instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Powell 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.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner’s parole was revoked by the Federal Parole Board because of association with other ex-convicts. In a petition for habeas corpus, petitioner contended that the record did not disclose any evidence in support of this conclusion. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sustained the revocation on the sole ground that petitioner worked at a restaurant-nightclub that employed other ex-convicts. 439 F. 2d 776.
The Parole Board has wide authority to set conditions, 18 U. S. C. § 4203 (a), and here petitioner was forbidden to “associate” with other ex-convicts. But the Board’s own regulations require “satisfactory evidence” of a parole violation to justify an arrest warrant. 28 CFR § 2.35. We do not believe that the parole condition restricting association was intended to apply to incidental contacts between ex-convicts in the course of work on a legitimate job for a common employer. Nor is such occupational association, standing alone, satisfactory evidence of non-business association violative of the parole restriction. To so assume would be to render a parolee vulnerable to imprisonment whenever his employer, willing to hire .ex-convicts, hires more than one. Absent a clear Parole 'Board directive to this effect, we cannot sustain the judgment of the Court of Appeals that on-the-job contact with fellow employees with police records is sufficient evidence of parole violation. If there is in this record other evidence of forbidden association or evidence of other parole violations, neither the Court of Appeals nor the United States has identified it.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Me. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issues in this case are whether a labor union or an individual, when charged with criminal contempt for violating an injunction issued pursuant to § 10 (Í) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as added, 61 Stat. 149, and as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (i), has a right to a jury trial under 18 U. S. C. § 3692, and whether the union has a right to a jury trial under the Constitution when charged with such a violation and a fine of as much as $10,000 is to be imposed.
I
Early in 1970, Local 21 of the San Francisco Typographical Union commenced picketing a publishing plant of a daily newspaper in San Rafael, Cal. Shortly thereafter, the newspaper filed an unfair labor practice charge against this union activity, and the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, in response to that filing, petitioned the District Court pursuant to § 10 (l) for a temporary injunction against those activities pending final disposition of the charge by the Board. The District Court, after a hearing, granted the requested relief and, more than two months later, granted a second petition for a temporary injunction filed by the Regional Director in response to other union activities related to the original dispute. On June 24, 1970, Local 21 and certain of its officials were found to be in civil contempt of the latter injunction. After the entry of this contempt order, the tempo of illegal activities in violation of both injunctions increased, with other locals, including Local 70, participating. Various unions and their officers, including petitioners, were subsequently ordered to show cause why they should not be held in civil and criminal contempt of the injunctions. After proceedings in the criminal contempt case had been severed from the civil contempt proceedings, petitioners demanded a jury trial in the criminal case; this request was denied and petitioners were adjudged guilty of criminal contempt after appropriate proceedings. The District Court suspended the sentencing of petitioner Muniz and placed him on probation for one year; the court imposed a fine on petitioner Local 70 which, for purposes of this case, was 110,00o. On appeal of that judgment to the Court of Appeals, petitioners argued, inter alia, that they had a statutory right to a jury trial of any disputed issues of fact, relying on 18 U. S. C. §3692; petitioners also argued that they had a right to a jury trial under Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment. The Court of Appeals rejected these and other claims made by petitioners, 492 F. 2d 929 (CA9 1974), who then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. The writ was granted, 419 U. S. 992 (1974), limited to the questions whether petitioners had a statutory right to a jury trial and whether petitioner Local 70 had a constitutional right to jury trial in this case.
II
The petitioners’ claim to jury trial under § 3692 is simply stated: that section provides for jury trial in contempt cases arising under any federal law governing the issuance of injunctions in any case growing out of a labor dispute; here, the injunction issued under § 10 (l) arose out of a labor dispute in the most classic sense and hence contempt proceedings were subject to § 3692’s requirement for jury trial. Were we to consider only the language of § 3692, we might be hard pressed to disagree. But it is not unusual that exceptions to the applicability of a statute’s otherwise all-inclusive language are not contained in the enactment itself but are found in another statute dealing with particular situations to which the first statute might otherwise apply. Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U. S. 151 (1972); MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Tomkins Co., 322 U. S. 102 (1944). The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 101 et seq., for example, categorically withdraws jurisdiction from the United States courts to issue any injunctions against certain conduct arising out of labor disputes and permits other injunctions in labor disputes only if certain procedural formalities are satisfied. It contains no exceptions with respect to injunctions in those labor disputes dealt with by the Wagner Act, passed in 1935, or by the Taft-Hartley Act passed in 1947. Yet those Acts expressly or impliedly, Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U. S. 235 (1970), authorized various kinds of injunctions in labor dispute cases and expressly or impliedly exempted those injunctions from the jurisdictional and procedural limitations of Norris-LaGuardia to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions of those Acts.
The crucial issue is whether in enacting the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts, Congress not only intended to exempt the injunctions they authorized from NorrisLaGuardia’s limitations, but also intended that civil and criminal contempt proceedings enforcing those injunctions were not to afford contemnors the right to a jury trial. Surely, if § 10 (i) of Taft-Hartley had expressly provided that contempt proceedings arising from the injunctions which the section authorized would not be subject to jury trial requirements, it would be as difficult to argue that § 3692 nevertheless requires a jury trial as it would be to insist that Norris-LaGuardia bars the issuance of any injunctions in the first place. Section 10 (l), of course, does not so provide; we think it reasonably clear from that and related sections and from their legislative history that this result is precisely what Congress intended.
The Wagner Act made employers subject to court orders enforcing Board cease-and-desist orders. Those orders, or many of them, were of the kind NorrisLaGuardia, on its face, prohibited; but § 10 (h) of the Wagner Act provided that in “granting appropriate temporary relief or a restraining order, or... enforcing... or setting aside... an order of the Board,... the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity shall not be limited, by” 29 U. S. C. §§ 101-115. In 1947, in passing the Taft-Hartley Act as part of the Labor Management Relations Act, Congress provided for unfair labor practice proceedings against unions; and § 10 (j) gave jurisdiction to the courts to issue injunctions in unfair labor practice proceedings, whether against unions or management, pending final disposition by the Board. Section 10 (l) made special provision for interim injunctions “notwithstanding any other provision of law” in particular kinds of unfair labor practice proceedings against unions. Section 10 (h) was retained in its original form.
No party in this case suggests that the injunctions authorized by Congress in 1935 and 1947 were subject to the jurisdictional and procedural limitations of NorrisLaGuardia. Neither can it be seriously argued that, at the time of enactment of the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts, civil or criminal contempt charges arising from violations of injunctions authorized by those statutes were to be tried to a jury. The historic rule at the time was that, absent contrary provision by rule or statute, jury trial was not required in the case of either civil or criminal contempt. See Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 183, 189 (1958). Section 11 of Norris-LaGuardia, 29 U. S. C. § 111 (1946 ed.), required jury trials in contempt actions arising out of labor disputes. But §11 was among those sections which § 10 (h) expressly provided would not limit the power of federal courts to enforce Board orders. Moreover, § 11 was limited by its own terms and by judicial decision to cases “arising under” the Norris-LaGuardia Act. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 298 (1947). Injunctions issued pursuant to either the Wagner Act or Taft-Hartley Act were not issued “under,” but in spite of Norris-LaGuardia; and contempt actions charging violations of those injunctions were not “cases arising under” Norris-LaGuardia. Section 11 of Norris-LaGuardia was thus on its face inapplicable to injunctions authorized by the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts; petitioners do not contend otherwise. They say: “From the effective date of Taft-Hartley in late summer, 1947, until June 28, 1948, the effective date of the new § 3692, an alleged contemnor of a TaftHartley injunction would probably have been denied the jury trial guaranteed by § 11 of Norris-LaGuardia, because the injunction would not have been one arising under Norris-LaGuardia itself.” Brief for Petitioners 41.
It would be difficult to contend otherwise. It seems beyond doubt that since 1935 it had been understood that the injunctions and enforcement orders referred to in § 10 (h) were not subject to the jury requirements of § 11 of Norris-LaGuardia. When Congress subjected labor unions to unfair labor practice proceedings in 1947, and in §§ 10 (j) and 10 (l) provided for interim injunctive relief from the courts pending Board decision in unfair labor practice cases, it was equally plain that § 11 by its own terms would not apply to contempt cases arising out of these injunctions. By providing for labor Act injunctions outside the framework of Norris-LaGuardia, Congress necessarily contemplated that there would be no right to jury trial in contempt cases.
That this was the congressional understanding is revealed by the legislative history of the Labor Management Relations Act. The House Managers' statement in explanation of the House Conference Report on T’aftHartley stated:
“Sections 10 (g), (h), and (i) of the present act, concerning the effect upon the Board's orders of enforcement and review proceedings, making inapplicable the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in proceedings before the courts, were unchanged either by the House bill or by the Senate amendment, and are carried into the conference agreement.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 57 (1947) (emphasis added).
Such also was the understanding of Senator Ball, unchallenged on this point by his colleagues on the floor of the Senate during the debate on Taft-Hartley. Senator Ball stated:
“[T]he... Norris-LaGuardia Act is completely suspended... in the current National Labor Relations Act whenever the Board goes into court to obtain an enforcement order for one of its decisions. Organized labor did not object to the suspension of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in that case, I suppose presumably because under the present act the only ones to whom it could apply are employers. Organized labor was perfectly willing to have the NorrisLaGuardia Act completely wiped off the books when it came to enforcing Board orders in labor disputes against employers.” 93 Cong. Rec. 4835 (1947).
This statement was made in the context of Senator Ball’s explanation of his proposed amendment to § 10 (l) as reported out of committee. That section provided generally that the Board would be required, under certain circumstances, to seek injunctive relief in the federal courts against secondary boycotts and jurisdictional strikes “notwithstanding any other provision of law....'' Senator Ball's proposed amendment would have had two effects; first, it would have permitted private parties, in addition to the Board, to seek injunctive relief against the identical practices directly in the District Court; and, second, the amendment would have left in effect for such proceedings the provisions of §§11 and 12 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, giving defendants in such proceedings the right to a jury trial. As Senator Ball stated:
“[W]hen the regional attorney of the NLRB seeks an injunction [pursuant to § 10 (7) as reported] the Norris-LaGuardia Act is completely suspended.... We do not go quite that far in our amendment. We simply provide that the Norris-LaGuardia Act shall not apply, with certain exceptions. We leave in effect the provisions of sections 11 and 12. Those are the sections which give an individual charged with contempt of court the right to a jury trial.'' 93 Cong. Rec. 4834 (1947).
The Ball amendment was defeated, and private injunctive actions were not authorized. But the provisions for Board injunctions were retained and the necessity for them explained in the Senate Report:
“Time is usually of the essence in these matters, and consequently the relatively slow procedure of Board hearing and order, followed many months later by an enforcing decree of the circuit court of appeals, falls short of achieving the desired objectives — the prompt elimination of the obstructions to the free flow of commerce and encouragement of the practice and procedure of free and private collective bargaining. Hence we have provided that the Board, acting in the public interest and not in vindication of purely private rights, may seek injunctive relief in the case of all types of unfair labor practices and that it shall also seek such relief in the case of strikes and boycotts defined as unfair labor practices.” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1947) (emphasis added).
Ill
It is argued, however, that whatever the intention of' Congress might have been with respect to jury trial in contempt actions arising out of Taft-Hartley injunctions, all this was changed when § 11 was repealed and replaced by 18 U. S. C. § 3692 as part of the 1948 revision of the Criminal Code, in the course of which some sections formerly in Title 18 were revised and some related provisions in other titles were recodified in Title 18. The new § 3692, it is insisted, required jury trials for contempt charges arising out of any injunctive order issued under the Labor Management Relations Act if a labor dispute of any kind was involved. Thenceforward, it is claimed, contempt proceedings for violations by unions or employers of enforcement orders issued by courts of appeals or of injunctions issued under § 10 (j) or § 10 (1) must provide the alleged contemnor a jury trial.
This argument is unpersuasive. Not a word was said in connection with recodifying § 11 as § 3692 of the Criminal Code that would suggest any such important change in the settled intention of Congress, when it enacted the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts, that there would be no jury trials in contempt proceedings arising out of labor Act injunctions. Injunctions authorized by the Labor Management Relations Act were limited to those sought by the Board, “acting in the public interest and not in vindication of purely private rights.” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1947). We cannot accept the proposition that Congress, without expressly so providing, intended in § 3692 to change the rules for enforcing injunctions which the Labor Management Relations Act authorized the Labor Board, an agency of the United States, to seek in a United States court. Cf. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S., at 269-276.
