q. Rev. 182, 359.
This is not to say that concepts of status are not relevant in the law of maritime torts, but only that the meaningful categories are quite different. Membership in the ship’s company, for example, a status that confers an absolute right to a seaworthy ship, is peculiar to the law of the sea. Such status has now been extended to others aboard “doing a seaman’s work and incurring a seaman’s hazards.” Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85, at 99.
The inconsistent and diverse results reached by courts which have tried to apply to the facts of shipboard life common-law distinctions between licensees and invitees reinforce the conclusion here reached. As to a seaman crossing another vegsel to reach the pier, see Radoslovich v. Navigazione Libera Triestina, S. A., 72 F. 2d 367 (invitee); Aho v. Jacobsen, 249 F. 2d 309 (licensee); Anderson v. The E. B. Ward, Jr., 38 F. 44 (invitee); Griffiths v. Seaboard Midland Petroleum Corp., D. C. Md., 1933 A. M. C. 911 (invitee); see also Lauchert v. American S. S. Co., 65 F. Supp. 703 (licensee). As to a guest of a passenger, see McCann v. Anchor Line, 79 F. 2d 338 (invitee); Zaia v. “Italia” Societa Anonyma di Navigazione, 324 Mass. 547, 87 N. E. 2d 183 (licensee); The Champlain, N. Y. Sup. Ct., 1934 A. M, C. 25 (invitee). See also Metcalfe v. Cunard S. S. Co., 147 Mass. 66, 16 N. E. 701 (licensee).
The English courts appear to have differentiated between an invitee and a licensee in eases of personal injury on shipboard, without critical inquiry. See, e. g., Smith v. Steele, L. R. 10 Q. B. 125 (1875) and Duncan v. Cammell Laird & Co., Ltd., [1943] 2 All E. R. 621. These distinctions have after thorough study (Law Reform Committee, Third Report, Cmd. No. 9305 (1954)) been eliminated entirely from the English law by statutory enactment. Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1957, 5 and 6 Eliz. 2, c. 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.
Me. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Michael Di Re was convicted on a charge of knowingly possessing counterfeit gasoline ration coupons in violation of § 301 of the Second War Powers Act, 1942. The decisive evidence was that obtained by search of his person, after he was arrested without a warrant of any kind. The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, considered that any question as to the timeliness of his objection to this evidence was eliminated by its disposition on its merits by the District Court, and, one judge dissenting, it held both his search and arrest to have been illegal. The Government was granted certiorari, raising no question other than the correctness of the holding by the Court of Appeals that the evidence was the fruit of an illegal arrest and search.
An investigator for the Office of Price Administration was informed by one Reed that he was to buy counterfeit gasoline ration coupons from a certain Buttitta at a named place in the City of Buffalo, New York. The investigator and a detective from the Buffalo Police Department trailed Buttitta’s car and finally came upon it parked at the appointed place. They went to the car and found the informer Reed, the only occupant of the rear seat, holding in his hand two gasoline ration coupons which later proved to be counterfeit. Reed, on being asked, said he obtained them from Buttitta, who was sitting in the driver’s seat. Beside Buttitta sat Di Re. All three were taken into custody, “frisked” to make sure they had no weapons and were then taken to the police station. Here Di Re complied with a direction to put the contents of his pockets on a table. Two gasoline and several fuel oil ration coupons were laid out. He said he had found them in the street. About two hours later, after questioning, he was “booked” and thoroughly searched. One hundred inventory gasoline ration coupons were found in an envelope concealed between his shirt and underwear. These, as well as the gasoline coupons earlier disclosed, proved to be counterfeit. Their introduction as evidence, over the objection of the defendant, was held by the court below to require reversal of the conviction.
I.
The Government now defends the search upon alternative grounds: 1, that search of Di Re was justified as incident to a lawful arrest; 2, that search of his person was justified as incident to search of a vehicle reasonably believed to be carrying contraband. We consider the second ground first.
The claim is that officers have the right, without a warrant, to search any car which they have reasonable cause to believe carries contraband, and incidentally may search any occupant of such car when the contraband sought is of a character that might be concealed on the person. This contention calls, first, for a determination as to whether the circumstances gave a right to search this car.
The belief that an automobile is more vulnerable to search without warrant than is other property has its source in the decision of Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132. That search was made and its validity was upheld under the search and seizure provisions enacted for enforcement of the National Prohibition Act and of that Act alone. Transportation of liquor in violation of that Act subjected first the liquor, and then the vehicle in which it was found, to seizure and confiscation, and the person “in charge thereof” to arrest. The Court reviewed the legislative history of enforcement legislation and concluded (at p. 147), “The intent of Congress to make a distinction between the necessity for a search warrant in the searching of private dwellings and in that of automobiles and other road vehicles in the enforcement of the Prohibition Act is thus clearly established by the legislative history of the Stanley Amendment. Is such a distinction consistent with the Fourth Amendment? We think that it is. The Fourth Amendment does not denounce all searches or seizures, but only such as are unreasonable.” The progeny of the Carroll case likewise dealt with searches and seizures under this Act. Husty v. United States, 282 U. S. 694.
Obviously the Court should be reluctant to decide that a search thus authorized by Congress was unreasonable and that the Act was therefore unconstitutional. In view of the strong presumption of constitutionality due to an Act of Congress, especially when it turns on what is “reasonable,” the Carroll decision falls short of establishing a doctrine that, without such legislation, automobiles nonetheless are subject to search without warrant in enforcement of all federal statutes. This Court has never yet said so. The most that can be said is that some of the language by which the Court justified the search and seizure legislation in the Carroll case might be used to make a distinction between what is a reasonable search as applied to an automobile and as applied to a residence or fixed premises, even in absence of legislation.
We need not decide whether, without such Congressional authorization as was found controlling in the Car roll case, any automobile is subject to search without warrant on reasonable cause to believe it contains contraband. In the case before us there appears to have been no search of the car itself. No one on the spot seems to have thought there was cause for searching it, or that it was subject to forfeiture. The nature of ration tickets, the contraband involved, was not such that a car would be necessary or advantageous in carrying them except as an incident of carrying the person. When the question of admissibility of this evidence arose in the trial court, counsel for the Government made no claim that there had been search or cause for search of the car. No question of fact concerning such a claim has been resolved by the trial court or the jury.
Assuming, however, without deciding, that there was reasonable cause for searching the car, did it confer an incidental right to search Di Re? It is admitted by the Government that there is no authority to that effect, either in the statute or in precedent decision of this Court, but we are asked to extend the assumed right of car search to include the person of occupants because “common sense demands that such right exist in a case such as this where the contraband sought is a small article which could easily be concealed on the person.”
This argument points up the different relation of the automobile to the crime in the Carroll case than in the one before us. An automobile, as was there pointed out, was an almost indispensable instrumentality in large-scale violation of the National Prohibition Act, and the car itself therefore was treated somewhat as an offender and became contraband. But even the National Prohibition Act did not direct the arrest of all occupants but only of the person in charge of the offending vehicle, though there is better reason to assume that no passenger in a car loaded with liquor would remain innocent of knowledge of the car's cargo than to assume that a passenger must know what pieces of paper are carried in the pockets of the driver.
The Government says it would not contend that, armed with a search warrant for a residence only, it could search all persons found in it. But an occupant of a house could be used to conceal this contraband on his person quite as readily as can an occupant of a car. Necessity, an argument advanced in support of this search, would seem as strong a reason for searching guests of a house for which a search warrant had issued as for search of guests in a car for which none had been issued. By a parity of reasoning with that on which the Government disclaims the right to search occupants of a house, we suppose the Government would not contend that if it had a valid search warrant for the car only it could search the occupants as an incident to its execution. How then could we say that the right to search a car without a warrant confers greater latitude to search occupants than a search by warrant would permit?
We see no ground for expanding the ruling in the Carroll case to justify this arrest and search as incident to the search of a car. We are not convinced that a person, by mere presence in a suspected car, loses immunities from search of his person to which he would otherwise be entitled.
II.
The other ground on which the Government defended the search of Di Re, and the only one on which it relied at the trial, is that the officers justifiably arrested him and that this conferred a right to search his person. If he was lawfully arrested, it is not questioned that the ensuing search was permissible. Hence we must examine the circumstances and the law of arrest.
Some members of this Court rest their conclusion that the arrest was invalid on § 180 of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure which requires an officer making an arrest without a warrant to inform the suspect of the cause of arrest, except when it is made during commission of the crime or when in pursuit after an escape. This question was first raised from the Bench during argument in this Court. Di Re did not assert this ground of invalidity at the trial. Had he done so the Government might have met it with proof of circumstances which in themselves would show that Di Re had been effectively informed, even if the circumstances fell short of establishing the statutory exception. The proceedings below did not develop the facts concerning Di Re’s arrest in connection with this requirement. Inasmuch as the issue would lead to exploration of the law as to waiver when the defense was not raised in either court below, or indeed by the petition here, and as to applicability of the statute if, as the Government contends, lack of express declaration was unnecessary because circumstances supplied the required information, we do not undertake to determine on this record whether Di Re’s arrest satisfied this provision of the New York law.
The arrest was challenged in the courts below on the ground that it violated another provision of New York law which was considered to be controlling on the subject. The court below assumed that the arresting officer, a state officer, derived his authority to arrest Buttitta and Reed, although it was for a federal crime, from § 177 of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure, and also considered the legality of the arrest of Di Re .under paragraph 3 thereof. In this Court the Government originally argued that the arrest was authorized under both paragraphs 2 and 3 of the state law, but in a supplemental brief the Government withdraws the suggestion “that the arrest of respondent can be justified under subsection 2 of Section 177 of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure.” Instead, it now urges that “the validity of an arrest without a warrant for a federal crime is a matter of federal law to be determined by a uniform rule applicable in all federal courts.”
We believe, however, that in absence of an applicable federal statute the law of the state where an arrest without warrant takes place determines its validity. By one of the earliest acts of Congress, the principle of which is still retained, the arrest by judicial process for a federal offense must be “agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state.” There is no reason to believe that state law is not an equally appropriate standard by which to test arrests without warrant, except in those cases where Congress has enacted a federal rule. Indeed the enactment of a federal rule in some specific cases seems to imply the absence of any general federal law of arrest.