Just as § 3692 may not be read apart from other relevant provisions of the labor law, that section likewise may not be read isolated from its legislative history and the revision process from which it emerged, all of which place definite limitations on the latitude we have in construing it. The revision of the Criminal Code was, as petitioners suggest, a massive undertaking, but, as the Senate Report on that legislation made clear, “[t]he original intent of Congress is preserved.” S. Rep. No. 1620, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1948). Nor is it arguable that there was any intent in the House to work a change in the understood applicability of § 11 in enacting § 3692. The House Report stated that “[rjevision, as distinguished from codification, meant the substitution of plain language for awkward terms, reconciliation of conflicting laws, omission of superseded sections, and consolidation of similar provisions.” H. R. Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1947). Revisions in the law were carefully explained in a series of Reviser’s Notes printed in the House Report. Id., at A1 et seq. But the Reviser’s Note to § 3692 indicates no change of substance in the law:
“Based on section 111 of title 29, U. S. C., 1940 ed., Labor (Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, § 11, 47 Stat. 72).
“The phrase ‘or the District of Columbia arising under the laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute’ was inserted and the reference to specific sections of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (sections 101-115 of title 29, U. S. C., 1940 ed.) were eliminated.” H. R. Rep. No. 304, supra, at A176; 18 U. S. C., pp. 4442-4443.
It has long been a “familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.” Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 459 (1892). Whatever may be said with regard to the application of this rule in other contexts, this Court has stated unequivocally that the principle embedded in the rule “has particular application in the construction of labor legislation National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U. S. 612, 619 (1967). Moreover, we are construing a statute of Congress which, like its predecessor, created an exception to the historic rule that there was no right to a jury trial in contempt proceedings. To read a substantial change in accepted practice into a revision of the Criminal Code without any support in the legislative history of that revision is insupportable. As this Court said in United States v. Ryder, 110 U. S. 729, 740 (1884): “It will not be inferred that the legislature, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their policy, unless such an intention be clearly expressed.” The general rule announced in Ryder was applied by this Court in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U. S. 222 (1957). In that case, the question was whether venue in patent infringement actions was to be governed by 28 U. S. C. § 1400 (b), a discrete provision dealing with venue in patent infringement actions, or 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (c), a general provision dealing with venue in actions brought against corporations. Both of these provisions underwent some change in wording in the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code. The respondents in that case, arguing in favor of the applicability of the general venue provision, § 1391 (c), took the position that the plain language of § 1391 (c) was “clear and unambiguous and that its terms include all actions... 353 U. S., at 228. This Court, stating that the respondents’ argument “merely points up the question and does nothing to answer it,” ibid., determined that the general provision, § 1391 (c), had to be read in a fashion consistent with the more particular provision, § 1400 (b). The respondents contended, however, that the predecessor of § 1400 (b), which this Court had held to govern venue irrespective of a general revenue provision, Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U. S. 561 (1942), had undergone a substantive change during the revision of the Judicial Code in 1948 which effectively reversed the result dictated by Stonite.
The Court rejected this argument in terms acutely relevant to this case. “[N]o changes of law or policy,” the Court said, “are to be presumed from changes of language in the revision unless an intent to make such changes is clearly expressed.” 353 U. S., at 227. Furthermore, a change in the language of a statute itself was not enough to establish an intent to effect a substantive change, for “every change made in the text is explained in detail in the Revisers’ Notes,” id., at 226, and the Notes failed to express any substantive change. The Court relied on the Senate and House Reports on the 1948 revision to support this position, id., at, 226 nn. 6 and 7; the language quoted by the Court from the House Report is virtually identical to that which appears in the House Report of the 1948 revision of the Criminal Code, see n. 9, supra. In view of the express disavowals in the House and Senate Reports on the revisions of both the Criminal Code, see supra, at 468-469, and the Judicial Code, see n. 10, supra, it would seem difficult at best to argue that a change in the substantive law could nevertheless be effected by a change in the language of a statute without any indication in the Reviser’s Note of that change. It is not tenable to argue that the Reviser’s Note to § 3692, although it explained in detail what words were deleted from and added to what had been § 11 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, simply did not bother to explain at all, much less in detail, that an admittedly substantial right was being conferred on potential contemnors that had been rejected in the defeat of the Ball amendment the previous year and that, historically, contemnors had never enjoyed.
In Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U. S. 151 (1972), the Court applied the rule that revisions contained in the 1948 Judicial Code should be construed by-reference to the Reviser’s Notes. The question was whether a change in the language of 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (a)(1), made in the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code, had modified a longstanding policy under § 2 of the Expediting Act of 1903, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29, providing generally that this Court should have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over civil antitrust actions brought by the Government. Section 1292 (a) (1), as revised, was susceptible of two constructions, one of which would have resulted in a change in that policy. After emphasizing that “the function of the Revisers of the 1948 Code was generally limited to that of consolidation and codification,” we invoked the “well-established principle governing the interpretation of provisions altered in the 1948 revision... that ‘no change is to be presumed unless clearly expressed.’ ” 409 TJ. S., at 162, quoting Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U. S., at 228. After going to the committee reports, the Court went to the Reviser’s Notes and, in the Note to § 1292 (a)(1), found no affirmative indication of a substantive change. On this basis, the Court refused to give § 1292 (a)(1) as revised the “plausible” construction urged by respondents there.
In this case, involving the 1948 revision of the Criminal Code, the House and Senate Reports caution repeatedly against reading substantive changes into the revision, and the Reviser’s Note to § 3692 gives absolutely no indication that a substantive change in the law was contemplated. In these circumstances, our cases and the canon of statutory construction which Congress expected would be applied to the revisions of both the Criminal and Judicial Codes, require us to conclude, along with all the lower federal courts having considered this question since 1948, save one, that § 3692 does not provide for trial by jury in contempt proceedings brought to enforce an injunction issued at the behest of the Board in a labor dispute arising under the Labor Management Relations Act.
IY
We also agree with the Court of Appeals that the union petitioner had no right to a jury trial under Art. Ill, § 2, and the Sixth Amendment. Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165 (1958), reaffirmed the historic rule that state and federal courts have the constitutional power to punish any criminal contempt without a jury trial. United States v. Barnett, 376 U. S. 681 (1964), and Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373 (1966), presaged a change in this rule. The constitutional doctrine which emerged from later decisions such as Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 194 (1968) ; Frank v. United States, 395 U. S. 147 (1969); Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66 (1970); Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U. S. 488 (1974); and Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U. S. 506 (1974), may be capsuled as follows: (1) Like other minor crimes, “petty” contempts may be tried without a jury, but contemnors in serious contempt cases in the federal system have a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial; (2) criminal contempt, in and of itself and without regard to the punishment imposed, is not a serious offense absent legislative declaration to the contrary; (3) lacking legislative authorization of more serious punishment, a sentence of as much as six months in prison, plus normal periods of probation, may be imposed without a jury trial; (4) but imprisonment for longer than six months is constitutionally impermissible unless the contemnor has been given the opportunity for a jury trial.
This Court has as yet not addressed the question whether and in what circumstances, if at all, the imposition of a fine for criminal contempt, unaccompanied by imprisonment, may require a jury trial if demanded by the defendant. This case presents the question whether a fine of $10,000 against an unincorporated labor union found guilty of criminal contempt may be imposed after denying the union’s claim that it was entitled to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment. Local 70 insists that where a fine of this magnitude is imposed, a contempt cannot be considered a petty offense within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. § 1 (3), and that its demand for a jury trial was therefore erroneously denied.
We cannot agree. In determining the boundary between petty and serious contempts for purposes of applying the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee, and in holding that a punishment of more than six months in prison could not be ordered without making a jury trial available to the defendant, the Court has referred to the relevant rules and practices followed by the federal and state regimes, including the definition of petty offenses under 18 U. S. C. § 1 (3). Under that section, petty offenses are defined as those crimes “the penalty for which does not exceed imprisonment for a period of six months or a fine of not more than $500, or both.” But in referring to that definition, the Court accorded it no talismanie significance; and we cannot accept the proposition that a contempt must be considered a serious crime under all circumstances where the punishment is a fine of more than $500, unaccompanied by imprisonment. It is one thing to hold that deprivation of an individual’s liberty beyond a six-month term should not be imposed without the protections of a jury trial, but it is quite another to suggest that, regardless of the circumstances, a jury is required where any fine greater than $500 is contemplated. Prom the standpoint of determining the seriousness of the risk and the extent of the possible deprivation faced by a contemnor, imprisonment and fines are intrinsically different. It is not difficult to grasp the proposition that six months in jail is a serious matter for any individual, but it is not tenable to argue that the possibility of a $501 fine would be considered a serious risk to a large corporation or labor union. Indeed, although we do not reach or decide the issue tendered by the respondent — that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in any criminal contempt case where only a fine is imposed on a corporation or labor union, Brief for Respondent 36 — we cannot say that the fine of $10,000 imposed on Local 70 in this case was a deprivation of such magnitude that a jury should have been interposed to guard against bias or mistake. This union, the respondent suggests, collects dues from some 13,000 persons; and although the fine is not insubstantial, it is not of such magnitude that the union was deprived of whatever right to jury trial it might have under the Sixth Amendment. We thus affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
A fine of $25,000 was imposed initiafiy, but $15,000 of that fine was subsequently remitted by the District Court based on Local 70’s obedience of the injunctions subsequent to the adjudication of contempt.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 3692 reads in pertinent part as follows:
“In all cases of contempt arising under the laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the contempt shall have been committed.”
Although stating broadly at the outset that “[b]y its own terms [§ 3692] encompasses all cases of contempt arising under any of the several laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions in cases of a ‘labor dispute,' ” dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart, post, at 482, that dissent seems to imply that § 3692, after all, does not reach all cases of contempt in labor dispute injunctions. That dissent appears to say that § 3692 provides the right to jury trials only in cases involving criminal, as opposed to civil, contempt. This is so, it is suggested, because that section guarantees the right to “the accused,” the inference being that one charged with civil contempt is not one properly denominated as an “accused.” Post, at 487-488, n. 7. But the phrase “the accused” was taken verbatim from § 11 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 72, 29 U. S. C. § 111 (1946 ed.), and the legislative history of §11 leaves little room to doubt that when Congress enacted § 11, it intended that section to be applicable to both criminal and civil contempt proceedings. That history establishes that § 11 was a compromise between the Senate version of the bill, which provided for a jury trial in all contempt cases, and the House version of the bill, which provided for jury trials in all criminal contempt cases arising under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The compromise, as explained to the House, gave the right to a jury trial in all contempts, civil or criminal, in cases arising under the Act. 75 Cong. Rec. 6336-6337 (1932). In the Senate, Senator Norris himself explained the compromise as follows:
“As the House passed the bill it did not apply to all contempt cases under the act. As the Senate passed it, it applied to aE cases, either under the act or otherwise. As the House passed it, it applied only to criminal contempt. As the Senate passed it, it applied to all contempts. The compromise was to confine it to aE cases under the act and to eliminate the word ‘criminal,’ but the cases must arise under this act.” Id.., at 6450.
And, Senator Norris continued:
“Under the compromise made, the language of the Senate was agreed to, so that now anyone charged with any kind of a contempt arising under any of the provisions of this act will be entitled to a jury trial in the contempt proceedings.” Id., at 6453.
Certainly when Congress used the phrase “the accused” in § 11, it did not mean to limit that phrase to describing only those accused of criminal contempt.
The dissent of Mr. Justice Stewart also suggests that this limited reading of § 3692 is “consistent” with the placing of that provision, based on § 11 of Norris-LaGuardia, into Title 18 in 1948. If there is any consistency in this suggestion, it is in that dissent’s consistent position that Congress in 1948, without expressing any intention whatsoever to do so, made substantial changes in the right to jury trial — including outright repeal of whatever statutory right there was to jury trial in civE contempt cases arising out of labor disputes, thereby reversing itself on an issue that had been thoroughly considered and decided some 16 years before in Norris-LaGuardia.
In arguing that § 3692 may not reach civil contempt cases, Mr. Justice Stewart also relies on implications which he finds in § 10 (l) of the LMRA that § 3692, despite its language, has no application in those cases. As is clear from this opinion, infra, at 463-467, we too rely on § 10 (l), as well as other provisions, in suggesting that certain contempt cases are not reached by § 3692.
There is also a suggestion in the dissent of Mr. Justice Stewart that one charged with contempt of an injunction issued during a national emergency, 29 U. S. C. §§ 176-180, would not have the right to a jury trial notwithstanding § 3692. Apparently this is so because 29 U. S. C. § 178 (b), § 208 of the Taft-Hartley Act, “provided simply and broadly that all the provisions of that [Norris-LaGuardia] Act are inapplicable.” Post, at 486. But the language Congress used in § 178 (b), “the provisions of sections 101 to 115 of this title, shall not be applicable,” is remarkably similar to the language used in the Conference Report of the Taft-Hartley Act to convey the congressional understanding of § 10 (h) of the Wagner Act which it was re-enacting in Taft-Hartley: “making inapplicable the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in proceedings before the courts....” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 57 (1947). See n. 6, infra.
Mr. Justice Stewart’s position with respect to the applicability of § 3692 in proceedings brought in the Court of Appeals to enforce Board orders directed against employers is even less clear, but it would seem to be the inescapable conclusion under the dissent’s analysis that, at least in criminal contempts of such orders, the courts of appeals would be required to empanel juries, a result that would certainly represent a novel procedure, see United States v. Barnett, 376 U. S. 681, 690-691, and n. 7 (1964).
On the other hand, if Mr. Justice Stewart would limit § 3692 to apply only to disobedience of those injunctions newly authorized by the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, that section, despite its language, would not apply to injunctions issued by the courts of appeals in enforcement actions against employers (it would be otherwise where unions or employees are involved) for the reason that the provisions of the Wagner Act included in the LMRA have the effect of exempting those situations from the reach of § 3692. Very similar reasons furnish sound ground for the inapplicability of §
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue for decision involves several aspects of when a federal court may refuse to enforce an arbitration award rendered under a collective-bargaining agreement.
I
Misco, Inc. (Misco, or the Company), operates a paper converting plant in Monroe, Louisiana. The Company is a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with the United Paper-workers International Union, AFL-CIO, and its union local (the Union); the agreement covers the production and maintenance employees at the plant. Under the agreement, the Company or the Union may submit to arbitration any grievance that arises from the interpretation or application of its terms, and the arbitrator’s decision is final and binding upon the parties. The arbitrator’s authority is limited to interpretation and application of the terms contained in the agreement itself. The agreement reserves to management the right to establish, amend, and enforce “rules and regulations regulating the discipline or discharge of employees” and the procedures for imposing discipline. Such rules were to be posted and were to be in effect “until ruled on by grievance and arbitration procedures as to fairness and necessity.” For about a decade, the Company’s rules had listed as causes for discharge the bringing of intoxicants, narcotics, or controlled substances on to plant property or consuming any of them there, as well as reporting for work under the influence of such substances. At the time of the events involved in this case, the Company was very concerned about the use of drugs at the plant, especially among employees on the night shift.
Isiah Cooper, who worked on the night shift for Misco, was one of the employees covered by the collective-bargaining agreement. He operated a slitter-rewinder machine, which uses sharp blades to cut rolling coils of paper. The arbitrator found that this machine is hazardous and had caused numerous injuries in recent years. Cooper had been reprimanded twice in a few months for deficient performance. On January 21,1983, one day after the second reprimand, the police searched Cooper’s house pursuant to a warrant, and a substantial amount of marijuana was found. Contemporaneously, a police officer was detailed to keep Cooper’s car under observation at the Company’s parking lot. At about 6:30 p.m., Cooper was seen walking in the parking lot during work hours with two other men. The three men entered Cooper’s car momentarily, then walked to another car, a white Cutlass, and entered it. After the other two men later returned to the plant, Cooper was apprehended by police in the backseat of this car with marijuana smoke in the air and a lighted marijuana cigarette in the frontseat ashtray. The police also searched Cooper’s car and found a plastic scales case and marijuana gleanings. Cooper was arrested and charged with marijuana possession.
On January 24, Cooper told the Company that he had been arrested for possession of marijuana at his home; the Company did not learn of the marijuana cigarette in the white Cutlass until January 27. It then investigated and on February 7 discharged Cooper, asserting that in the circumstances, his presence in the Cutlass violated the rule against having drugs on the plant premises. Cooper filed a grievance protesting his discharge the same day, and the matter proceeded to arbitration. The Company was not aware until September 21, five days before the arbitration hearing was scheduled, that marijuana had been found in Cooper’s car. That fact did not become known to the Union until the hearing began. At the hearing it was stipulated that the issue was whether the Company had “just cause to discharge the Grievant under Rule II. 1” and, “[i]f not, what if any should be the remedy.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 26a.
The arbitrator upheld the grievance and ordered the Company to reinstate Cooper with backpay and full seniority. The arbitrator based his finding that there was not just cause for the discharge on his consideration of seven criteria. In particular, the arbitrator found that the Company failed to prove that the employee had possessed or used marijuana on company property: finding Cooper in the backseat of a car and a burning cigarette in the frontseat ashtray was insufficient proof that Cooper was using or possessed marijuana on company property. Id., at 49a-50a. The arbitrator refused to accept into evidence the fact that marijuana had been found in Cooper’s car on company premises because the Company did not know of this fact when Cooper was discharged and therefore did not rely on it as a basis for the discharge.
The Company filed suit in District Court, seeking to vacate the arbitration award on several grounds, one of which was that ordering reinstatement of Cooper, who had allegedly possessed marijuana on the plant premises, was contrary to public policy. The District Court agreed that the award must be set aside as contrary to public policy because it ran counter to general safety concerns that arise from the operation of dangerous machinery while under the influence of drugs, as well as to state criminal laws against drug possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed, with one judge dissenting. The court ruled that reinstatement would violate the public policy “against the operation of dangerous machinery by persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” 768 F. 2d 739, 743 (CA5 1985). The arbitrator had found that Cooper was apprehended on company premises in an atmosphere of marijuana smoke in another’s car and that marijuana was found in his own car on the company lot. These facts established that Cooper had violated the Company’s rules and gave the Company just cause to discharge him. The arbitrator did not reach this conclusion because of a “narrow focus on Cooper’s procedural rights” that led him to ignore what he “knew was in fact true: that Cooper did bring marijuana onto his employer’s premises. ” Ibid. Even if the arbitrator had not known of this fact at the time he entered his award, “it is doubtful that the award should be enforced today in light of what is now known.” Ibid.
Because the Courts of Appeals are divided on the question of when courts may set aside arbitration awards as contravening public policy, we granted the Union’s petition for a writ of certiorari, 479 U. S. 1029 (1987), and now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
II
The Union asserts that an arbitral award may not be set aside on public policy grounds unless the award orders conduct that violates the positive law, which is not the case here. But in the alternative, it submits that even if it is wrong in this regard, the Court of Appeals otherwise exceeded the limited authority that it had to review an arbitrator’s award entered pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement. Respondent, on the other hand, defends the public policy decision of the Court of Appeals but alternatively argues that the judgment below should be affirmed because of erroneous findings by the arbitrator. We deal first with the opposing alternative arguments.
A
Collective-bargaining agreements commonly provide grievance procedures to settle disputes between union and employer with respect to the interpretation and application of the agreement and require binding arbitration for unsettled grievances. In such cases, and this is such a case, the Court made clear almost 30 years ago that the courts play only a limited role when asked to review the decision of an arbitrator. The courts are not authorized to reconsider the merits of an award even though the parties may allege that the award rests on errors of fact or on misinterpretation of the contract. “The refusal of courts to review the merits of an arbitration award is the proper approach to arbitration under collective bargaining agreements. The federal policy of settling labor disputes by arbitration would be undermined if courts had the final say on the merits of the awards.” Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593, 596 (1960). As long as the arbitrator’s award “draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement,” and is not merely “his own brand of industrial justice,” the award is legitimate. Id., at 597.
“The function of the court is very limited when the parties have agreed to submit all questions of contract interpretation to the arbitrator. It is confined to ascertaining whether the party seeking arbitration is making a claim which on its face is governed by the contract. Whether the moving party is right or wrong is a question of contract interpretation for the arbitrator. In these circumstances the moving party should not be deprived of the arbitrator’s judgment, when it was his judgment and all that it connotes that was bargained for.
“The courts, therefore, have no business weighing the merits of the grievance, considering whether there is equity in a particular claim, or determining whether there is particular language in the written instrument which will support the claim.” Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564, 567-568 (1960) (emphasis added; footnote omitted).
See also AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U. S. 643, 649-650 (1986).
The reasons for insulating arbitral decisions from judicial review are grounded in the federal statutes regulating labor-management relations. These statutes reflect a decided preference for private settlement of labor disputes without the intervention of government: The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 154, 29 U. S. C. § 173(d), provides that “[f]inal adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is hereby declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes arising over the application or interpretation of an existing collective-bargaining agreement.” See also AT&T Technologies, supra, at 650. The courts have jurisdiction to enforce collective-bargaining contracts; but where the contract provides grievance and arbitration procedures, those procedures must first be exhausted and courts must order resort to the private settlement mechanisms without dealing with the merits of the dispute. Because the parties have contracted to have disputes settled by an arbitrator chosen by them rather than by a judge, it is the arbitrator’s view of the facts and of the meaning of the contract that they have agreed to accept. Courts thus do not sit to hear claims of factual or legal error by an arbitrator as an appellate court does in reviewing decisions of lower courts. To resolve disputes about the application of a collective-bargaining agreement, an arbitrator must find facts and a court may not reject those findings simply because it disagrees with them. The same is true of the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract. The arbitrator may not ignore the plain language of the contract; but the parties having authorized the arbitrator to give meaning to the language of the agreement, a court should not reject an award on the ground that the arbitrator misread the contract. Enterprise Wheel, supra, at 599. So, too, where it is contemplated that the arbitrator will determine remedies for contract violations that he finds, courts have no authority to disagree with his honest judgment in that respect. If the courts were free to intervene on these grounds, the speedy resolution of grievances by private mechanisms would be greatly undermined. Furthermore, it must be remembered that grievance and arbitration procedures are part and parcel of the ongoing process of collective bargaining. It is through these processes that the supplementary rules of the plant are established. As the Court has said, the arbitrator’s award settling a dispute with respect to the interpretation or application of a labor agreement must draw its essence from the contract and cannot simply reflect the arbitrator’s own notions of industrial justice. But as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision. Of course, decisions procured by the parties through fraud or through the arbitrator’s dishonesty need not be enforced. But there is nothing of that sort involved in this case.
B
The Company’s position, simply put, is that the arbitrator committed grievous error in finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Cooper had possessed or used marijuana on company property. But the Court of Appeals, although it took a distinctly jaundiced view of the arbitrator’s decision in this regard, was not free to refuse enforcement because it considered Cooper’s presence in the white Cutlass, in the circumstances, to be ample proof that Rule II. 1 was violated. No dishonesty is alleged; only improvident, even silly, factfinding is claimed. This is hardly a sufficient basis for disregarding what the agent appointed by the parties determined to be the historical facts.
Nor was it open to the Court of Appeals to refuse to enforce the award because the arbitrator, in deciding whether there was just cause to discharge, refused to consider evidence unknown to the Company at the time Cooper was fired. The parties bargained for arbitration to settle disputes and were free to set the procedural rules for arbitrators to follow if they chose. Article VI of the agreement, entitled “Arbitration Procedure,” did set some ground rules for the arbitration process. It forbade the arbitrator to consider hearsay evidence, for example, but evidentiary matters were otherwise left to the arbitrator. App. 19. Here the arbitrator ruled that in determining whether Cooper had violated Rule II. 1, he should not consider evidence not relied on by the employer in ordering the discharge, particularly in a case like this where there was no notice to the employee or the Union prior to the hearing that the Company would attempt to rely on after-discovered evidence. This, in effect, was a construction of what the contract required when deciding discharge cases: an arbitrator was to look only at the evidence before the employer at the time of discharge. As the arbitrator noted, this approach was consistent with the practice followed by other arbitrators. And it was consistent with our observation in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S 543, 557 (1964), that when the subject matter of a dispute is arbitrable, “procedural” questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition are to be left to the arbitrator.
Under the Arbitration Act, the federal courts are empowered to set aside arbitration awards on such grounds only when “the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct... in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy.” 9 U. S. C. § 10(c). See Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U. S. 145 (1968). If we apply that same standard here and assume that the arbitrator erred in refusing to consider the disputed evidence, his error was not in bad faith or so gross as to amount to affirmative misconduct. Finally, it is worth noting that putting aside the evidence about the marijuana found in Cooper’s car during this arbitration did not forever foreclose the Company from using that evidence as the basis for a discharge.