Turning to the Acts of Congress to find a rule for arrest without warrant, we find none which controls such a case as we have here and none that purports to create a general rule on the subject. If we were to try to find or fashion a federal rule for arrest without warrant, it appears that the federal legislative materials are meager, inconsistent and inconclusive. Federal Bureau of Investigation officers are authorized only “to make arrests without warrant for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under the laws of the United States, in cases where the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and where there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the person arrested shall be immediately taken before a committing officer.” However, marshals and their deputies “shall have the power to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the laws of the United States committed in their presence or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States in cases where such felony has in fact been or is being committed and they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing it,” and they are also given the same powers as sheriffs in the same state may have, by law, in executing the laws thereof.
In denouncing unlawful search by federal officers as a misdemeanor, Congress provided that it should not apply to one “arresting or attempting to arrest any person committing or attempting to commit an offense in the presence of such officer, agent, or employee, or who has committed, or who is suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed, a felony.” Thus the legislative sources, while yielding some common provisions, also contain many inconsistencies. No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall.
Since, under that law, any valid arrest of Di Re, if for a misdemeanor must be for one committed in the arresting officer’s presence, and if for a felony must be for one which the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the suspect had committed, we seek to learn for what offense this man was taken into custody. The arresting officer testified that he did not tell Di Re what he was being arrested for. After he was taken to the station he was “booked,” but the record does not show upon what charge. He was later indicted for the misdemeanor of knowingly possessing counterfeit gasoline ration coupons in violation of Ration Order No. 5 (c) of the Office of Price Administrator. But on appeal the Government suggested the arrest may be defended as one for a felony because probable grounds existed for believing him guilty of the felony of conspiracy under § 37 of the Criminal Code, and in this Court for the first time it suggests that there were grounds for arrest on a charge of possessing a known counterfeit writing with intent to utter it as true for the purpose of defrauding the United States, a felony under § 28 of the Criminal Code.
Assuming, without deciding, that an arrest without a warrant on a charge not communicated at the time may later be justified if the arresting officer’s knowledge gave probable grounds to believe any felony found in the statute books had been committed, we are brought to the inquiry whether the circumstances at that time afforded such grounds.
The Government now concedes that the only person who committed a possible misdemeanor in the open presence of the officer was Reed, the Government informer who was found visibly possessing the coupons. Of course, as to Buttitta they had previous information that he was to sell such coupons to Reed, and Reed gave information that he had done so. But the officer had no such information as to Di Re. All they had was his presence, and if his presence was not enough to make a case for arrest for a misdemeanor, it is hard to see how it was enough for the felony of violating § 28 of the Criminal Code.
The relevant difference between Ration Order 5 (c) and § 28 of the Criminal Code is that the former declares mere possession of a counterfeit coupon an offense, while the latter defines a felony which consists not merely of possession but also of knowledge of the instrument’s counterfeit character, and also of intent to utter it as true. It is admitted that at the time of the arrest the officers had no information implicating Di Re and no information pointing to possession of any coupons, unless his presence in the car warranted that inference. Of course they had no information hinting further at the knowledge and intent required as elements of the felony under the statute.
III.
The Government’s defense of the arrest relies most heavily on the conspiracy ground. In view of Reed’s character as an informer, it is questionable whether a conspiracy is shown. But if the presence of Di Re in the car did not authorize an inference of participation in the Buttitta-Reed sale, it fails to support the inference of any felony at all.
There is no evidence that it is a fact or that the officers had any information indicating that Di Re was in the car when Reed obtained ration coupons from Buttitta, and none that he heard or took part in any conversation on the subject. Reed, the informer, certainly knew it if any part of his transaction was in Di Re’s presence. But he was not called as a witness by the Government, nor shown to be unavailable, and we must assume that his testimony would not have been helpful in bringing guilty knowledge home to Di Re.
An inference of participation in conspiracy does not seem to be sustained by the facts peculiar to this case. The argument that one who “accompanies a criminal to a crime rendezvous” cannot be assumed to be a bystander, forceful enough in some circumstances, is farfetched when the meeting is not secretive or in a suspicious hide-out but in broad daylight, in plain sight of passers-by, in a public street of a large city, and where the alleged substantive crime is one which does not necessarily involve any act visibly criminal. If Di Re had witnessed the passing of papers from hand to hand, it would not follow that he knew they were ration coupons, and if he saw that they were ration coupons, it would not follow that he would know them to be counterfeit. Indeed it appeared at the trial to require an expert to establish that fact. Presumptions of guilt are not lightly to be indulged from mere meetings.
Moreover, whatever suspicion might result from Di Re’s mere presence seems diminished, if not destroyed, when Reed, present as the informer, pointed out Buttitta, and Buttitta only, as a guilty party. No reason appears to doubt that Reed willingly would involve Di Re if the nature of the transaction permitted. Yet he did not incriminate Di Re. Any inference that everyone on the scene of a crime is a party to it must disappear if the Government informer singles out the guilty person.
IV.
The Government also makes, and several times repeats, an argument to the effect that the officers could infer probable cause from the fact that Di Re did not protest his arrest, did not at once assert his innocence, and silently accepted the command to go along to the police station. One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases. But courts will hardly penalize failure to display a spirit of resistance or to hold futile debates on legal issues in the public highway with an officer of the law. A layman may not find it expedient to hazard resistance on his own judgment of the law at a time when he cannot know what information, correct or incorrect, the officers may be acting upon. It is likely to end in fruitless and unseemly controversy in a public street, if not in an additional charge of resisting an officer. If the officers believed they had probable cause for his arrest on a felony charge, it is not to be supposed that they would have been dissuaded by his profession of innocence.
It is the right of one placed under arrest to submit to custody and to reserve his defenses for the neutral tribunals erected by the law for the purpose of judging his case. An inference of probable cause from a failure to engage in discussion of the merits of the charge with arresting officers is unwarranted. Probable cause cannot be found from submissiveness, and the presumption of innocence is not lost or impaired by neglect to argue with a policeman. It is the officer’s responsibility to know what he is arresting for, and why, and one in the unhappy plight of being taken into custody is not required to test the legality of the arrest before the officer who is making it.
The Government’s last resort in support of the arrest is to reason from the fruits of the search to the conclusion that the officer’s knowledge at the time gave them grounds for it. We have had frequent occasion to point out that a search is not to be made legal by what it turns up. In law it is good or bad when it starts and does not change character from its success.
V.
We meet in this case, as in many, the appeal to necessity. It is said that if such arrests and searches cannot be made, law enforcement will be more difficult and uncertain. But the forefathers, after consulting the lessons of history, designed our Constitution to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance, which they seemed to think was a greater danger to a free people than the escape of some criminals from punishment. Taking the law as it has been given to us, this arrest and search were beyond the lawful authority of those who executed them. The conviction based on evidence so obtained cannot stand.
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Black dissent.
50 U. S. C. App. (Supp. V, 1946), § 633.
331U. S. 800.
159 F. 2d 818.
Section 26, Title II of the National Prohibition Act provided in part as follows: “When . . . any officer of the law shall discover any person in the act of transporting in violation of the law, intoxicating liquors in any wagon, buggy, automobile, water or air craft, or other vehicle, it shall be his duty to seize any and all intoxicating liquors found therein being transported contrary to law. Whenever intoxicating liquors transported or possessed illegally shall be seized by an officer he shall take possession of the vehicle and team or automobile, boat, air or water craft, or any other conveyance, and shall arrest any person in charge thereof. . . .” In the Carroll case it was said (267 U. S. at 155) that this section was intended “to reach and destroy the forbidden liquor in transportation and the provisions for forfeiture of the vehicle and the arrest of the transporter were incidental”; and (267 U. S. at 158) “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. The seizure in such a proceeding comes before the arrest as Section 26 indicates . . . .”
This word “in” is erroneously printed “is” in the case as reported.
Section 180 provides:
“When arresting a person without a warrant the officer must inform him of the authority of the officer and the cause of the arrest, except when the person arrested is in the actual commission of a crime, or is pursued immediately after an escape.”
See also People v. Marendi, 213 N. Y. 600, 610, 107 N. E. 1058, 1061. Cf. John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U. S. 529; Christie v. Leachinsky, [1947] 1 All Eng. 567.
Section 177 of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure provides :
“A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person,
“1. For a crime, committed or attempted in his presence;
“2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence;
“3. When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person to be arrested to have committed it.”
The Act of September 24, 1789 (Ch. 20, §33, 1 Stat. 91), concerning arrest with warrant, provided: “That for any crime or offence against the United States, the offender may, by any justice or judge of the United States, or by any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of the United States where he may be found agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state, and at the expense of the United States, be arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States as by this act has cognizance of the offence.” This provision has remained substantially similar to this day. 18 U. S. C. § 591. See also 1 Ops. Atty. Gen. 85, 86.
48 Stat. 1008, 49 Stat. 77, 5 U. S. C. § 300 (a).
49 Stat. 378, 28 U. S. C. § 504 (a).
1 Stat. 425, 12 Stat. 282, 28 U. S. C. § 504.
49 Stat. 877, 18 U. S. C. § 53 (a).
18 U. S. C. § 88.
U. S. C. § 72.
See, for example, Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 29.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 2(b) of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13(b), provides that a defendant may rebut a prima facie showing of illegal price discrimination by establishing that its lower price to any purchaser or purchasers “was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has concluded that the “meeting-competition” defense of §2(b) is available only if the defendant sets its lower price on a customer-by-customer basis and creates the price discrimination by lowering rather than by raising prices. We conclude that § 2(b) is not so inflexible.
HH
From July 1, 1972, through November 30, 1978, petitioner Falls City Industries, Inc., sold beer f.o.b. its Louisville, Ky., brewery to wholesalers throughout Indiana, Kentucky, and 11 other States. Respondent Vaneo Beverage, Inc., was the sole wholesale distributor of Falls City beer in Vanderburgh County, Ind. That county includes the city of Evansville. Directly across the state line from Vanderburgh County is Henderson County, Ky., where Falls City’s only wholesale distributor was Dawson Springs, Inc. The city of Henderson, Ky., located in Henderson County, is less than 10 miles from Evansville. The two cities are connected by a four-lane interstate highway. The two counties generally are considered to be a single metropolitan area. App. 124.