Even if it were open to the Court of Appeals to have found a violation of Rule II. 1 because of the marijuana found in Cooper’s car, the question remains whether the court could properly set aside the award because in its view discharge was the correct remedy. Normally, an arbitrator is authorized to disagree with the sanction imposed for employee misconduct. In Enterprise Wheel, for example, the arbitrator reduced the discipline from discharge to a 10-day suspension. The Court of Appeals refused to enforce the award, but we reversed, explaining that though the arbitrator’s decision must draw its essence from the agreement, he “is to bring his informed judgment to bear in order to reach a fair solution of a problem. This is especially true when it comes to formulating remedies.” 363 U. S., at 597 (emphasis added). The parties, of course, may limit the discretion of the arbitrator in this respect; and it may be, as the Company argues, that under the contract involved here, it was within the unreviewable discretion of management to discharge an employee once a violation of Rule II. 1 was found. But the parties stipulated that the issue before the arbitrator was whether there was “just” cause for the discharge, and the arbitrator, in the course of his opinion, cryptically observed that Rule II. 1 merely listed causes for discharge and did not expressly provide for immediate discharge. Before disposing of the case on the ground that Rule II. 1 had been violated and discharge was therefore proper, the proper course would have been remand to the arbitrator for a definitive construction of the contract in this respect.
C
The Court of Appeals did not purport to take this course in any event. Rather, it held that the evidence of marijuana in Cooper’s car required that the award be set aside because to reinstate a person who had brought drugs onto the property was contrary to the public policy “against the operation of dangerous machinery by persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” 768 F. 2d, at 743. We cannot affirm that judgment.
A court’s refusal to enforce an arbitrator’s award under a collective-bargaining agreement because it is contrary to public policy is a specific application of the more general doctrine, rooted in the common law, that a court may refuse to enforce contracts that violate law or public policy. W. R. Grace & Co. v. Rubber Workers, 461 U. S. 757, 766 (1983); Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24, 34-35 (1948). That doctrine derives from the basic notion that no court will lend its aid to one who founds a cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act, and is further justified by the observation that the public’s interests in confining the scope of private agreements to which it is not a party will go unrepresented unless the judiciary takes account of those interests when it considers whether to enforce such agreements. E. g., McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U. S. 639, 654-655 (1899); Twin City Pipe Line Co. v. Harding Glass Co., 283 U. S. 353, 356-358 (1931). In the common law of contracts, this doctrine has served as the foundation for occasional exercises of judicial power to abrogate private agreements.
In W. R. Grace, we recognized that “a court may not enforce a collective-bargaining agreement that is contrary to public policy,” and stated that “the question of public policy is ultimately one for resolution by the courts.” 461 U. S., at 766. We cautioned, however, that a court’s refusal to enforce an arbitrator’s interpretation of such contracts is limited to situations where the contract as interpreted would violate “some explicit public policy” that is “well defined and dominant, and is to be ascertained ‘by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.’” Ibid, (quoting Muschany v. United States, 324 U. S. 49, 66 (1945)). In W. R. Grace, we identified two important public policies that were potentially jeopardized by the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract: obedience to judicial orders and voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We went on to hold that enforcement of the arbitration award in that case did not compromise either of the two public policies allegedly threatened by the award. Two points follow from our decision in W. R. Grace. First, a court may refuse to enforce a collective-bargaining agreement when the specific terms contained in that agreement violate public policy. Second, it is apparent that our decision in that case does not otherwise sanction a broad judicial power to set aside arbitration awards as against public policy. Although we discussed the effect of that award on two broad areas of public policy, our decision turned on our examination of whether the award created any explicit conflict with other “laws and legal precedents” rather than an assessment of “general considerations of supposed public interests.” 461 U. S., at 766. At the very least, an alleged public policy must be properly framed under the approach set out in W. R. Grace, and the violation of such a policy must be clearly shown if an award is not to be enforced.
As we see it, the formulation of public policy set out by the Court of Appeals did not comply with the statement that such a policy must be “ascertained ‘by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.’” Ibid, (quoting Muschany v. United States, supra, at 66). The Court of Appeals made no attempt to review existing laws and legal precedents in order to demonstrate that they establish a “well-defined and dominant” policy against the operation of dangerous machinery while under the influence of drugs. Although certainly such a judgment is firmly rooted in common sense, we explicitly held in W. R. Grace that a formulation of public policy based only on “general considerations of supposed public interests” is not the sort that permits a court to set aside an arbitration award that was entered in accordance with a valid collective-bargaining agreement.
Even if the Court of Appeals’ formulation of public policy is to be accepted, no violation of that policy was clearly shown in this case. In pursuing its public policy inquiry, the Court of Appeals quite properly considered the established fact that traces of marijuana had been found in Cooper’s car. Yet the assumed connection between the marijuana gleanings found in Cooper’s car and Cooper’s actual use of drugs in the workplace is tenuous at best and provides an insufficient basis for holding that his reinstatement would actually violate the public policy identified by the Court of Appeals “against the operation of dangerous machinery by persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” 768 F. 2d, at 743. A refusal to enforce an award must rest on more than speculation or assumption.
In any event, it was inappropriate for the Court of Appeals itself to draw the necessary inference. To conclude from the fact that marijuana had been found in Cooper’s car that Cooper had ever been or would be under the influence of marijuana while he was on the job and operating dangerous machinery is an exercise in factfinding about Cooper’s use of drugs and his amenability to discipline, a task that exceeds the authority of a court asked to overturn an arbitration award. The parties did not bargain for the facts to be found by a court, but by an arbitrator chosen by them who had more opportunity to observe Cooper and to be familiar with the plant and its problems. Nor does the fact that it is inquiring into a possible violation of public policy excuse a court for doing the arbitrator’s task. If additional facts were to be found, the arbitrator should find them in the course of any further effort the Company might have made to discharge Cooper for having had marijuana in his car on company premises. Had the arbitrator found that Cooper had possessed drugs on the property, yet imposed discipline short of discharge because he found as a factual matter that Cooper could be trusted not to use them on the job, the Court of Appeals could not upset the award because of its own view that public policy about plant safety was threatened. In this connection it should also be noted that the award ordered Cooper to be reinstated in his old job or in an equivalent one for which he was qualified. It is by no means clear from the record that Cooper would pose a serious threat to the asserted public policy in every job for which he was qualified.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
So ordered.
App. 20-21. The language quoted is from Article XI of the agreement, which concerns maintenance of discipline. Article VI of the agreement sets out the arbitration procedure. Id,., at 18-20. The reserved rights of management are specified in Article IV of the agreement. Id., at 13-15.
Rule II. 1 lists the following as causes for discharge: “Bringing intoxicants, narcotics, or controlled substances into, or consuming intoxicants, narcotics or controlled substances in the plant, or on plant premises. Reporting for duty under the influence of intoxicants, narcotics, or controlled substances.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 31a.
Cooper later pleaded guilty to that charge, which was not related to his being in a car with a lighted marijuana cigarette in it. The authorities chose not to prosecute for the latter incident.
The Company asserted that being in a car with a lit marijuana cigarette was a direct violation of the company rule against having an illegal substance on company property. App. 23.
These considerations were the reasonableness of the employer’s position, the notice given to the employee, the timing of the investigation undertaken, the fairness of the investigation, the evidence against the employee, the possibility of discrimination, and the relation of the degree of discipline to the nature of the offense and the employee’s past record.
The arbitrator stated: “One of the rules in arbitration is that the Company must have its proof in hand before it takes disciplinary action against an employee. The Company does not take the disciplinary action and then spend eight months digging up supporting evidence to justify its actions. In addition, the use of the gleanings evidence prevented the Grievant from knowing the full extent of the charge against him. Who knows what action the Grievant or the Union would have taken if the gleanings evidence had been made known from the outset of the Company’s investigation.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 47a.
The decision below accords with the broader view of the courts’ power taken by the First and Seventh Circuits. See, e. g., United States Postal Service v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 736 F. 2d 822 (CA1 1984); E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Grasselli Employees Independent Assn, of East Chicago, Inc., 790 F. 2d 611 (CA7), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 853 (1986). A narrower view has been taken by the Ninth and District of Columbia Circuits. See, e. g., Bevles Co. v. Teamsters Local 986, 791 F. 2d 1391 (CA9 1986); Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Assn. International, 257 U. S. App. D. C. 181, 808 F. 2d 76 (1987); American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service, 252 U. S. App. D. C. 169, 789 F. 2d 1 (1986).
Labor arbitrators have stated that the correctness of a discharge “must stand or fall upon the reason given at the time of discharge,” see, e. g., West Va. Pulp & Paper Co., 10 Lab. Arb. 117, 118 (1947), and arbitrators often, but not always, confine their considerations to the facts known to the employer at the time of the discharge. 0. Fairweather, Practice and Procedure in Labor Arbitration 308-306 (2d ed. 1983); F. Elkouri & E. Elkouri, How Arbitration Works 634-635 (3d ed. 1973).
The Arbitration Act does not apply to “contracts of employment of. . . workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” 9 U. S. C. § 1, but the federal courts have often looked to the Act for guidance in labor arbitration cases, especially in the wake of the holding that § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185, empowers the federal courts to fashion rules of federal common law to govern “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization” under the federal labor laws. Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957) (construing 29 U. S. C. § 185). See, e. g., Ludwig Honold Mfg. Co. v. Fletcher, 405 F. 2d 1123 (CA3 1969); Pietro Scalzitti Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 150, 351 F. 2d 576 (CA7 1965).
Even in the very rare instances when an arbitrator’s procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct, as a rule the court must not foreclose further proceedings by settling the merits according to its own judgment of the appropriate result, since this step would improperly substitute a judicial determination for the arbitrator’s decision that the parties bargained for in the collective-bargaining agreement. Instead, the court should simply vacate the award, thus leaving open the possibility of further proceedings if they are permitted under the terms of the agreement. The court also has the authority to remand for further proceedings when this step seems appropriate. See, e. g., Amalgamated Food & Allied Workers Union, Local 56 v. Great A&P Tea Co., 415 F. 2d 185 (CA3 1969) (vacating and remanding to the arbitrators for decision after finding that the arbitrators declined to arbitrate the issues submitted). See also 9 U. S. C. § 10(e) (“Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators”).
The issue of safety in the workplace is a commonplace issue for arbitrators to consider in discharge cases, and it was a matter for the arbitrator in the first instance to decide whether Cooper’s alleged use of drugs on the job would actually pose a danger. That is not a problem here, for the arbitrator recognized that being under the influence of marijuana while operating slitter-rewinder machinery was indeed dangerous, and no one disputed this point. '
We need not address the Union’s position that a court may refuse to enforce an award on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates a statute, regulation, or other manifestation of positive law, or compels conduct by the employer that would violate such a law.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents are individual Medicare claimants who raise various challenges to the policy of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) as to the payment of Medicare benefits for a surgical procedure known as bilateral carotid body resection (BCBR). The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding that in essence respondents are claiming entitlement to benefits for the BCBR procedure and therefore must exhaust their administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 405(g), before pursuing their action in federal court. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration on the merits. 697 F. 2d 1291 (1982). We granted certiorari to sort out the thorny jurisdictional problems which respondents’ claims present, 463 U. S. 1206 (1983), and we now reverse as to all respondents.
I
Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 79 Stat. 291, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395 et seq., commonly known as the Medicare Act, establishes a federally subsidized health insurance program to be administered by the Secretary. Part A of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1395c et seq., provides insurance for the cost of hospital and related posthospital services, but the Act precludes reimbursement for any “items or services... which are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury.” § 1395y(a)(l). The Medicare Act authorizes the Secretary to determine what claims are covered by the Act “in accordance with the regulations prescribed by him.” § 1395ff(a). Judicial review of claims arising under the Medicare Act is available only after the Secretary renders a “final decision” on the claim, in the same manner as is provided in 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) for old age and disability claims arising under Title II of the Social Security Act. 42 U. S. C. § 1395ff(b)(l)(C).
Pursuant to her rulemaking authority, see 42 U. S. C. §§1395hh, 1395Ü (incorporating 42 U. S. C. § 405(a)), the Secretary has provided that a “final decision” is rendered on a Medicare claim only after the individual claimant has pressed his claim through all designated levels of administrative review. First, the Medicare Act authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with fiscal intermediaries providing that the latter will determine whether a particular medical service is covered by Part A, and if so, the amount of the reimbursable expense for that service. 42 U. S. C. § 1395h; 42 CFR § 405.702 (1983). If the intermediary determines that a particular service is not covered under Part A, the claimant can seek Teconsideration by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) in the Department of Health and Human Services. 42 CFR §§405.710-405.716 (1983). If denial of the claim is affirmed after reconsideration and if the claim exceeds $100, the claimant is entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge (AL J) in the same manner as is provided for claimants under Title II of the Act. 42 U. S. C. §§ 1395ff(b)(l)(C), (b)(2); 42 CFR §405.720 (1983). If the claim is again denied, the claimant may seek review in the Appeals Council. 42 CFR §§405.701(c), 405.724 (1983) (incorporating 20 CFR §404.967 (1983)). If the Appeals Council also denies the claim and if the claim exceeds $1,000, only then may the claimant seek judicial review in federal district court of the “Secretary’s final decision.” 42 U. S. C. §§ 1395ff(b)(l)(C), (b)(2).