Vaneo and Dawson Springs each purchased beer from Falls City and other brewers and resold it to retailers in Van-derburgh County and Henderson County, respectively. The two distributors did not compete for sales to the same retailers. This was because Indiana wholesalers were prohibited by state law from selling to out-of-state retailers, Ind. Code §7.1-3-3-5 (1982), and Indiana retailers were not permitted to purchase beer from out-of-state wholesalers. See §7.1-3-4-6. Indiana law also affected beer sales in two other ways relevant to this case. First, Indiana required brewers to sell to all Indiana wholesalers at a single price. §7.1-5-5-7. Second, although it was ignored and virtually unenforced, see Tr. 122-123, 135-136, state law prohibited consumers from importing alcoholic beverages without a permit. § 7.1-5-11-1.
In December 1976, Vaneo sued Falls City in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging, among other things, that Falls City had discriminated in price against Vaneo, in violation of §2(a) of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13(a), by charging Vaneo a higher price than it charged Dawson Springs. Vaneo also claimed that Falls City had violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1 and 2, by conspiring with other brewers and unnamed wholesalers to maintain higher prices in Indiana than in Kentucky.
After trial, the District Court dismissed Vanco’s Sherman Act claims, finding no evidence to support the allegations of conspiracy or monopolization. 1980-2 Trade Cases ¶ 63,357, pp. 75,809, 75,820. The court held, however, that Vaneo had made out a prima facie case of price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act. The District Court found that Vaneo competed in a geographic market that spanned the state border and included Vanderburgh and Henderson Counties. Id., at 75,813-75,814. Although Vaneo and Dawson Springs did not sell to the same retailers, they “competed for sale of [Falls City’s] beer to... consumers of beer from retailers situated in [that] market area.” Id., at 75,814. Falls City charged a higher price for beer sold to Indiana distributors than it charged for the same beer sold to distributors in other States, including Kentucky. Ibid. This pricing policy resulted in lower retail prices for Falls City beer in Kentucky than in Indiana, because Kentucky distributors passed on their savings to retailers who in turn passed them on to consumers. Finding that many customers living in the Indiana portion of the geographic market ignored state law to purchase cheaper Falls City beer from Henderson County retailers, the court concluded that Falls City’s pricing policies prevented Vaneo from competing effectively with Dawson Springs, id., at 75,815-75,816, and caused it to sell less beer to Indiana retailers. Id., at 75,814-75,817, 75,818.
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce... and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them...
The District Court rejected Falls City’s § 2(b) meeting-competition defense. The court reasoned that, instead of reducing its prices to meet those of a competitor, Falls City had created the price disparity by raising its prices to Indiana wholesalers more than it had raised its Kentucky prices. Instead of “adjusting prices on a customer to customer basis to meet competition from other brewers,” id., at 75,822, Falls City charged a single price throughout each State in which it sold beer. The court concluded that Falls City’s higher Indiana price was not set in good faith; instead, it was raised “for the sole reason that it followed the other brewers... for its profit.” Ibid.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, by a divided vote, affirmed the finding of liability. 654 F. 2d 1224 (1981). The court held that Vaneo had established a prima facie case of illegal price discrimination and that Falls City had not demonstrated that the discrimination “was a good faith effort to defend against competitors.” Id., at 1230. We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ holdings respecting injury to competition and the “meeting-competition” defense. 455 U. S. 988 (1982).
HH HH
To establish a prima facie violation of § 2(a), one of the elements a plaintiff must show is a reasonable possibility that a
price difference may harm competition. Corn Products Refining Co. v. FTC, 324 U. S. 726, 742 (1945). In keeping with the Robinson-Patman Act’s prophylactic purpose, § 2(a) “does not ‘require that the discriminations must in fact have harmed competition.’” J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U. S. 557, 562 (1981), quoting Com Products, 324 U. S., at 742. This reasonable possibility of harm is often referred to as competitive injury. Unless rebutted by one of the Robinson-Patman Act’s affirmative defenses, a showing of competitive injury as part of a prima facie case is sufficient to support injunctive relief, and to authorize further inquiry by the courts into whether the plaintiff is entitled to treble damages under §4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §15 (1976 ed., Supp. V). J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U. S., at 562.
Palls City contends that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37 (1948), to uphold the District Court’s finding of competitive injury. In Morton Salt this Court held that, for the purposes of § 2(a), injury to competition is established prima, facie by proof of a substantial price discrimination between competing purchasers over time. 334 U. S., at 46, 50-51; see id., at 60 (Jackson, J., dissenting in part). In the absence of direct evidence of displaced sales, this inference may be overcome by evidence breaking the causal connection between a price differential and lost sales or profits. F. Rowe, Price Discrimination Under the Robinson-Patman Act 182 (1962) (Rowe); see Chrysler Credit Corp. v. J. Truett Payne Co., 670 F. 2d 575, 581 (CA5 1982).
According to Falls City, the Morton Salt rule should be applied only in cases involving “large buyer preference or seller predation.” Brief for Petitioner 31. Falls City does not, however, suggest any economic reason why Morton Saifs “self-evident” inference, 334 U. S., at 50, should not apply when the favored competitor is not extraordinarily large. Although concerns about the excessive market power of large purchasers were primarily responsible for passage of the Robinson-Patman Act, see generally Rowe, at 3-23; U. S. Dept. of Justice, Report on the Robinson-Patman Act 101-139 (1977) (1977 Report), the Act “is of general applicability and prohibits discriminations generally,” FTC v. Sun Oil Co., 371 U. S. 505, 522 (1963). The determination whether to alter the scope of the Act must be made by Congress, not this Court, as is recognized by the commentators on which Falls City relies. See 1977 Report, at 221-228 and 290-291; ABA Antitrust Section, Monograph No. 4, The Robinson-Patman Act: Policy and Law, Vol. 1,102-103 (1980).
The Morton Salt rule was not misapplied in this case. In a strictly literal sense, this case differs from Morton Salt because Vaneo and Dawson Springs did not compete with each other at the wholesale level; Vaneo sold only to Indiana retailers and Dawson Springs sold only to Kentucky retailers. But the competitive injury component of a Robinson-Patman Act violation is not limited to the injury to competition between the favored and the disfavored purchaser; it also encompasses the injury to competition between their customers — in this case the competition between Kentucky retailers and Indiana retailers who, under a District Court finding not challenged in this Court, were selling in a single, interstate retail market.
After observing that Falls City had maintained a substantial price difference between Vaneo and Dawson Springs over a significant period of time, the Court of Appeals, like the District Court, considered the evidence that Vanco’s loss of Falls City beer sales was attributable to factors other than the price difference, particularly the marketwide decline of Falls City beer. Both courts found it likely that this overall decline accounted for some — or even most — of Vanco’s lost sales. Nevertheless, if some of Vanco’s injury was attributable to the price discrimination, Falls City is responsible to that extent. See Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U. S. 134, 144 (1968) (White, J., concurring).
The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s findings that “the major reason for the higher Indiana retail beer prices was the higher prices charged Indiana distributors,” and “the lower retail prices in Henderson County attracted Indiana customers away from Indiana retailers, thereby causing the retailers to curtail purchases from Vaneo.” 654 F. 2d, at 1229. These findings were supported by direct evidence of diverted sales, and more than established the corn-petitive injury required for a prima facie case under § 2(a). See J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U. S., at 561-562; Morton Salt, 334 U. S., at 50-51. We therefore turn to Falls City’s “meeting-competition” defense.
hH I — I HH
When proved, the meeting-competition defense of § 2(b) exonerates a seller from Robinson-Patman Act liability. Standard Oil Co. v. FTC, 340 U. S. 231, 246-247 (1951). This Court consistently has held that the meeting-competition defense “‘at least requires the seller, who has knowingly discriminated in price, to show the existence of facts which would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that the granting of a lower price would in fact meet the equally low price of a competitor.’ ” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S. 422, 451 (1978), quoting FTC v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., 324 U. S. 746, 759-760 (1945); see Great A&P Tea Co. v. FTC, 440 U. S. 69, 82 (1979). The seller must show that under the circumstances it was reasonable to believe that the quoted price or a lower one was available to the favored purchaser or purchasers from the seller’s competitors. See United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S., at 451. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether Falls City had shown information that would have led a reasonable and prudent person to believe that its lower Kentucky price would meet competitors’ equally low prices there; indeed, no findings whatever were made regarding competitors’ Kentucky prices, or the information available to Falls City about its competitors’ Kentucky prices.
Instead, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Falls City had otherwise failed to show that its pricing “was a good faith effort” to meet competition. 654 F. 2d, at 1230. The Court of Appeals considered it sufficient to defeat the defense that the price difference “resulted from price increases in Indiana, not price decreases in Kentucky,” ibid., and that the higher Indiana price was the result of Falls City’s policy of following the Indiana prices of its larger competitors in order to enhance its profits. The Court of Appeals also suggested that Falls City’s defense failed because it adopted a “general system of competition,” rather than responding to “individual situations.” Ibid. The court believed that FTC v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., supra, supported this holding. 654 F. 2d, at 1230.
A
On its face, §2(b) requires more than a showing of facts that would have led a reasonable person to believe that a lower price was available to the favored purchaser from a competitor. The showing required is that the “lower price... was made in good faith to meet” the competitor’s low price. 15 U. S. C. § 13(b) (emphasis added). Thus, the defense requires that the seller offer the lower price in good faith for the purpose of meeting the competitor’s price, that is, the lower price must actually have been a good-faith response to that competing low price. See Rowe, at 234-235. See generally Kuenzel & Schiffres, Making Sense of Robinson-Patman: The Need to Revitalize Its Affirmative Defenses, 62 Va. L. Rev. 1211, 1237-1255 (1976). In most situations, a showing of facts giving rise to a reasonable belief that equally low prices were available to the favored purchaser from a competitor will be sufficient to establish that the seller’s lower price was offered in good faith to meet that price. In others, however, despite the availability from other sellers of a low price, it may be apparent that the defendant’s low offer was not a good-faith response.
In Staley, this Court applied that principle. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had proceeded against Staley and six competing manufacturers of glucose, all of whom adhered to the same Chicago basing-point pricing system. See C. Edwards, Price Discrimination Law 372-379 (1959). See generally FTC Policy Toward Geographic Pricing Practices, 1 CCH Trade Reg. Rep. ¶¶3601.27, 3601.40-3601.42, pp. 5346, 5351-5352 (10th ed. 1959). Like its competitors, Staley, whose plant was located in Decatur, Ill., sold glucose to candy and syrup manufacturers at a delivered price that included the freight rate from Chicago to the point of delivery. Purchasers nearer Decatur thus were charged an element of “phantom” freight, while Staley “absorbed” an element of freight in sales to buyers nearer Chicago. 324 U. S., at 749. Customers located near Staley’s Decatur plant were harmed because, despite being located closer to the plant, they were forced to pay more for glucose than did their Chicago area competitors. Id., at 756.
The FTC eventually charged all seven manufacturers individually with price discrimination and jointly under the Federal Trade Commission Act with price fixing. See Corn Products Refining Co., 47 F. T. C. 587 (1950). At the time of the Staley decision, both the FTC and this Court had determined that use of the pricing system by Staley’s competitors was illegal under §2(a). See Com Products Refining Co. v. FTC, 324 U. S., at 732, 737-739. And, although neither the FTC nor this Court directly relied on the fact in finding price discrimination, Staley itself had been found to be a party to an interseller conspiracy aimed at maintaining “oppressive and uniform net delivered prices” throughout the country. See A. E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. FTC, 4 F. T. C. Stat. & Dec. 795, 805 (1943).
The Court observed that § 2(b) could exonerate Staley only if that section permitted a seller to establish “an otherwise unlawful system of discriminatory prices” in order to benefit from “a like unlawful system maintained by his competitors.” 324 U. S., at 753. Staley could not claim that its low Chicago prices were set for the purpose of meeting the equally low prices of competitors there; the Chicago prices could be seen only as part of a collusive pricing system designed to exact artificially high prices throughout the country. Since the low prices were set “in order to establish elsewhere the artificially high prices whose discriminatory effect permeates respondents’ entire pricing system,” id., at 756, the Court sustained the FTC’s finding “that respondents’ price dis-criminations were not made to meet a ‘lower’ price and consequently were not in good faith,” id., at 758.
Thus, even had Staley been able to show that its prices throughout the country did not undercut those of its competitors, its lower price in the Chicago area was not a good-faith response to the lower prices there. Staley had not priced in response to competitors’ discrete pricing decisions, but from the outset had followed an industrywide practice of setting its prices according to a single, arbitrary scheme that by its nature precluded independent pricing in response to normal competitive forces.
B
Almost 20 years ago, the FTC set forth the standard that governs the requirement of a “good-faith response”:
“At the heart of Section 2(b) is the concept of ‘good faith’. This is a flexible and pragmatic, not a technical or doctrinaire, concept. The standard of good faith is simply the standard of the prudent businessman responding fairly to what he reasonably believes is a situation of competitive necessity.” Continental Baking Co., 63 F. T. C. 2071, 2163 (1963).
Whether this standard is met depends on “ ‘the facts and circumstances of the particular case, not abstract theories or remote conjectures.’ ” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S., at 454, quoting Continental Baking Co., 63 F. T. C., at 2163.
The “facts and circumstances” present in Staley differ markedly from those present here. Although the District Court characterized the Indiana prices charged by Falls City and its competitors as “artificially high,” there is no evidence that Falls City’s lower prices in Kentucky were set as part of a plan to obtain artificially high profits in Indiana rather than in response to competitive conditions in Kentucky. Falls City did not adopt an illegal system of prices maintained by its competitors. The District Court found that Falls City’s prices rose in Indiana in response to competitors’ price increases there; it did not address the crucial question whether Falls City’s Kentucky prices remained lower in response to competitors’ prices in that State.
Vaneo attempts to liken this case to Staley by arguing that the existence of industrywide price discrimination within the single geographic retail market itself indicates “tacit or explicit collusion, or... market power” inconsistent with a good-faith response. Brief for Respondent 39. By its terms, however, the meeting-competition defense requires a seller to justify only its lower price. See Staley, 324 U. S., at 753. Thus, although the Sherman Act would provide a remedy if Falls City’s higher Indiana price were set collu-sively, collusion is relevant to Vanco’s Robinson-Patman Act claim only if it affected Falls City’s lower Kentucky price. If Falls City set its lower price in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, it did not violate the Robinson-Patman Act.
Moreover, the collusion argument founders on a complete lack of proof. Persistent, industrywide price discrimination within a geographic market should certainly alert a court to a substantial possibility of collusion. See Posner, Oligopoly and the Antitrust Laws: A Suggested Approach, 21 Stan. L. Rev. 1562, 1578-1579 (1969). Here, however, the persistent interstate price difference could well have been attributable, not to Falls City, but to extensive state regulation of the sale of beer. Indiana required each brewer to charge a single price for its beer throughout the State, and barred direct competition between Indiana and Kentucky distributors for sales to retailers. In these unusual circumstances, the prices charged to Vaneo and other wholesalers in Vander-burgh County may have been influenced more by market conditions in distant Gary and Fort Wayne than by conditions in nearby Henderson County, Ky. Moreover, wholesalers in Henderson County competed directly, and attempted to price competitively, with wholesalers in neighboring Kentucky counties. App. 52-53. A separate pricing structure might well have evolved in the two States without collusion, notwithstanding the existence of a common retail market along the border. Thus, the sustained price discrimination does not itself demonstrate that Falls City’s Kentucky prices were not a good-faith response to competitors’ prices there.
C
The Court of Appeals explicitly relied on two other factors in rejecting Falls City’s meeting-competition defense: the price discrimination was created by raising rather than lowering prices, and Falls City raised its prices in order to increase its profits. Neither of these factors is controlling. Nothing in § 2(b) requires a seller to lower its price in order to meet competition. On the contrary, § 2(b) requires the defendant to show only that its “lower price... was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor.” A seller is required to justify a price difference by showing that it reasonably believed that an equally low price was available to the purchaser and that it offered the lower price for that reason; the seller is not required to show that the difference resulted from subtraction rather than addition.
A different rule would not only be contrary to the language of the statute, but also might stifle the only kind of legitimate price competition reasonably available in particular industries. In a period of generally rising prices, vigorous price competition for a particular customer or customers may take the form of smaller price increases rather than price cuts. Thus, a price discrimination created by selective price increases can result from a good-faith effort to meet a competitor’s low price.
Nor is the good faith with which the lower price is offered impugned if the prices raised, like those kept lower, respond to competitors’ prices and are set with the goal of increasing the seller’s profits. A seller need not choose between “ruinously cutting its prices to all its customers to match the price offered to one, [and] refusing to meet the competition and then ruinously raising its prices to its remaining customers to cover increased unit costs.” Standard Oil Co. v. FTC, 340 U. S., at 250. Nor need a seller choose between keeping all its prices ruinously low to meet the price offered to one, and ruinously raising its prices to all customers to a level significantly above that charged by its competitors. A seller is permitted “to retain a customer by realistically meeting in good faith the price offered to that customer, without necessarily changing the seller’s price to its other customers.” Ibid. The plain language of §2(b) also permits a seller to retain a customer by realistically meeting in good faith the price offered to that customer, without necessarily freezing his price to his other customers.
Section 2(b) does not require a seller, meeting in good faith a competitor’s lower price to certain customers, to forgo the profits that otherwise would be available in sales to its remaining customers. The very purpose of the defense is to permit a seller to treat different competitive situations differently. The prudent businessman responding fairly to what he believes in good faith is a situation of competitive necessity might well raise his prices to some customers to increase his profits, while meeting competitors’ prices by keeping his prices to other customers low.
The Court in Staley said that the meeting-competition defense “presupposes that the person charged with violating the Act would, by his normal, non-discriminatory pricing methods, have reached a price so high that he could reduce it in order to meet the competitor’s equally low price.” 324 U. S., at 754. In that case, however, the Court was not dealing with a seller whose “normal, non-discriminatory pricing methods” called for a price increase but who wished to exempt certain customers from the increase in order to meet prices, lower than the increased price, available to those customers from competitors. Of course, a seller could accomplish the same result within the guidelines the Court of Appeals would impose by instituting across-the-board price increases followed by selective reductions. But far from being flexible and pragmatic, a rule requiring such costly behavior would be nonsensical.
D
Vaneo also contends that Falls City did not satisfy § 2(b) because its price discrimination “was not a defensive response to competition.” Brief for Respondent 47 (emphasis supplied). According to Vaneo, the Robinson-Patman Act permits price discrimination only if its purpose is to retain a customer. Id., at 32-33. We agree that a seller’s response must be defensive, in the sense that the lower price must be calculated and offered in good faith to “meet not beat” the competitor’s low price. See United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S., at 454. Section 2(b), however, does not distinguish between one who meets' a competitor’s lower price to retain an old customer and one who meets a competitor’s lower price in an attempt to gain new customers. See Stevens, Defense of Meeting the Lower Price of a Competitor, in Summer Institute on International and Comparative Law, University of Michigan Law School, Lectures on Federal Antitrust Laws 129, 135-136 (1953). Such a distinction would be inconsistent with that section’s language and logic, see Sunshine Biscuits, Inc. v. FTC, 306 F. 2d 48, 51-52 (CA7 1962), “would not be in keeping with elementary principles of competition, and would in fact foster tight and rigid commercial relationships by insulating them from market forces.” 1955 Report, at 184; see 1977 Report, at 26, 265.