In January 1979, the Secretary through the HCFA issued an administrative instruction to all fiscal intermediaries, instructing them that no payment is to be made for Medicare claims arising out of the BCBR surgical procedure when performed to relieve respiratory distress. See 45 Fed. Reg. 71431-71432 (1980) (reproducing the instruction). Relying on information from the Public Health Service and a special Task Force of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, id., at 71426, the HCFA explained that BCBR has been “shown to lack [the] general acceptance of the professional medical community” and that “controlled clinical studies establishing the safety and effectiveness of this procedure are needed.” Id., at 71431. It concluded that the procedure “must be considered investiga-tional” and not “reasonable and necessary” within the meaning of the Medicare Act. Ibid.
Many claimants whose BCBR claims were denied by the intermediaries as a result of the instruction sought review of the denial before ALJs, who were not bound by the Secretary’s instructions to the intermediaries. Until October 1980, ALJs were consistently ruling in favor of individual BCBR claimants. The Appeals Council also authorized payment for BCRB Part A expenses in a consolidated case involving numerous claimants, see In re Ferguson, No. [ XXX-XX-XXXX ] (HHS Appeals Council, Oct. 18, 1979), while stressing that its decision applied only to the claimants involved in that case and was not to be cited as precedent in future cases.
In response to the rulings of the ALJs and the Appeals Council, on October 28, 1980, the Secretary through the HCFA issued a formal administrative ruling, intended to have binding effect on the ALJs and the Appeals Council, see 20 CFR §422.408 (1983), prohibiting them in all individual cases from ordering Medicare payments for BCBR operations occurring after that date. 45 Fed. Reg. 71426-71427 (1980). In the ruling the Secretary noted that she had examined the proceedings in In re Ferguson, had consulted with the Public Health Service, and again had concluded that the BCBR procedure was not “reasonable and necessary” within the meaning of the Medicare Act. Ibid.
On September 18, 1980, respondents in this case filed a complaint in the District Court for the Central District of California, raising numerous challenges focused on the Secretary’s January 1979 instructions to her intermediaries precluding payment for BCBR surgery. On November 7,1980, after the Secretary issued the formal ruling binding on the ALJs and the Appeals Council as well as the intermediaries, respondents amended their complaint to challenge that ruling as well. Respondents relied on 28 U. S. C. § 1381 (federal question), 28 U. S. C. §1361 (mandamus against a federal official), and 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) (Social Security Act), to establish jurisdiction in the District Court.
The individuals named in the amended complaint, who are respondents before this Court, are four individual Medicare claimants. Their physician, Dr. Benjamin Winter, who has developed a special technique for performing BCBR surgery and who has performed the surgery over 1,000 times, prescribed BCBR surgery for all four respondents to relieve their pulmonary problems. Respondents Sanford Holmes, Norman Webster-Zieber, and Jean Vescio had the surgery before October 28, 1980, and all three filed a claim for reimbursement with their fiscal intermediary. At the time that the amended complaint was filed, none of the three had exhausted their administrative remedies, and thus none had received a “final decision” on their claims for benefits from the Secretary. The fourth respondent, Freeman Ringer, informally inquired of the Secretary and learned that BCBR surgery is not covered under the Medicare Act. Thus he has never had the surgery, claiming that he is unable to afford it. App. 32.
The essence of their amended complaint is that the Secretary has a constitutional and statutory obligation to provide payment for BCBR surgery because overwhelmingly her ALJs have ordered payment when they have considered individual BCBR claims. Id., at 9-10. According to the complaint, the Secretary’s instructions to the contrary to her intermediaries violate constitutional due process and numerous statutory provisions in that they force eligible Medicare claimants who have had BCBR surgery to pursue individual administrative appeals in order to get payment, even though ALJs overwhelmingly have determined that payment is appropriate. Id., at 16-22. Regarding the Secretary’s formal administrative ruling, the complaint asserts that the ruling merely reaffirms the instructions and creates an “additional administrative barrier” to Medicare beneficiaries desiring the BCBR treatment, and that it also is unlawful on numerous substantive and procedural grounds. Id., at 23-25. The complaint seeks a declaration that the Secretary’s refusal to find that BCBR surgery is “reasonable and necessary” under the Act is unlawful, an injunction compelling the Secretary to instruct her intermediaries to provide payment for BCBR claims, and an injunction barring the Secretary from forcing claimants to pursue individual administrative appeals in order to obtain payment. Id., at 9-10, 25-27.
The District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction. It concluded that “[t]he essence of [respondents’ claim]... is a claim of entitlement [to] benefits for the BCBR procedure,” and that any challenges respondents raise to the Secretary’s procedures are “inextricably intertwined” with their claim for benefits. App. to Pet. for Cert. 14a. Thus the court concluded that 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) with its administrative exhaustion prerequisite provides the sole avenue for judicial review. Relying on our decision in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 330-332 (1976), the court concluded that none of respondents’ claims are so “collateral” to their overall claim for benefits that the exhaustion requirement should be waived as to those claims. Because none of the named respondents have satisfied the exhaustion prerequisite of § 405(g), the court dismissed the complaint.
On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. It concluded that the thrust of respondents’ claim is that “the Secretary’s presumptive rule that the BCBR operation is not reasonable and necessary was an unlawful administrative mechanism for determining awards of benefits.” 697 F. 2d, at 1294. The Court of Appeals concluded that to the extent that respondents are seeking to invalidate the Secretary’s 'procedure for determining entitlement to benefits, those claims are cognizable without the requirement of administrative exhaustion under the federal-question statute, 28 U. S. C. §1331, and the mandamus statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1361. 697 F. 2d, at 1294.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that respondents also had raised substantive claims for benefits, in that they had sought an injunction requiring the Secretary to declare that BCBR is reasonable and necessary under the Act. In the Court of Appeals’ view, the fact that respondents had not sought an actual award of benefits in their complaint did not alter the court’s characterization of a portion of their claim as essentially a claim for benefits. Ibid. Acknowledging that § 405(g) with its exhaustion prerequisite provides the only jurisdictional basis for seeking judicial review of claims for benefits, the court nonetheless concluded that the District Court had erred in requiring respondents to exhaust their administrative remedies in this case. Relying on our opinions in Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749 (1975), and Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, the Court of Appeals concluded that exhaustion would be futile for respondents and that it may not fully compensate them for the injuries they assert because they seek payment without the prejudice— and the necessity of appeal — resulting from the existence of the instructions and the rule. 697 F. 2d, at 1294-1296. Because we disagree with the Court of Appeals’ characterization of the claims at issue in this case and its reading of our precedents, we now reverse.
HH I — i
Preliminarily, we must point out that, although the Court of Appeals seemed not to have distinguished them, there are in fact two groups of respondents in this case. Respondents Holmes, Vescio, and Webster-Zieber constitute one group of respondents, those who have had BCBR surgery before October 28, 1980, and who have requested reimbursement at some, but not all, levels of the administrative process. Although the Court of Appeals did not seem to realize it, there is no dispute that the Secretary’s formal administrative ruling simply does not apply to those three respondents’ claims for reimbursement for their BCBR surgery. Their claims only make sense then if they are understood as challenges to the Secretary’s instructions to her intermediaries, instructions which resulted in those respondents’ having to pursue administrative remedies in order to get payment. They have standing to challenge the formal ruling as well only because, construing their complaint liberally, they argue that the existence of the formal rule creates a presumption against payment of their claims in the administrative process, even though the rule does not directly apply to bar their claims. The relief respondents request is that the Secretary change her policy so as to allow payment for BCBR surgery so that respondents simply will not have to resort to the administrative process.
It seems to us that it makes no sense to construe the claims of those three respondents as anything more than, at bottom, a claim that they should be paid for their BCBR surgery. Arguably respondents do assert objections to the Secretary’s “procedure” for reaching her decision — for example, they challenge her decision to issue a generally applicable rule rather than to allow individual adjudication, and they challenge her alleged failure to comply with the rulemaking requirements of the APA in issuing the instructions and the rule. We agree with the District Court, however, that those claims are “inextricably intertwined” with respondents’ claims for benefits. Indeed the relief that respondents seek to redress their supposed “procedural” objections is the invalidation of the Secretary’s current policy and a “substantive” declaration from her that the expenses of BCBR surgery are reimbursable under the Medicare Act. We conclude that all aspects of respondents’ claim for benefits should be channeled first into the administrative process which Congress has provided for the determination of claims for benefits. We, therefore, disagree with the Court of Appeals’ separation of the particular claims here into “substantive” and “procedural” elements. We disagree in particular with its apparent conclusion that simply because a claim somehow can be construed as “procedural,” it is cognizable in federal district court by way of federal-question jurisdiction.
The third sentence of 42 U. S. C. § 405(h), made applicable to the Medicare Act by 42 U. S. C. § 1B95Ü, provides that § 405(g), to the exclusion of 28 U. S. C. § 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all “claim[s] arising under” the Medicare Act. See Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, at 760-761. Thus, to be true to the language of the statute, the inquiry in determining whether § 405(h) bars federal-question jurisdiction must be whether the claim “arises under” the Act, not whether it lends itself to a “substantive” rather than a “procedural” label. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 327 (recognizing that federal-question jurisdiction is barred by 42 U. S. C. § 405(h) even in a case where claimant is challenging the administrative procedures used to terminate welfare benefits).
In Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, at 760-761, we construed the “claim arising under” language quite broadly to include any claims in which “both the standing and the substantive basis for the presentation” of the claims is the Social Security Act. In that case we held that a constitutional challenge to the duration-of-relationship eligibility statute pursuant to which the claimant had been denied benefits, was a “claim arising under” Title II of the Social Security Act within the meaning of 42 U. S. C. § 405(h), even though we recognized that it was in one sense also a claim arising under the Constitution.
Under that broad test, we have no trouble concluding that all aspects of respondents Holmes’, Vescio’s, and Webster-Zieber’s challenge to the Secretary’s BCBR payment policy “aris[e] under” the Medicare Act. It is of no importance that respondents here, unlike the claimants in Weinberger v. Salfi, sought only declaratory and injunctive relief and not an actual award of benefits as well. Following the declaration which respondents seek from the Secretary — that BCBR surgery is a covered service — only essentially ministerial details will remain before respondents would receive reimbursement. Had our holding in Weinberger v. Salfi turned on the fact that claimants there did seek retroactive benefits, we might well have done as the dissent in that case suggested and held that § 405(h) barred federal-question jurisdiction only over claimants’ specific request for benefits, and not over claimants’ declaratory and injunctive claims as well. See 422 U. S., at 798-799, and n. 13 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Thus we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that any portion of Holmes’, Vescio’s, or Webster-Zieber’s claims here can be channeled into federal court by way of federal-question jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals also relied on the mandamus statute as a basis for finding jurisdiction over a portion of those three respondents’ claims. We have on numerous occasions declined to decide whether the third sentence of § 405(h) bars mandamus jurisdiction over claims arising under the Social Security Act, either because we have determined that jurisdiction was otherwise available under § 405(g), see Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 698 (1979); Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, at 332, n. 12, or because we have determined that the merits of the mandamus claim were clearly insubstantial, Norton v. Mathews, 427 U. S. 524, 528-533 (1976). We need not decide the effect of the third sentence of § 405(h) on the availability of mandamus jurisdiction in Social Security cases here either.
Assuming without deciding that the third sentence of § 405(h) does not foreclose mandamus jurisdiction in all Social Security cases, see generally Dietsch v. Schweiker, 700 F. 2d 865, 867-868 (CA2 1983); Ellis v. Blum, 643 F. 2d 68, 78-82 (CA2 1981), the District Court did not err in dismissing respondents’ complaint here because it is clear that no writ of mandamus could properly issue in this case. The common-law writ of mandamus, as codified in 28 U. S. C. § 1361, is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty. See Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U. S. 394, 402-403 (1976) (discussing 28 U. S. C. § 1651); United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v. Helvering, 301 U. S. 540, 543-544 (1937).