<1
The Court of Appeals also relied on Staley for the proposition that the meeting-competition defense “ ‘places emphasis on individual [competitive] situations, rather than upon a general system of competition,”’ 654 F. 2d, at 1230 (quoting Staley, 324 U. S., at 753), and “does not justify the maintenance of discriminatory pricing among classes of customers that results merely from the adoption of a competitor’s discriminatory pricing structure,” 654 F. 2d, at 1230. The Court of Appeals was apparently invoking the District Court’s findings that Falls City set prices statewide rather than on a “customer to customer basis,” and the District Court’s conclusion that this practice disqualified Falls City from asserting the meeting-competition defense. 1980-2 Trade Cases, at 75,817. At least two other Courts of Appeals have read Staley to hold that the defense is unavailable to sellers pricing on other than a customer-by-customer basis, while two Courts of Appeals have held that a customer-by-customer response is not required.
There is no evidence that Congress intended to limit the availability of § 2(b) to customer-specific responses. Section 2(b)’s predecessor, § 2 of the original Clayton Act, stated that “nothing herein contained shall prevent... discrimination in price in the same or different communities made in good faith to meet competition.” 38 Stat. 730. The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, which drafted the clause that became the current § 2(b), see Standard Oil Co. v. FTC, 340 U. S., at 247-248, n. 14, explained the new section’s anticipated function: “It should be noted that while the seller is permitted to meet local competition, [§ 2(b)] does not permit him to cut local prices until his competitor has first offered lower prices, and then he can go no further than to meet those prices.” H. R. Rep. No. 2287, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., 16 (1936) (emphasis supplied). Congress intended to allow reasonable pricing responses on an area-specific basis where competitive circumstances warrant them. The purpose of the amendment was to “restric[t] the proviso to price differentials occurring in actual competition.” Standard Oil Co. v. FTC, 340 U. S., at 242. We conclude that Congress did not intend to bar territorial price differences that are in fact responses to competitive conditions.
Section 2(b) specifically allows a “lower price... to any purchaser or purchasers” made in good faith to meet a competitor’s equally low price. A single low price surely may be extended to numerous purchasers if the seller has a reasonable basis for believing that the competitor’s lower price is available to them. Beyond the requirement that the lower price be reasonably calculated to “meet not beat” the competition, Congress intended to leave it a “question of fact... whether the way in which the competition was met lies within the latitude allowed.” 80 Cong. Rec. 9418 (1936) (remarks of Rep. Utterback). Once again, this inquiry is guided by the standard of the prudent businessman responding fairly to what he reasonably believes are the competitive necessities.
A seller may have good reason to believe that a competitor or competitors are charging lower prices throughout a particular region. See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F. 2d 1014, 1046 (CA9 1981), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 825 (1982); Balian Ice Cream Co. v. Arden Farms Co., 231 F. 2d 356, 366 (CA9 1955), cert. denied, 350 U. S. 991 (1956); Rowe, at 235-236. In such circumstances, customer-by-customer negotiations would be unlikely to result in prices different from those set according to information relating to competitors’ territorial prices. A customer-by-customer requirement might also make meaningful price competition unrealistically expensive for smaller firms such as Falls City, which was attempting to compete with larger national breweries in 13 separate States. Cf. Callaway Mills Co. v. FTC, 362 F. 2d 435, 442 (CA5 1966) (in some circumstances, requirement of customer-by-customer pricing “would be burdensome, unreasonable, and practically unfeasible”).
In Staley, 324 U. S., at 753, as in each of the later cases in which this Court has contrasted a “general system of competition” with “individual competitive situations,” see, e. g., FTC v. National Lead Co., 352 U. S. 419, 431 (1957); FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 708 (1948), the seller’s lower price was quoted not “because of lower prices by a competitor,” but “because of a preconceived pricing scale which [was] operative regardless of variations in competitor’s prices.” Rowe, at 234 (emphasis in original). In those cases, the contested lower prices were not truly “responsive to rivals’ competitive prices,” ibid, (emphasis in original), and therefore were not genuinely made to meet competitors’ lower prices. Territorial pricing, however, can be a perfectly reasonable method — sometimes the most reasonable method — of responding to rivals’ low prices. We choose not to read into § 2(b) a restriction that would deny the meeting-competition defense to one whose areawide price is a well-tailored response to competitors’ low prices.
Of course, a seller must limit its lower price to that group of customers reasonably believed to have the lower price available to it from competitors. A response that is not reasonably tailored to the competitive situation as known to the seller, or one that is based on inadequate verification, would not meet the standard of good faith. Similarly, the response may continue only as long as the competitive circumstances justifying it, as reasonably known by the seller, persist. One choosing to price on a territorial basis, rather than on a customer-by-customer basis, must show that this decision was a genuine, reasonable response to prevailing competitive circumstances. See International Air Industries, Inc. v. American Excelsior Co., 517 F. 2d 714, 725-726 (CA5 1975), cert. denied, 424 U. S. 943 (1976); Callaway Mills Co. v. FTC, 362 F. 2d, at 441-442. See generally 1977 Report, at 265. Unless the circumstances call into question the seller’s good faith, this burden will be discharged by showing that a reasonable and prudent businessman would believe that the lower price he charged was generally available from his competitors throughout the territory and throughout the period in which he made the lower price available. See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F. 2d, at 1045-1046.
V
In summary, the meeting-competition defense requires the seller at least to show the existence of facts that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that the seller’s lower price would meet the equally low price of a competitor; it also requires the seller to demonstrate that its lower price was a good-faith response to a competitor’s lower price.
Falls City contends that it has established its meeting-competition defense as a matter of law. In the absence of further findings, we do not agree. The District Court and the Court of Appeals did not decide whether Falls City had shown facts that would have led a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that its lower price would meet the equally low price of its competitors in Kentucky throughout the period at issue in this suit. Nor did they apply the proper standards to the question whether Falls City’s decision to set a single statewide price in Kentucky was a good-faith, well-tailored response to the competitive circumstances prevailing there. The absence of allegations to the contrary is not controlling; the statute places
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
The petitioner was one of numerous defendants in a lengthy criminal trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He was found guilty, but his conviction was reversed on appeal. 319 F. 2d 916. For his conduct during the trial the petitioner was found guilty of criminal contempt in a summary proceeding conducted by the trial judge under Rule 42 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure after the trial had ended. This contempt conviction was affirmed on appeal, one judge dissenting. 308 F. 2d 125.
If the petitioner was legally responsible for his conduct during the trial, there can be no doubt that his conduct was contumacious. It is contended, however, that at the time of the conduct in question the petitioner was suffering from a mental illness which made him incapable of forming the criminal intent requisite for a finding of guilt. No separate hearing was had upon this issue in the contempt proceeding, although during the course of the previous criminal trial, the judge had heard conflicting expert testimony upon the different question of the petitioner’s mental capacity to stand trial. Shortly after the contempt conviction, the petitioner was found by state-appointed psychiatrists to be suffering from schizophrenia and committed to a state mental hospital. Cf. Bush v. Texas, 372 U. S. 586.
In the light of these circumstances, we hold that the fair administration of federal criminal justice requires a plenary hearing under Rule 42 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to determine the question of the petitioner’s criminal responsibility for his conduct. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan would affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons given by Judge Smith in his opinion for the Court of Appeals. United States v. Panico, 308 F. 2d 125.
“Rule 42. Criminal Contempt.
“ (a) Summary Disposition. A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by the judge and entered of record.”
“Rule 42. Criminal Contempt.
“(b) Disposition Upon Notice and Hearing. A criminal contempt except as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule shall be prosecuted on notice. The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such. The notice shall be given orally by the judge in open court in the presence of the defendant or, on application of the United States attorney or of an attorney appointed by the court for that purpose, by an order to show cause or an order of arrest. The defendant is entitled to a trial by jury in any case in which an act of Congress so provides. He is entitled to admission to bail as provided in these rules. If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the trial or hearing except with the defendant’s consent. Upon a verdict or finding of guilt the court shall enter an order fixing the punishment.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O'Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is another in the long line of cases, beginning with McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819), in which the Federal Government asks this Court for relief from what it considers illegal state taxes. Unlike the typical tax immunity case, however, we are not presented with a claim that the state tax is unconstitutional; instead, the question is whether the Federal Government may recover taxes it claims were wrongfully assessed under California law against one of the Government’s private contractors.
I
The United States has established three Naval Petroleum Reserves in California and Wyoming, one of which is Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, located in Kern County, California. 10 U. S. C. § 7420. First through the Department of the Navy and later through the Department of Energy, the United States contracted with Williams Brothers Engineering Company (WBEC) to manage oil drilling operations at Reserve No. 1 from 1975 to 1985. Under the contract, WBEC received an annual fixed fee plus reimbursement for costs, which the contract defined to include state sales and use taxes.
California assessed approximately $14 million in sales and use taxes, pursuant to Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. §6384 (West 1987), against WBEC for the years 1975 through 1981. The State informed WBEC of the tax deficiencies through two notices, one issued in July 1978 and the other in December 1982. WBEC, at the direction of the United States, applied to the California Board of Equalization for administrative redetermination of the assessments, see § 6932. WBEC argued that the State had misapplied its own law, taxing property that was outside the scope of §6384. The Board of Equalization denied each claim, with minor exceptions. Thereafter, WBEC paid the assessments under protest, using funds the Federal Government provided. It then filed timely actions in state court. In January 1988, the State and WBEC stipulated to a $3 million refund, for erroneous assessments on property that WBEC had purchased and that Government personnel had installed, and to dismissal of both actions without prejudice. The remaining $11 million resulted from assessments on property that WBEC had purchased and that private subcontractors, managed by WBEC, had installed.