Here respondents clearly have an adequate remedy in § 405(g) for challenging all aspects of the Secretary’s denial of their claims for payment for the BCBR surgery, including any objections they have to the instructions or to the ruling if either ultimately should play a part in the Secretary’s denial of their claims. The Secretary’s decision as to whether a particular medical service is “reasonable and necessary” and the means by which she implements her decision, whether by promulgating a generally applicable rule or by allowing individual adjudication, are clearly discretionary decisions. See 42 U. S. C. §1395ff(a); see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U. S. 458, 467 (1983).
Thus § 405(g) is the only avenue for judicial review of respondents’ Holmes’, Vescio’s, and Webster-Zieber’s claims for benefits, and, when their complaint was filed in District Court, each had failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement that is a prerequisite to jurisdiction under that provision. We have previously explained that the exhaustion requirement of § 405(g) consists of a nonwaivable requirement that a “claim for benefits shall have been presented to the Secretary,” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 328, and a waivable requirement that the administrative remedies prescribed by the Secretary be pursued fully by the claimant. Ibid. All three respondents satisfied the nonwaivable requirement by presenting a claim for reimbursement for the expenses of their BCBR surgery, but none satisfied the waivable requirement.
Respondents urge us to hold them excused from further exhaustion and to hold that the District Court could have properly exercised jurisdiction over their claims under § 405(g). We have held that the Secretary herself may waive the exhaustion requirement when she deems further exhaustion futile, Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 76-77 (1976); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S., at 766-767. We have also recognized that in certain special cases, deference to the Secretary’s conclusion as to the utility of pursuing the claim through administrative channels is not always appropriate. We held that Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, at 330-332, was such a case, where the plaintiff asserted a procedural challenge to the Secretary’s denial of a pretermination hearing, a claim that was wholly “collateral” to his claim for benefits, and where he made a colorable showing that his injury could not be remedied by the retroactive payment of benefits after exhaustion of his administrative remedies.
The latter exception to exhaustion is inapplicable here where respondents do not raise a claim that is wholly “collateral” to their claim for benefits under the Act, and where they have no colorable claim that an erroneous denial of BCBR benefits in the early stages of the administrative process will injure them in a way that cannot be remedied by the later payment of benefits. And here, it cannot be said that the Secretary has in any sense waived further exhaustion. In the face of the Secretary’s vigorous disagreement, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Secretary’s formal ruling denying payment for BCBR claims rendered further exhaustion by respondents futile. But as we have pointed out above, the administrative ruling is not even applicable to respondents’ claims because they had their surgery before October 28, 1980. We therefore agree with the Secretary that exhaustion is in no sense futile for these three respondents and that the Court of Appeals erred in second-guessing the Secretary’s judgment.
Respondents also argue that there would be a presumption against them as they pursue their administrative appeals because of the very existence of the Secretary’s instructions and her formal ruling and thus that exhaustion would not fully vindicate their claims. The history of this litigation as recited to us by respondents belies that conclusion. Indeed, according to respondents themselves, in every one of 170 claims filed with ALJs between the time of the Secretary’s instructions to her intermediaries and the filing of this lawsuit, before the formal ruling became effective, ALJs allowed recovery for BCBR claims. Brief for Respondents 3. In promulgating the formal ruling, the Secretary took pains to exempt from the scope of the ruling individuals in respondents’ position who may have had the surgery relying on the favorable ALJ rulings. 45 Fed. Reg. 71427 (1980). Although respondents would clearly prefer an immediate appeal to the District Court rather than the often lengthy administrative review process, exhaustion of administrative remedies is in no sense futile for these respondents, and they, therefore, must adhere to the administrative procedure which Congress has established for adjudicating their Medicare claims.
1 — 1 1 — I
Respondent Ringer is in a separate group from the other three respondents in this case. He raises the same challenges to the instructions and to the formal ruling as are raised by the other respondents. His position is different from theirs, however, because he wishes to have the operation and claims that the Secretary's refusal to allow payment for it precludes him from doing so. Because Ringer’s surgery, if he ultimately chooses to have it, would occur after the effective date of the formal ruling, Ringer’s claim for reimbursement, unlike that of the others, would be covered by the formal ruling. Ringer insists that, just as in the case of the other three respondents, the only relief that will vindicate his claim is a declaration that the formal ruling, and presumably the instructions as well, are invalid and an injunction compelling the Secretary to conclude that BCBR surgery is “reasonable and necessary” within the meaning of the Medicare Act. It is only after that declaration and injunction, Ringer insists, that he will be assured of payment and thus only then that he will be able to have the operation.
Again, regardless of any arguably procedural components, we see Ringer’s claim as essentially one requesting the payment of benefits for BCBR surgery, a claim cognizable only under § 405(g). Our discussion of the unavailabilty of mandamus jurisdiction over the claims of the other three respondents is equally applicable to Ringer. As to § 1331 jurisdiction, as with the other three respondents, all aspects of Ringer’s claim “aris[e] under” the Medicare Act in that the Medicare Act provides both the substance and the standing for Ringer’s claim, Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S., at 760-761. Thus, consistent with our decision with respect to the other three respondents, we hold that §§1331 and 1361 are not available as jurisdictional bases for vindicating Ringer’s claim.
Ringer’s situation does differ from that of the other three respondents in one arguably significant way. Because he has not yet had the operation and thus has no reimbursable expenses, it can be argued that Ringer does not yet have a "claim” to present to the Secretary and thus that he does not have a “claim arising under” the Medicare Act so as to be subject to § 405(h)’s bar to federal-question jurisdiction. The argumént is not that Ringer’s claim does not “arise under” the Medicare Act as we interpreted that term in Weinberger v. Salfi; it is rather that it has not yet blossomed into a “claim” cognizable under § 405(g). We find that argument superficially appealing but ultimately unavailing.
Although it is true that Ringer is not seeking the immediate payment of benefits, he is clearly seeking to establish a right to future payments should he ultimately decide to proceed with BCBR surgery. See Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n v. Schweiker, 715 F. 2d 282, 287 (CA7 1983). The claim for future benefits must be construed as a “claim arising under” the Medicare Act because any other construction would allow claimants substantially to undercut Congress’ carefully crafted scheme for administering the Medicare Act.
If we allow claimants in Ringer’s position to challenge in federal court the Secretary’s determination, embodied in her rule, that BCBR surgery is not a covered service, we would be inviting them to bypass the exhaustion requirements of the Medicare Act by simply bringing declaratory judgment actions in federal court before they undergo the medical procedure in question. Ibid. Congress clearly foreclosed the possibility of obtaining such advisory opinions from the Secretary herself, requiring instead that a claim could be filed for her scrutiny only after the medical service for which payment is sought has been furnished. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 1395d(a), 1395f(a); 42 CFR §§405.1662-495.1667 (1983). Under the guise of interpreting the language of § 405(h), we refuse to undercut that choice by allowing federal judges to issue such advisory opinions. Thus it is not the case that Ringer has no “claim” cognizable under § 405(g); it is that he must pursue his claim under that section in the manner which Congress has provided. Because Ringer has not given the Secretary an opportunity to rule on a concrete claim for reimbursement, he has not satisfied the nonwaivable exhaustion requirement of § 405(g). The District Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction as to respondent Ringer.
With respect to our holding that there is no jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331, the dissent argues that § 405(h) is not a bar to § 1331 jurisdiction because Ringer’s challenge to the Secretary’s rule is “arising under” the Administrative Procedure Act, not the Medicare Act. Post, at 633. But the dissent merely resurrects an old argument that has already been raised and rejected before by this Court in Weinberger v. Salfi, supra. As we have already noted earlier, supra, at 615, the Court rejected the argument that the claimant in Salfi could bring his constitutional challenge to a Social Security Act provision in federal court pursuant to § 1331 because the claim was “arising under” the Constitution, not the Social Security Act. Ringer’s claim may well “aris[e] under” the APA in the same sense that Salfi’s claim arose under the Constitution, but we held in Salfi that the constitutional claim was nonetheless barred by § 405(h). It would be anomalous indeed for this Court to breathe life into the dissent’s already discredited statutory argument in order to give greater solicitude to an APA claim than the Court thought the statute allowed it to give to the constitutional claim in Salfi.
The dissent suggests that Salfi is distinguishable on two grounds. First, it seems to suggest that Salfi is distinguishable because, after rejecting the claim that there was jurisdiction under § 1331, the Court in Salfi went on to conclude that there was jurisdiction under § 405(g). Post, at 633-635. We fail to see how the Court’s conclusion that the claimants in Salfi had satisfied all of the prerequisites to jurisdiction under § 405(g) has anything at all to do with the proper construction of § 405(h). If the dissent is suggesting that the meaning of § 405(h) somehow shifts depending on whether a court finds that the waivable and nonwaivable requirements of § 405(g) are met in any given case, that suggestion is simply untenable.
Second, the dissent seems to suggest that Salfi is distinguishable because the claimants there appended a claim for benefits to their claim for declaratory and injunctive relief as to the unconstitutionality of the statute. Post, at 685-637. Again, as we have already pointed out in text, supra, at 615-616, there is no indication in Salfi that our holding in any way depended on the fact that the claimants there sought an award of benefits. Furthermore, today we explicitly hold that our conclusion that the claims of Holmes, Vescio, and Webster-Zieber are barred by § 405(h) is in no way affected by the fact that those respondents did not seek an award of benefits. Supra, at 615-616. If the dissent finds that the fact that Ringer does not expressly ask that he be paid benefits for his future surgery is crucial to its conclusion that his claims are not barred under § 405(h), it is difficult to see why the dissent also does not conclude that the claims of the other three respondents are not barred by § 405(h) for the same reason.
The crux of the dissent’s position as to § 1331 jurisdiction then seems to be that Ringer’s claims do not “arise under” the Medicare Act so as to be barred by § 405(h) because Ringer and his surgeon have not yet filed, and indeed cannot yet file, a concrete claim for reimbursement because Ringer has not yet had BCBR surgery. Thus, in the dissent’s view, if a clamaint wishes to claim entitlement to benefits in ad-vanee of undergoing the procedure for which payment is sought, his claim does not “arise under” the Medicare Act and hence he is not precluded by § 405(h) from resorting to federal-question jurisdiction. But that argument amounts to no more than an assertion that the substance of Ringer’s claim somehow changes and “arises under” another statute simply because he has not satisfied the procedural prerequisites for jurisdiction which Congress has prescribed in § 405(g).
The substance of Ringer’s claim is identical to the substance of the claims of the other three respondents, claims whose substance and standing we have earlier concluded are derived from the Medicare Act. Supra, at 615-616. As we have earlier noted, supra, at 620, the fairest reading of the rather confusing amended complaint is that all respondents, including Ringer, wish both to invalidate the Secretary’s rule and her instructions and to replace them with a new rule that allows them to get payment for BCBR surgery. While it is true that all of the respondents complain about the presumptive nature of the Secretary’s current rule, it is equally true that they all — including Ringer — complain about the burden of exhaustion of administrative remedies and that they all seek relief that will allow them to receive benefits yet bypass that administrative process altogether. App. 9-10; n. 13, supra. With respect to the other three respondents, we hold today that all their claims — identical to Ringer’s— are inextricably intertwined with what we hold is in essence a claim for benefits and that § 1331 jurisdiction over all their claims is barred by § 405(h). Supra, at 614-616. We decline to hold that the same claim asserted by Ringer should somehow be characterized in a different way for the purpose of §1331 jurisdiction simply because Ringer has not satisfied the prerequisites for jurisdiction under § 405(g).
With respect to our holding that Ringer has not satisfied the nonwaivable requirement of § 405(g), the dissent adopts the remarkable view that the Secretary’s promulgation of a rule regarding BCBR surgery satisfies that nonwaivable requirement. The dissent would thus open the doors of the federal courts in the first instance to everyone — those who can and those who cannot afford to pay their surgeons without reliance on Medicare — who thinks that he might be eligible to participate in the Medicare program, who thinks that someday he might wish to have some kind of surgery, and who thinks that this surgery might somehow be affected by a rule that the Secretary has promulgated. Of course, it is of no great moment to the dissent that after adjudicating his claim in federal court, that individual may simply abandon his musings about having surgery. And it is of no great moment to the dissent that Congress, who surely could have provided a scheme whereby claimants could obtain declaratory judgments about their entitlement to benefits, has instead expressly set up a scheme that requires the presentation of a concrete claim to the Secretary.