In May 1988, the United States filed suit in the Eastern District of California, seeking a declaratory judgment that California had classified and taxed WBEC erroneously under California law and that the taxed property actually was exempt. It sought a refund of the $11 million plus interest. In the course of the suit, the United States argued it was entitled to recovery based on the federal common-law cause of action for money had and received. The District Court rejected both grounds for recovery and granted summary judgment for the State.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 932 F. 2d 1346 (1991). The court began by noting that the Government did not claim that either it or WBEC was constitutionally immune from the tax, an argument this Court rejected in United States v. New Mexico, 455 U. S. 720 (1982). 932 F. 2d, at 1347-1348. Because the United States lacked “a colorable constitutional challenge,” id., at 1349, the Court of Appeals looked to whether federal common law might provide a cause of action. It declined to accept the Government’s argument that the simple act of disbursing federal funds was a “constitutional function” that created a federal interest in conflict with state law. The Government had done no more than pay state taxes pursuant to state law; this did not rise to the level of a federal interest requiring the application of federal law. Ibid. The Court of Appeals then held that the Government could not maintain a quasi-contract cause of action because the facts did not support a claim of unjust enrichment. Among other things, “WBEC, backed throughout by the United States, had a fair chance to argue against the validity of the assessments in the administrative and state court proceedings.” Id., at 1350. Finally, the Court of Appeals relied on the fact that the Government’s quasi-contract argument was “posited upon the interpretation of a state-created exemption from a state[]created sales tax.” Ibid. The court found that the State’s claim filing requirements, including that a court action be filed within 90 days of an administrative denial, were conditions precedent to a cause of action for a tax refund. Id., at 1350-1351. The Government had failed to satisfy the conditions; therefore, the Court of Appeals held, the Government had no state cause of action and no quasi-contract action. “Since federal statutes of limitations become determinative only after the government acquires a cause of action, and since the United States never acquired a cause of action,” the court reasoned, the 6-year statute of limitations of “28 U. S. C. §2415 does not apply.” Id., at 1351.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in a factually similar case, recently had reached the opposite conclusion. Id., at 1351-1352. In United States v. Broward County, 901 F. 2d 1005 (1990), the Eleventh Circuit rejected the argument on which the Ninth Circuit relied and held that the Government had a “federal common law cause of action in quasi-contract for money had and received.” Id., at 1008-1009. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 506 U. S. 813 (1992).
I HH
The Government concedes that it could have intervened in WBEC’s administrative and state-court proceedings. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17. But it argues that whether it complied with state procedural requirements or whether it could have intervened is irrelevant, because it has a federal right to recover the taxes under the federal common-law cause of action for money had and received (also known as indebitatus assumpsit). Prior to the creation of federal administrative and statutory remedies for the recovery of federal taxes, this Court held that a taxpayer could bring an action for money had and received to recover erroneously or illegally assessed taxes. In City of Philadelphia v. The Collector, 5 Wall. 720 (1867), the Court stated:
“[The] [appropriate remedy to recover back money paid [to federal tax collectors] under protest on account of duties or taxes erroneously or illegally assessed, is an action of assumpsit for money had and received. Where the party voluntarily pays the money, he is without remedy; but if he pays it by compulsion of law, or under protest, or with notice that he intends to bring suit to test the validity of the claim, he may recover it back, if the assessment was erroneous or illegal, in an action of assumpsit for money had and received.” Id., at 731-732 (citing Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137, 150 (1836)).
The Government reasons that it paid WBEC’s taxes, that the taxes were wrongfully assessed, and that therefore it may recover the funds used to pay those taxes. Since an action for money had and received is based on a contract implied in law, see Bayne v. United States, 93 U. S. 642, 643 (1877), the Government further reasons, that its claims are governed by the 6-year statute of limitations in 28 U. S. C. § 2415(a), and not the 90-day limitation period in the California Code.
The taxpayers in both City of Philadelphia and the case on which it relies, Elliott v. Swartwout, were attempting to recover money they had paid under protest to the federal tax collector in settlement of tax assessments erroneously made against them. In this case, by contrast, the taxpayer — WBEC—has had its day in court and gone home. The Government attempts to recover money it paid in reimbursement for state tax assessments against the contractor, even though the contractor already has challenged the assessment and accepted a resolution of its claims. The Government contends that, because its contract with WBEC involved an advanced funding arrangement, the Government was the one that actually paid the state taxes. Because the disbursement of federal funds is involved, the Government asserts, the federal action for money had and received is appropriate. Even assuming that federal courts may entertain a federal common-law action for the recovery of state taxes paid by the Government, we conclude that a federal action is inappropriate here because the Government is in no better position than as a subrogee of its contractor WBEC.
The management contract between the Government and WBEC is in all relevant respects identical to the contracts we discussed in United States v. New Mexico, 455 U. S. 720 (1982). There, as here, the State had imposed sales and use taxes on private contractors managing Department of Energy sites. Like WBEC, two of the contractors received costs plus a fixed fee. Id., at 723-724. Like WBEC’s contracts, the contracts provided that title to all tangible personal property passed directly from the vendor to the Government. Id., at 724. “Finally, and most importantly, the contracts use[d] a so-called ‘advanced funding’ procedure to meet contractor costs.” Id., at 725. The contractors paid creditors and employees with drafts drawn on a special bank account in which the Government deposited funds, so that only federal funds were expended when the contractors made purchases. Id., at 726. Cf. App. 142-143 (Declaration of Kenneth Meeks in Support of United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment, describing similar funding operations with WBEC).
In New Mexico, the Government brought an action arguing that the contractors’ expenditures, other than those made out of the fixed fees, were constitutionally immune from taxation. We noted that the doctrine of federal immunity from state taxation is “one that has been marked from the beginning by inconsistent decisions and excessively delicate distinctions.” 455 U. S., at 730. After surveying our “confusing” precedents, we concluded it was time to return to the underlying constitutional principle of tax immunity: A State may not lay a tax “ ‘directly upon the United States.’ ” Id., at 733 (quoting Mayo v. United States, 319 U. S. 441, 447 (1943)). But whereas the Government is absolutely immune from direct taxes, it is not immune from taxes merely because they have an “effect” on it, or “even because the Federal Government shoulders the entire economic burden of the levy.” 455 U. S., at 734. In fact, it is “constitutionally irrelevant that the United States reimburse[s] all the contractor’s expenditures, including those going to meet the tax.” Ibid, (citing Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1 (1941)). Tax immunity is “appropriate in only one circumstance: when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities.” 455 U. S., at 735.
It is beyond peradventure that California did not tax— indeed, could not have taxed — the Federal Government in this case. California taxed WBEC. And the Government’s voluntary agreement to reimburse (or even fund in advance) WBEC for those taxes does not make the Government’s payments direct disbursements of federal funds to the State. We addressed an analogous indemnification relationship in Brady v. Roosevelt S. S. Co., 317 U. S. 575 (1943). The United States had contracted with a private corporation to operate a Maritime Commission vessel. A customs inspector suffered injuries on the vessel that led to his death, and his widow brought a maritime tort action against the private corporation. In defense, respondent contended “that if the judgment against [it] stands, the United States ultimately will have to pay it by reason of provisions of the contract between respondent and the [Maritime] Commission. It is therefore urged that the United States is the real party in interest.” Id., at 582. We rejected respondent’s argument that petitioner could be deprived of her cause of action by reason of the contract. “Immunity from suit on a cause of action which the law creates cannot be so readily obtained.” Id., at 583. Absent congressional action, we would not allow “concessions made by contracting officers of the government” to make such a “basic alteration” in the law. Id., at 584.
We conclude from Brady and New Mexico that the Government cannot use the existence of an obligation to indemnify WBEC to create a federal causé of action for money had and received to recover state taxes paid by WBEC any more than the Roosevelt Steamship Company could use the existence of a right to indemnity from the Government to defeat a claim for recovery. See Brady, supra, at 584. Cf. Farid v. Smith, 850 F. 2d 917, 923 (CA2 1988) (a State’s decision to indemnify its public servants does not confer Eleventh Amendment immunity on state officials sued in their personal capacity).
Although the Government does not cite Brady, it does cite two other cases that suggest the lesson of Brady might not apply in an action for money had and received. According to the Government, Bayne v. United States, 93 U. S. 642 (1877), and Gaines v. Miller, 111 U. S. 395 (1884), stand for the proposition that an action for money had and received may “be employed by the United States to recover money from a third party who received federal funds that had been misappropriated by a government agent.” Brief for United
States 14. We find these cases inapposite. In Bayne, an Army paymaster withdrew money from the paymaster’s bank account, endorsed the checks in blank, and sent them to Merchants’ Bank with instructions to credit the account of Bayne & Co. The Court affirmed the Government’s judgment against Bayne & Co. under an action for money had and received. 93 U. S., at 643. In Gaines, the agent of an estate’s executors sold estate property and illegally kept a portion of the money. Ill U. S., at 396. Many years later, the agent had died, but Gaines, the legatee of the first estate, brought an action in equity against the administrator of the agent’s estate. The Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment against Gaines because, among other reasons, she had an adequate remedy at law: an action for money had and received. Id., at 397-398.
Bayne and Gaines share two features this case lacks. The first is that, in each, the rightful owner of the money lost it by way of theft. That is, the money passed from the first party to the second party unlawfully. See Bayne, supra, at 643; Gaines, supra, at 396. The second feature is that in both cases the rightful owner of the money sued a third party who had a relationship that, at least for our purposes, made that party legally responsible for the actions of the one who unlawfully took the money. The Court was satisfied in Bayne that the transactions between the paymaster, the banks, and Bayne & Co. were “the result of a fraudulent purpose to secure the use of the public money to Bayne & Co., who received it with full knowledge that it belonged to the United States, and had been applied in manifest violation of the act of Congress.” 93 U. S., at 643. In other words, Bayne & Co. and the paymaster were accomplices, each liable for the acts of the other. Cf. 18 U. S. C. §2. In Gaines, petitioner sued the administrator of the agent’s estate, who was legally responsible for paying the agent’s debts out of the estate. See, e. g., 2 J. Perkins, Law of Executors and Administrators 988-990 (6th Am. ed. 1877).
The Government does not contend that WBEC stole the money at issue in this case or otherwise took money from the Government unlawfully. WBEC did not. Nor does the Government contend that California and WBEC had a relationship that would make California liable for WBEC’s actions. They did not. In fact, California and WBEC had an adverse relationship: that of creditor and debtor. California’s demand that WBEC pay what California believed to be a lawful debt does not make California legally responsible for the Government’s indemnification of WBEC. In these circumstances, we do not imply a contract in law between California and the Government. Without an implied contract, an action for money had and received will not lie against the State.
Although the Government cannot proceed in an action for money had and received, our discussion of indemnification suggests the Government may not be without recourse: Because it indemnified the contractor, the Government has a right to be subrogated to the contractor’s claims against the State. See 10 W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 1265 (3d ed. 1967); Brief for Respondents 13 (conceding the same). When proceeding by subrogation, the subrogee “stands in the place of one whose claim he has paid.” United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U. S. 234, 242 (1947). Here WBEC’s rights have lapsed and its claims are barred. Under traditional subrogation principles then, the claims of the United States also would be barred. The subrogee, who has all the rights of the subrogor, usually “cannot acquire by subrogation what another whose rights he claims did not have.” Ibid. Although WBEC filed actions in state court within 90 days of the Board of Equalization’s administrative decisions, WBEC later dismissed those cases without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice terminates the action and “concludes the rights of the parties in that particular action.” Gagnon Co. v. Nevada Desert Inn, 45 Cal. 2d 448, 455, 289 R 2d 466, 472 (1955). A subrogee could have proceeded only if WBEC could have filed a new state-court action at that time, which it could not do.
The traditional rules of subrogation, however, do not necessarily apply to the Government. But cf. United States v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal, 332 U. S. 301,309 (1947) (suggesting that state law controls “where the Government has simply substituted itself for others as successor to rights governed by state law”). The Government argues strenuously that, at the very least, state statutes of limitations do not bind it. It cites three cases to support this position. See United States v. Summerlin, 310 U. S. 414, 416 (1940); Board of Comm’rs of Jackson County v. United States, 308 U. S. 343, 361 (1939); United States v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 364 U.. S. 301, 308 (1960). In the cases the Government cites, however, either the right at issue was obtained by the Government through, or created by, a federal statute, see Summerlin, supra, at 416 (United States suing under claim received by assignment pursuant to Act of June 27, 1934, 48 Stat. 1246); Board of Comm’rs, supra, at 349-350 (United States suing as Indian trustee pursuant to congressional statute); or a federal statute provided the statute of limitations, see John Hancock, supra, at 301 (United States redeeming mortgage foreclosure pursuant to statute of limitations in 28 U. S. C. § 2410(c)). Moreover, in each case, the Government was proceeding in its sovereign capacity. As the 'Government rightly notes:
“When the United States becomes entitled to a claim, acting in its governmental capacity, and asserts its claim in that right, it cannot be deemed to have abdicated its governmental authority so as to become subject to a state statute putting a time limit upon enforcement.” Summerlin, supra, at 417.
In contrast, the Government here became entitled to its claim by indemnifying a private contractor's state-law debt. It can assert its claim only by way of subrogation, an equitable action created by the courts. Summerlin is clearly distinguishable.
Whether in general a state-law action brought by the United States is subject to a federal or state statute of limitations is a difficult question. We need not resolve it today, however, because Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U. S. 126 (1938), provides guidance in this case. There the United States was proceeding as the assignee of the Soviet Government and sought to collect under state law. The petitioner argued that the statute of limitations had run, and the United States asserted, among other defenses, that it was not bound by state statutes of limitations. We found that the circumstances of the case “admitted] of no appeal to such a policy.” Id., at 141. Even if the United States had a right to be free from the statute of limitations, it was deprived of no right on those facts. “[F]or the proof demonstrated] that the United States never acquired a right free of a pre-existing infirmity, the running of limitations against its assignor, which public policy does not forbid.” Id., at 142.
Here, although the Government acquired a right to subro-gation to WBEC’s claims upon payment of the taxes, the Government did not assert that right until it filed the federal judicial proceeding. As the California Supreme Court has held: “ ‘[A] surety by payment does not become ipso facto subrogated to the rights of the creditor, but only acquires a right to such subrogation, and . . . before the substitution or equitable assignment can actually take place he must actively assert his equitable right thereto. It is not a substantive tangible right of such nature and character that it can be seized and held and enjoyed independently of a judicial proceeding.’” Offer v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 194 Cal. 114, 117, 228 P. 11, 12 (1924) (quoting 25 Ruling Case Law 1391 (1919)). Accord, 10 Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 1265, at 848, and n. 9 (citing cases). Because the Government waited until after the state statute of limitations had run against WBEC to bring suit, the Government was not subrogated to “a right free of a pre-existing infirmity.” Guaranty Trust, supra, at 142. That the doctrine of subro-gation is one of equity only strengthens our conclusion that the Government may not proceed: The Government waited 10 years after the first notice of deficiency was issued, 8 years after the second notice was issued, and almost 6 years after the state statute of limitations ran to bring this suit.
The Government argues that affirming the Court of Appeals often will leave it “without an effective remedy to contest a tax improperly exacted from a federal contractor” and subject it to the “vagaries” of 50 state tax-law procedures. Brief for United States 26-27. But federal contractors already are subject to the substantive tax laws of the 50 States. Nothing in our decision prevents the Government from including in its contracts a requirement that its contractors be responsible for all taxes the Government believes are wrongfully assessed, a contract term that likely would remove any disinterest a contractor may have toward litigating in state court. If our decision today results in an intolerable drain on the public fisc, Congress, which can take into account 'the concerns of the States as well as the Federal Government, is free to address the situation. See New Mexico, 455 U. S., at 737-738.
III
In United States v. New Mexico, we held that the Federal Government is immune only from state taxes imposed on it directly. Id., at 734. In so holding, we hoped to “forestall, at least to a degree, some of the manipulation and wooden formalism that occasionally have marked tax litigation — and that have no proper place in determining the allocation of power between coexisting sovereignties.” Id., at 737. Today we hold that shouldering the “entire economic burden of the levy,” id., at 734, through indemnification does not give the Federal Government a federal common-law cause of action for money had and received to challenge a state tax on state-law grounds simply because it is the Government. To do otherwise would be to return to the “manipulation and wooden formalism” we put aside in New Mexico.
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: | 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 petitioners, a corporation and two of its employees, were brought to trial before a jury in a federal district court upon an indictment charging a conspiracy and the substantive offense of concealing material facts in a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 371 and 1001. After seven days of what promised to be a long and complicated trial, three government witnesses had appeared and a fourth was in the process of testifying. At that point the district judge directed the jury to return verdicts of acquittal as to all the defendants, and a formal judgment of acquittal was subsequently entered.
The record shows that the district judge’s action was based upon one or both of two grounds: supposed improper conduct on the part of the Assistant United States Attorney who was prosecuting the case, and a supposed lack of credibility in the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution who had testified up to that point.
The Government filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, praying that the judgment of acquittal be vacated and the case reassigned for trial. The court granted the petition, upon the ground that under the circumstances revealed by the record the trial court was without power to direct the judgment in question. Judge Aldrich concurred separately, finding that the directed judgment of acquittal had been based solely on the supposed improper conduct of the prosecutor, and agreeing with his colleagues that the district judge was without power to direct an acquittal on that ground. 286 F. 2d 556. We granted certiorari to consider a question of importance in the administration of justice in the federal courts. 366 U. S. 959.
In holding that the District Court was without power to direct acquittals under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the Court of Appeals relied primarily upon two decisions of this Court, Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27, and Ex parte United States, 287 U. S. 241. In the first of these cases it was held that a district judge had no power to suspend a mandatory prison sentence, and that a writ of mandamus would lie to require the judge to vacate his erroneous order of suspension. In the second case the Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering a district judge to issue a bench warrant which he had refused to do, in the purported exercise of his discretion, for a person under an indictment returned by a properly constituted grand jury.
Neither of those decisions involved the guaranty of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” That constitutional provision is at the very root of the present case, and we cannot but conclude that the guaranty was violated when the Court of Appeals set aside the judgment of acquittal and directed that the petitioners be tried again for the same offense.
The petitioners were tried under a valid indictment in a federal court which had jurisdiction over them and over the subject matter. The trial did not terminate prior to the entry of judgment, as in Gori v. United States, 367 U. S. 364. It terminated with the entry of a final judgment of acquittal as to each petitioner. The Court of Appeals thought, not without reason, that the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation. Nevertheless, “[t]he verdict of acquittal was final, and could not be reviewed . . . without putting [the petitioners] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.” United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 671.
Reversed.
Ms. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the early morning hours a passenger car occupied by three men was stopped for speeding by a police officer. The officer, upon searching the ear, seized $763 of rolled-up cash from the glove compartment and five glassine baggies of cocaine from between the back-seat armrest and the back seat. After all three men denied ownership of the cocaine and money, the officer arrested each of them. We hold that the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle — one of the three men.
At 3:16 a.m. on August 7,1999, a Baltimore County Police officer stopped a Nissan Maxima for speeding. There were three occupants in the car: Donte Partlow, the driver and owner, respondent Pringle, the front-seat passenger, and Otis Smith, the back-seat passenger. The officer asked Partlow for his license and registration. When Partlow opened the glove compartment to retrieve the vehicle registration, the officer observed a large amount of rolled-up money in the glove compartment. The officer returned to his patrol car with Partlow’s license and registration to check the computer system for outstanding violations. The computer check did not reveal any violations. The officer returned to the stopped car, had Partlow get out, and issued him an oral warning.
After a second patrol car arrived, the officer asked Partlow if he had any weapons or narcotics in the vehicle. Partlow indicated that he did not. Partlow then consented to a search of the vehicle. The search yielded $763 from the glove compartment and five plastic glassine baggies containing cocaine from behind the back-seat armrest. When the officer began the search the armrest was in the upright position flat against the rear seat. The officer pulled down the armrest and found the drugs, which had been placed between the armrest and the back seat of the car.
The officer questioned all three men about the ownership of the drugs and money, and told them that if no one admitted to ownership of the drugs he was going to arrest them all. The men offered no information regarding the ownership of the drugs or money. All three were placed under arrest and transported to the police station.
Later that morning, Pringle waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and gave an oral and written confession in which he acknowledged that the cocaine belonged to him, that he and his friends were going to a party, and that he intended to sell the cocaine or “[u]se it for sex.” App. 26. Pringle maintained that the other occupants of the car did not know about the drugs, and they were released.
The trial court denied Pringle’s motion to suppress his confession as the fruit of an illegal arrest, holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle. A jury convicted Pringle of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to 10 years’ incarceration without the possibility of parole. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed. 141 Md. App. 292, 785 A. 2d 790 (2001).