The dissent’s declaratory judgment notion effectively ignores the scheme which Congress has created and does nothing less than change the whole character of the Medicare system. The dissent argues that its frustration of Congress’ scheme can be limited to the situation where the Secretary has promulgated a rule, or in the dissent’s words, where she has “already issued an advisory opinion” about a certain surgical procedure in the form of a generally applicable rule. Post, at 642-643. Such a quest for restraint is admirable, but the logic of the dissent’s position makes the quest futile. The dissent’s concern in this case is with those perhaps millions of people, like
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276 (1983), we held that the warrantless monitoring of an electronic tracking device (“beeper”) inside a container of chemicals did not violate the Fourth Amendment when it revealed no information that could not have been obtained through visual surveillance. In this case, we are called upon to address two questions left unresolved in Knotts: (1) whether installation of a beeper in a container of chemicals with the consent of the original owner constitutes a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the container is delivered to a buyer having no knowledge of the presence of the beeper, and (2) whether monitoring of a beeper falls within the ambit of the Fourth Amendment when it reveals information that could not have been obtained through visual surveillance.
I
In August 1980 Agent Rottinger of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) learned that respondents James Karo, Richard Horton, and William Harley had ordered 50 gallons of ether from Government informant Carl Muehlenweg of Graphic Photo Design in Albuquerque, N. M. Muehlenweg told Rottinger that the ether was to be used to extract cocaine from clothing that had been imported into the United States. The Government obtained a court order authorizing the installation and monitoring of a beeper in one of the cans of ether. With Muehlenweg’s consent, agents substituted their own can containing a beeper for one of the cans in the shipment and then had all 10 cans painted to give them a uniform appearance.
On September 20, 1980, agents saw Karo pick up the ether from Muehlenweg. They then followed Karo to his house using visual and beeper surveillance. At one point later that day, agents determined by using the beeper that the ether was still inside the house, but they later determined that it had been moved undetected to Horton’s house, where they located it using the beeper. Agent Rottinger could smell the ether from the public sidewalk near Horton’s residence. Two days later, agents discovered that the ether had once again been moved, and, using the beeper, they located it at the residence of Horton’s father. The next day, the beeper was no longer transmitting from Horton’s father’s house, and agents traced the beeper to a commercial storage facility.
Because the beeper equipment was not sensitive enough to allow agents to learn precisely which locker the ether was in, agents obtained a subpoena for the records of the storage company and learned that locker 143 had been rented by Horton. Using the beeper, agents confirmed that the ether was indeed in one of the lockers in the row containing locker 143, and using their noses they detected the odor of ether emanating from locker 143. On October 8 agents obtained an order authorizing installation of an entry tone alarm into the door jamb of the locker so they would be able to tell when the door was opened. While installing the alarm, agents observed that the cans containing ether were still inside. Agents ceased visual and beeper surveillance, relying instead on the entry tone alarm. However, on October 16 Horton retrieved the contents from the locker without sounding the alarm. Agents did not learn of the entry until the manager of the storage facility notified them that Horton had been there.
Using the beeper, agents traced the beeper can to another self-storage facility three days later. Agents detected the smell of ether coming from locker 15 and learned from the manager that Horton and Harley had rented that locker using an alias the same day that the ether had been removed from the first storage facility. The agents obtained an order authorizing the installation of an entry tone alarm in locker 15, but instead of installing that alarm, they obtained consent from the manager of the facility to install a closed-circuit video camera in a locker that had a view of locker 15. On February 6, 1981, agents observed, by means of the video camera, Gene Rhodes and an unidentified woman removing the cans from the locker and loading them onto the rear bed of Horton’s pickup truck. Using both visual and beeper surveillance agents tracked the truck to Rhodes’ residence where it was parked in the driveway. Agents then observed Rhodes and a woman bringing boxes and other items from inside the house and loading the items into the trunk of an automobile. Agents did not see any cans being transferred from the pickup.
At about 6 p. m. on February 6, the car and the pickup left the driveway and traveled along public highways to Taos. During the trip, the two vehicles were under both physical and electronic surveillance. When the vehicles arrived at a house in Taos rented by Horton, Harley, and Michael Steele, the agents did not maintain tight surveillance for fear of detection. When the vehicles left the Taos residence, agents determined, using the beeper monitor, that the beeper can was still inside the house. Again on February 7, the beeper revealed that the ether can was still on the premises. At one point, agents noticed that the windows of the house were wide open on a cold windy day, leading them to suspect that the ether was being used. On February 8, the agents applied for and obtained a warrant to search the Taos residence based in part on information derived through use of the beeper. The warrant was executed on February 10, 1981, and Horton, Harley, Steele, and Evan Roth were arrested, and cocaine and laboratory equipment were seized.
Respondents Karo, Horton, Harley, Steele, and Roth were indicted for conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute it and with the underlying offense. 21 U. S. C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Respondent Rhodes was indicted only for conspiracy to possess. The District Court granted respondents’ pretrial motion to suppress the evidence seized from the Taos residence on the grounds that the initial warrant to install the beeper was invalid and that the Taos seizure was the tainted fruit of an unauthorized installation and monitoring of that beeper. The United States appealed but did not challenge the invalidation of the initial warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed, except with respect to Rhodes, holding that a warrant was required to install the beeper in one of the 10 cans of ether and to monitor it in private dwellings and storage lockers. 710 F. 2d 1433 (CA10 1983). The warrant for the search in Taos and the resulting seizure were tainted by the prior illegal conduct of the Government. The evidence was therefore properly suppressed with respect to respondents Horton, Harley, Steele, and Roth, who were held to have protectible interests in the privacy of the Taos dwelling, and with respect to respondent Karo because the beeper had been installed without a warrant and had been monitored while its ether-can host was in his house. We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari, 464 U. S. 1068 (1984), which raised the question whether a warrant was required to authorize either the installation of the beeper or its subsequent monitoring. We deal with each contention in turn.
II
Because the judgment below in favor of Karo rested in major part on the conclusion that the installation violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that any information obtained from monitoring the beeper was tainted by the initial illegality, we must deal with the legality of the warrantless installation. It is clear that the actual placement of the beeper into the can violated no one’s Fourth Amendment rights. The can into which the beeper was placed belonged at the time to the DEA, and by no stretch of the imagination could it be said that respondents then had any legitimate expectation of privacy in it. The ether and the original 10 cans, on the other hand, belonged to, and were in the possession of, Muehlenweg, who had given his consent to any invasion of those items that occurred. Thus, even if there had been no substitution of cans and the agents had placed the beeper into one of the original 10 cans, Muehlenweg’s consent was sufficient to validate the placement of the beeper in the can. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974); Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731 (1969).
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that before Karo took control of the ether “the DEA and Muehlenweg presumably could do with the can and ether whatever they liked without violating Karo’s rights.” 710 F. 2d, at 1438. It did not hold that the actual placement of the beeper into the ether can violated the Fourth Amendment. Instead, it held that the violation occurred at the time the beeper-laden can was transferred to Karo. The court stated:
“All individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy that objects coming into their rightful ownership do not have electronic devices attached to them, devices that would give law enforcement agents the opportunity to monitor the location of the objects at all times and in every place that the objects are taken, including inside private residences and other areas where the right to be free from warrantless governmental intrusion is unquestioned.” Ibid.
Not surprisingly, the Court of Appeals did not describe the transfer as either a “search” or a “seizure,” for plainly it is neither. A “search” occurs “when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113 (1984). The mere transfer to Karo of a can containing an unmonitored beeper infringed no privacy interest. It conveyed no information that Karo wished to keep private, for it conveyed no information at all. To be sure, it created a potential for an invasion of privacy, but we have never held that potential, as opposed to actual, invasions of privacy constitute searches for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. A holding to that effect would mean that a policeman walking down the street carrying a parabolic microphone capable of picking up conversations in nearby homes would be engaging in a search even if the microphone were not turned on. It is the exploitation of technological advances that implicates the Fourth Amendment, not their mere existence.
We likewise do not believe that the transfer of the container constituted a seizure. A “seizure” of property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.” Ibid. Although the can may have contained an unknown and unwanted foreign object, it cannot be said that anyone’s possessory interest was interfered with in a meaningful way. At most, there was a technical trespass on the space occupied by the beeper. The existence of a physical trespass is only marginally relevant to the question of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated, however, for an actual trespass is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish a constitutional violation. Compare Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967) (no trespass, but Fourth Amendment violation), with Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170 (1984) (trespass, but no Fourth Amendment violation). Of course, if the presence of a beeper in the can constituted a seizure merely because of its occupation of space, it would follow that the presence of any object, regardless of its nature, would violate the Fourth Amendment.
We conclude that no Fourth Amendment interest of Karo or of any other respondent was infringed by the installation of the beeper. Rather, any impairment of their privacy interests that may have occurred was occasioned by the monitoring of the beeper.
rH f-H Y — (
In United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276 (1983), law enforcement officials, with the consent of the seller, installed a beeper in a 5-gallon can of chloroform and monitored the beeper after delivery of the can to the buyer in Minneapolis, Minn. Although there was partial visual surveillance as the automobile containing the can moved along the public highways, the beeper enabled the officers to locate the can in the area of a cabin near Shell Lake, Wis., and it was this information that provided the basis for the issuance of a search warrant. As the case came to us, the installation of the beeper was not challenged; only the monitoring was at issue. The Court held that since the movements of the automobile and the arrival of the can containing the beeper in the area of the cabin could have been observed by the naked eye, no Fourth Amendment violation was committed by monitoring the beeper during the trip to the cabin. In Knotts, the record did not show that the beeper was monitored while the can containing it was inside the cabin, and we therefore had no occasion to consider whether a constitutional violation would have occurred had the fact been otherwise.
Here, there is no gainsaying that the beeper was used to locate the ether in a specific house in Taos, N. M., and that that information was in turn used to secure a warrant for the search of the house. The affidavit supporting the application for a search warrant recited that the ether arrived at the residence in a motor vehicle that later departed and that:
“For fear of detection, we did not maintain tight surveillance of the residence. . . . Using the ‘beeper’ locator, I positively determined that the ‘beeper’ can (5-gallon can of ether, described earlier in this affidavit) was now inside the above-described premises to be searched because the ‘beeper’ locator (direction finder) pinpointed the beeper signal as emanating from the above-described premises. . . . Again, later on Saturday (now in the daytime), 7 February 1981, my ‘beeper’ locator still shows a strong ‘beeper’ signal emanating from inside the above-described residence.” App. 57-58.
This case thus presents the question whether the monitoring of a beeper in a private residence, a location not open to visual surveillance, violates the Fourth Amendment rights of those who have a justifiable interest in the privacy of the residence. Contrary to the submission of the United States, we think that it does.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, private residences are places in which the individual normally expects privacy free of governmental intrusion not authorized by a warrant, and that expectation is plainly one that society is prepared to recognize as justifiable. Our cases have not deviated from this basic Fourth Amendment principle. Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable absent exigent circumstances. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U. S. 740, 748-749 (1984); Steagald v. United States, 451 U. S. 204, 211-212 (1981); Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 586 (1980). In this case, had a DEA agent thought it useful to enter the Taos residence to verify that the ether was actually in the house and had he done so surreptitiously and without a warrant, there is little doubt that he would have engaged in an unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. For purposes of the Amendment, the result is the same where, without a warrant, the Government surreptitiously employs an electronic device to obtain information that it could not have obtained by observation from outside the curtilage of the house. The beeper tells the agent that' a particular article is actually located at a particular time in the private residence and is in the possession of the person or persons whose residence is being watched. Even if visual surveillance has revealed that the article to which the beeper is attached has entered the house, the later monitoring not only verifies the officers’ observations but also establishes that the article remains on the premises. Here, for example, the beeper was monitored for a significant period after the arrival of the ether in Taos and before the application for a warrant to search.
The monitoring of an electronic device such as a beeper is, of course, less intrusive than a full-scale search, but it does reveal a critical fact about the interior of the premises that the Government is extremely interested in knowing and that it could not have otherwise obtained without a warrant. The case is thus not like Knotts, for there the beeper told the authorities nothing about the interior of Knotts’ cabin. The information obtained in Knotts was “voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look . . . ,” 460 U. S., at 281; here, as we have said, the monitoring indicated that the beeper was inside the house, a fact that could not have been visually verified.
We cannot accept the Government’s contention that it should be completely free from the constraints of the Fourth Amendment to determine by means of an electronic device, without a warrant and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, whether a particular article — or a person, for that matter — is in an individual’s home at a particular time. Indiscriminate monitoring of property that has been withdrawn from public view would present far too serious a threat to privacy interests in the home to escape entirely some sort of Fourth Amendment oversight.