The Court of Appeals of Maryland, by divided vote, reversed, holding that, absent specific facts tending to show Pringle’s knowledge and dominion or control over the drugs, “the mere finding of cocaine in the back armrest when [Prin-gle] was a front seat passenger in a car being driven by its owner is insufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest for possession.” 370 Md. 525, 545, 805 A. 2d 1016, 1027 (2002). We granted certiorari, 538 U. S. 921 (2003), and now reverse.
Under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), the people are “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, . . . and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ....” U. S. Const., Arndt. 4. Maryland law authorizes police officers to execute warrantless arrests, inter alia, for felonies committed in an officer’s presence or where an officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed or is being committed in the officer’s presence. Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, §594B (1996) (repealed 2001). A warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony, or a misdemeanor committed in the officer’s presence, is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the arrest is supported by probable cause. United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411, 424 (1976); see Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318, 354 (2001) (stating that “[i]f an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender”).
It is uncontested in the present case that the officer, upon recovering the five plastic glassine baggies containing suspected cocaine, had probable cause to believe a felony had been committed. Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, §287 (1996) (repealed 2002) (prohibiting possession of controlled dangerous substances). The sole question is whether the officer had probable cause to believe that Pringle committed that crime.
The long-prevailing standard of probable cause protects “citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime,” while giving “fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949). On many occasions, we have reiterated that the probable-cause standard is a “‘practical, nontechnical conception’” that deals with “ ‘the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.’ ” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 231 (1983) (quoting Brinegar, supra, at 175-176); see, e. g., Ornelas v. United States, 517 U. S. 690, 695 (1996); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1989). “[P]robable cause is a fluid concept — turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts — not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Gates, 462 U. S., at 232.
The probable-cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances. See ibid.; Brinegar, 338 U. S., at 175. We have stated, however, that “[t]he substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt,” ibid, (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and that the belief of guilt must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized, Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85, 91 (1979). In Illinois v. Gates, we noted:
“As early as Locke v. United States, 7 Cranch 339, 348 (1813), Chief Justice Marshall observed, in a closely related context: ‘[T]he term “probable cause,” according to its usual acceptation, means less than evidence which would justify condemnation .... It imports a seizure made under circumstances which warrant suspicion.’ More recently, we said that ‘the quanta ... of proof’ appropriate in ordinary judicial proceedings are inapplicable to the decision to issue a warrant. Brinegar, 338 U. S., at 173. Finely tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence, useful in formal trials, have no place in the [probable-cause] decision.” 462 U. S., at 235.
To determine whether an officer had probable cause to arrest an individual, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide “whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to” probable cause, Ornelas, supra, at 696.
In this case, Pringle was one of three men riding in a Nissan Maxima at 3:16 a.m. There was $763 of rolled-up cash in the glove compartment directly in front of Pringle. Five plastic glassine baggies of cocaine were behind the back-seat armrest and accessible to all three men. Upon questioning, the three men failed to offer any information with respect to the ownership of the cocaine or the money.
We think it an entirely reasonable inference from these facts that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge, of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine. Thus, a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly.
Pringle’s attempt to characterize this case as a guilt-by-association case is unavailing. His reliance on Ybarra v. Illinois, supra, and United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581 (1948), is misplaced. In Ybarra, police officers obtained a warrant to search a tavern and its bartender for evidence of possession of a controlled substance. Upon entering the tavern, the officers conducted patdown searches of the customers present in the tavern, including Ybarra. Inside a cigarette pack retrieved from Ybarra’s pocket, an officer found six tinfoil packets containing heroin. We stated:
“[A] person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person. Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 62-63 (1968). Where the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person. This requirement cannot be undercut or avoided by simply pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to search or seize another or to search the premises where the person may happen to be.” 444 U. S., at 91.
We held that the search warrant did not permit body searches of all of the tavern’s patrons and that the police could not pat down the patrons for weapons, absent individualized suspicion. Id., at 92.
This case is quite different from Ybarra. Pringle and his two companions were in a relatively small automobile, not a public tavern. In Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U. S. 295 (1999), we noted that “a car passenger — unlike the unwitting tavern patron in Ybarra — will often be engaged in a common enterprise with the driver, and have the same interest in concealing the fruits or the evidence of their wrongdoing.” Id., at 304-305. Here we think it was reasonable for the officer to infer a common enterprise among the three men. The quantity of drugs and cash in the car indicated the likelihood of drug dealing, an enterprise to which a dealer would be unlikely to admit an innocent person with the potential to furnish evidence against him. In Di Re, a federal investigator had been told by an informant, Reed, that he was to receive counterfeit gasoline ration coupons from a certain Buttitta at a particular place. The investigator went to the appointed place and saw Reed, the sole occupant of the rear seat of the car, holding gasoline ration coupons. There were two other occupants in the car: Buttitta in the driver’s seat and Di Re in the front passenger’s seat. Reed informed the investigator that Buttitta had given him counterfeit coupons. Thereupon, all three men were arrested and searched. After noting that the officers had no information implicating Di Re and no information pointing to Di Re’s possession of coupons, unless presence in the car warranted that inference, we concluded that the officer lacked probable cause to believe that Di Re was involved in the crime. 332 U. S., at 592-594. We said “[a]ny inference that everyone on the scene of a crime is a party to it must disappear if the Government informer singles out the guilty person.” Id., at 594. No such singling out occurred in this ease; none of the three men provided information with respect to the ownership of the cocaine or money.
We hold that the officer had probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed the crime of possession of a controlled substance. Pringle’s arrest therefore did not contravene the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Maryland law defines “possession” as “the exercise of actual or constructive dominion or control over a thing by one or more persons.” Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 277(s) (1996) (repealed 2002).
The Court of Appeals of Maryland dismissed the $763 seized from the glove compartment as a factor in the probable-cause determination, stating that “[m]oney, without more, is innocuous.” 370 Md. 524, 546, 805 A. 2d 1016, 1028 (2002). The court’s consideration of the money in isolation, rather than as a factor in the totality of the circumstances, is mistaken in light of our precedents. See, e. g., Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 230-231 (1983) (opining that the totality of the circumstances approach is consistent with our prior treatment of probable cause); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175-176 (1949) (“Probable cause exists where ‘the facts and circumstances within their [the officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed”). We think it is abundantly clear from the facts that this case involves more than money alone.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 respondent was indicted in early 1973 for violating 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a) after a search at a permanent immigration traffic checkpoint in New Mexico of a vehicle in which he was a passenger had turned up a substantial quantity of marihuana. His motion to suppress the marihuana was initially denied by the District Court. Thereafter, this Court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), that a warrantless roving patrol search of a vehicle, conducted without probable cause on a road removed from the border, violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit subsequently ruled in United States v. King, 485 F. 2d 353 (1973), and United States v. Maddox, 485 F. 2d 361 (1973), that Almeida-Sanchez should be applied retroactively. The District Court then reconsidered the respondent’s motion to suppress, and on October 4, 1974, dismissed the indictment.
On October 16, 1974, the Government filed a “Motion to .Set Aside [the] Order of Dismissal” on the ground that the facts in this case were materially different from those in Almeida-Sanchez and that “the Order dismissing the case was entered through inadvertence.” On November 6, 1974, the District Court denied the motion on the ground that it had “no authority or jurisdiction” to set aside the order. On November 7, 1974, the Government filed a notice of appeal.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that it was untimely because the notice of appeal had not been filed until 34 days after entry of the October 4 order and hence fell outside the 30-day limitation period for a Government appeal from an order dismissing an indictment. The appellate court held that the October 4 order was final for purposes of appeal, notwithstanding the Government’s October 16 motion to set aside that order. In denying the Government’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, the court recognized that in United States v. Healy, 376 U. S. 75 (1964), decided at a time when a Government appeal from an order dismissing an indictment was taken directly to this Court rather than to a court of appeals, we held that the 30-day limitation period runs from the denial of a timely petition in the District Court for rehearing, rather than from the date of the order itself. The Court of Appeals reasoned, however, that Healy did not control because the post-dismissal motion there involved “was directed squarely at an alleged error of law committed by the trial court,” whereas in this case the Government’s motion “to set aside on the grounds of mistake or inadvertence was an entirely different species of pleading . . . .” App. to Pet. for Cert. 4A.
The Court of Appeals misconceived the basis of our decision in Healy. We noted there that the consistent practice in civil and criminal cases alike has been to treat timely petitions for rehearing as rendering the original judgment nonfinal for purposes of appeal for as long as the petition is pending. 376 U. S., at 78-79. To have held otherwise might have prolonged litigation and unnecessarily burdened this Court, since plenary consideration of an issue by an appellate court ordinarily requires more time than is required for disposition by a trial court of a petition for rehearing. Id., at 80. The fact that appeals are now routed to the courts of appeals does not affect the wisdom of giving district courts the opportunity promptly to correct their own alleged errors, and we must likewise be wary of imposing added and unnecessary burdens on the courts of appeals. These considerations fully apply whether the issue presented on appeal is termed one of fact or of law, and the Court of Appeals’ law/fact distinction-— assuming such a distinction can be clearly drawn for these purposes — finds no support in Healy. It is true that the Government’s post-dismissal motion was not captioned a “petition for rehearing,” but there can be no doubt that in purpose and effect it was precisely that, asking the District Court to “reconsider [a] question decided in the case” in order to effect an “alteration of the rights adjudicated.” Department of Banking v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264, 266 (1942).
The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
That view was later repudiated by this Court in United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S. 531 (1975).
Title 18 U. S. C. § 3731 provides in pertinent part that “[i]n a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information as to any one or more counts,” and that “[t]he appeal in all such cases shall be taken within thirty days after the decision, judgment or order has been rendered . . . .” Federal Rule App. Proc. 4 (b) provides in pertinent part:
“When an appeal by the government is authorized by statute, the notice of appeal shall be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. A judgment or order is entered within the meaning of this subdivision when it is entered in the criminal docket.”
The Court of Appeals’ concern with the lack of a statute or rule expressly authorizing treatment .of a post-dismissal motion as suspending the limitation period ignores our having grounded our decision in Healy, not on any express authorization (which was similarly lacking in Healy), but rather on “traditional and virtually unquestioned practice.” 376 U. S., at 79.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.