We also reject the Government’s contention that it should be able to monitor beepers in private residences without a warrant if there is the requisite justification in the facts for believing that a crime is being or will be committed and that monitoring the beeper wherever it goes is likely to produce evidence of criminal activity. Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, though the Court has recognized a few limited exceptions to this general rule. See, e. g., United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982) (automobiles); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973) (consent); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967) (exigent circumstances). The Government’s contention that warrantless beeper searches should be deemed reasonable is based upon its deprecation of the benefits and exaggeration of the difficulties associated with procurement of a warrant. The Government argues that the traditional justifications for the warrant requirement are inapplicable in beeper cases, but to a large extent that argument is based upon the contention, rejected above, that the beeper constitutes only a minuscule intrusion on protected privacy interests. The primary reason for the warrant requirement is to interpose a “neutral and detached magistrate” between the citizen and “the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 (1948). Those suspected of drug offenses are no less entitled to that protection than those suspected of nondrug offenses. Requiring a warrant will have the salutary effect of ensuring that use of beepers is not abused, by imposing upon agents the requirement that they demonstrate in advance their justification for the desired search. This is not to say that there are no exceptions to the warrant rule, because if truly exigent circumstances exist no warrant is required under general Fourth Amendment principles.
If agents are required to obtain warrants prior to monitoring a beeper when it has been withdrawn from public view, the Government argues, for all practical purposes they will be forced to obtain warrants in every case in which they seek to use a beeper, because they have no way of knowing in advance whether the beeper will be transmitting its signals from inside private premises. The argument that a warrant requirement would oblige the Government to obtain warrants in a large number of cases is hardly a compelling argument against the requirement. It is worthy of note that, in any event, this is not a particularly attractive case in which to argue that it is impractical to obtain a warrant, since a warrant was in fact obtained in this case, seemingly on probable cause.
We are also unpersuaded by the argument that a warrant should not be required because of the difficulty in satisfying the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The Government contends that it would be impossible to describe the “place” to be searched, because the location of the place is precisely what is sought to be discovered through the search. Brief for United States 42. However true that may be, it will still be possible to describe the object into which the beeper is to be placed, the circumstances that led agents to wish to install the beeper, and the length of time for which beeper surveillance is requested. In our view, this information will suffice to permit issuance of a warrant authorizing beeper installation and surveillance.
In sum, we discern no reason for deviating from the general rule that a search of a house should be conducted pursuant to a warrant.
t — I <1
As we have said, by maintaining the beeper the agents verified that the ether was actually located in the Taos house and that it remained there while the warrant was sought. This information was obtained without a warrant and would therefore be inadmissible at trial against those with privacy interests in the house — Horton, Harley, Steele, and Roth. That information, which was included in the warrant affidavit, would also invalidate the warrant for the search of the house if it proved to be critical to establishing probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. However, if sufficient untainted evidence was presented in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause, the warrant was nevertheless valid. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U. S. 154, 172 (1978).
It requires only a casual examination of the warrant affidavit, which in relevant respects consists of undisputed factual assertions, to conclude that the officers could have secured the warrant without relying on the beeper to locate the ether in the house sought to be searched. The affidavit recounted the months-long tracking of the evidence, including the visual and beeper surveillance of Horton’s pickup on its trip from Albuquerque to the immediate vicinity of the Taos residence; its departure a short time later without the ether; its later return to the residence; and the visual observation of the residence with its windows open on a cold night.
That leaves the question whether any part of this additional information contained in the warrant affidavit was itself the fruit of a Fourth Amendment violation to which any of the occupants of the house could object. As far as the present record reveals, two of the four respondents who had standing to object to the search of the residence — Steele and Roth — had no interest in any of the arguably private places in which the beeper was monitored prior to its arrival in Taos. The evidence seized in the house would be admissible against them.
The question as to Horton and Harley is somewhat more complicated. On the initial leg of its journey, the ether came to rest in Karo’s house where it was monitored; it then moved in succession to two other houses, including Horton’s, before it was moved first to a locker in one public warehouse and then to a locker in another. Both lockers were rented jointly by Horton and Harley. On September 6, the ether was removed from the second storage facility and transported to Taos.
Assuming for present purposes that prior to its arrival at the second warehouse the beeper was illegally used to locate the ether in a house or other place in which Horton or Harley had a justifiable claim to privacy, we are confident that such use of the beeper does not taint its later use in locating the ether and tracking it to Taos. The movement of the ether from the first warehouse was undetected, but by monitoring the beeper the agents discovered that it had been moved to the second storage facility. No prior monitoring of the beeper contributed to this discovery; using the beeper for this purpose was thus untainted by any possible prior illegality. Furthermore, the beeper informed the agents only that the ether was somewhere in the warehouse; it did not identify the specific locker in which the ether was located. Monitoring the beeper revealed nothing about the contents of the locker that Horton and Harley had rented and hence was not a search of that locker. The locker was identified only when agents traversing the public parts of the facility found that the smell of ether was coming from a specific locker.
The agents set up visual surveillance of that locker, and on September 6, they observed Rhodes and a female remove the ether and load it into Horton’s pickup truck. The truck moved over the public streets and was tracked by beeper to Rhodes’ house, where it was temporarily parked. At about 6 p. m. the truck was observed departing and was tracked visually and by beeper to the vicinity of the house in Taos. Because locating the ether in the warehouse was not an illegal search — and because the ether was seen being loaded into Horton’s truck, which then traveled the public highways — it is evident that under Knotts there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment as to anyone with or without standing to complain about monitoring the beeper while it was located in Horton’s truck. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the warrant affidavit, after striking the facts about monitoring the beeper while it was in the Taos residence, contained sufficient untainted information to furnish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. The evidence seized in the house should not have been suppressed with respect to any of the respondents.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
“A beeper is a radio transmitter, usually battery operated, which emits periodic signals that can be picked up by a radio receiver.” United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S., at 277.
The Court of Appeals reversed as to Rhodes since he had not shown that the beeper had been located in any place in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, nor had he shown any possessory interest in the ether itself that would have been invaded by the installation of the beeper.
Despite this holding, warrants for the installation and monitoring of a beeper will obviously be desirable since it may be useful, even critical, to monitor the beeper to determine that it is actually located in a place not open to visual surveillance. As will be evident below, such monitoring without a warrant may violate the Fourth Amendment.
Justice O’Connor observes that a homeowner has no reasonable expectation that a person invited into his home will not be wired with a microphone that transmits conversations in which he engages, see United States v. White, 401 U. S. 746 (1971), and from this proposition she concludes that a homeowner has no reasonable expectation that an invitee will not bring an object containing a beeper into his home. Post, at 722-724. While that observation would be relevant if one of the conspirators in this case had consented to the placement of the beeper in the can, it has no relevance to the case at hand. Surely if the Government surreptitiously plants a listening device on an unsuspecting household guest or family member and then monitors conversations with the homeowner, the homeowner could challenge the monitoring of the conversations regardless of the fact that he did not have power “to give effective consent to the search” of the visitor. Post, at 724. As the plurality recognized in United States v. White, supra, at 749, there is a substantial distinction between “revela-tionfs] to the Government by a party to conversations with the defendant” and eavesdropping on conversations without the knowledge or consent of either party to it. A homeowner takes the risk that his guest will cooperate with the Government but not the risk that a trustworthy friend has been bugged by the Government without his knowledge or consent. Under Justice O’Connor’s view it could easily be said that in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), Katz had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation because the person to whom he was speaking might have divulged the contents of the conversation. There would be nothing left of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy if anything that a hypothetical government informant might reveal is stripped of constitutional protection.
Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98 (1980), is simply inapposite, since it was not Rawlings’ home in which the challenged search occurred. Cf. Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165 (1969) (homeowner has standing to challenge illegal search of house even if he has no interest in the property seized). Justice O’Connor seems to recognize as much, noting in the discussion of Katz, post, at 725, that “a third person, who never used a particular telephone line” would have no standing to challenge illegal eavesdropping. If the phone line is that of the third person, however, a different analysis is involved.
The United States insists that if beeper monitoring is deemed a search, a showing of reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause should suffice for its execution. That issue, however, is not before us. The initial warrant was not invalidated for want of probable cause, which plainly existed, but for misleading statements in the affidavit. The Government did not appeal the invalidation of the warrant and as the case has turned out, the Government prevails without a warrant authorizing installation. It will be time enough to resolve the probable cause-reasonable suspicion issue in a case that requires it.
Had the monitoring disclosed the presence of the container within a particular locker the result would be otherwise, for surely Horton and Harley had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own storage locker.
Although the unwarranted monitoring of the beeper in Karo’s house would foreclose using that evidence against him, it did not taint the discovery of the ether in the second warehouse and the ensuing surveillance of the trip to Taos.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
These cases, here on writs of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, present an important question in the construction of § 406 (b) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 973, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 401 et seq. Section 406 (a) authorizes the Civil Aeronautics Board to fix “fair and reasonable rates of compensation for the transportation of mail by aircraft.” Section 406 (b) requires the Board to take into consideration, inter alia, “the need of each such air carrier for compensation for the transportation of mail sufficient to insure the performance of such service, and, together with all other revenue of the air carrier, to enable such air carrier under honest, economical, and efficient management, to maintain and continue the development of air transportation to the extent and of the character and quality required for the commerce of the United States, the Postal Service, and the national defense.” The controversy in the present cases turns on the meaning of the words “the need of each such air carrier” and “all other revenue of the air carrier.”
Western Air Lines filed a petition for a rate order April 26, 1944. In 1951 the Board finally determined the rate applicable between May 1, 1944, and December 31, 1948. During this open-rate period Western realized some $88,000 in profits from the operation of restaurants and other concessions at airport terminals. The Board determined that this income was “other revenue” available to reduce mail pay. During the open-rate period Western with approval of the Board sold to United Air Lines its certificate and properties for air operations (Route 68) between Los Angeles and Denver, at a profit in excess of $1,000,000. The Board treated the profit derived from the sale of the tangible assets (approximately $650,000) as “other revenue” and reduced the mail compensation by that amount. But it declined to reduce the mail-pay allowance by the profit realized from the sale of the “intangible value” of the route. The Board concluded that that amount should not be used in offset because it wanted “to encourage improvement of the air route pattern through voluntary route transfers by other air carriers.” 14 C. A. B., at 246.
On review, Western challenged the inclusion in “other revenue” of the amounts received from the concessions and the profit from the sale of the tangible assets. The Postmaster General challenged the exclusion from the offsets of the profit Western made on the sale of the intangibles. The Court of Appeals sustained the Board in Western’s petition and reversed it in the other petition and remanded the case to the Board for the fixing of a new rate after deducting the entire profit from the sale of Western’s Route 68. 92 U. S. App. D. C. 248, 207 F. 2d 200.
Some air-mail rates are service rates, based on mail-miles flown; others are subsidy rates based on “need.” We are here concerned with a subsidy rate, which in Western’s case was fixed so as to produce a 7-percent return on investment after taxes for the period in question. In other words, the end problem concerns not the amount of money provided for operation and development but the amount of profit over and above all such sums.
We read the Act as meaning that “the need” of the carrier which Congress has directed the Board to consider in fixing a subsidy rate is “the need” of the carrier as a whole. The need specified in § 406 (b) is measured by “compensation for the transportation of mail sufficient to insure the performance of such service, and, together with all other revenue of the air carrier, to enable” it to develop air transportation, etc. The “compensation for the transportation of mail” is flight income. It seems too clear for argument that “all other revenue” would include nonflight income from incidental air-carrier activities. We have found nothing persuasive as indicating that “all other revenue” means transportation revenue. The inclusive nature of the category precludes a narrow reading. If the carrier’s treasury is lush, “the need” for subsidy decreases whether the opulence is due to transportation activities or to activities incidental thereto.
By the same reasoning the profit made by Western on the sale of Route 68 is also “other revenue” within the meaning of § 406 (b). The Board agrees; but it goes on to say that that is not the end of the matter, since the reduction of the subsidy by the entire amount of the profit is not mandatory. The Act, it is true, merely says that the Board in determining the rate “shall take into consideration” various factors, including “the need” of the carrier (§ 406 (b)); and the “need,” as we have noted, is not merely for compensation to insure the transportation of mail but compensation for “the development of air transportation” under the prescribed standards. By that standard the “need” in a given case may be so great that profits from other transactions should be allowed in addition to the normal rate. Or, on the other hand, the total revenues of the carrier as against its operating costs and developmental program may be so great that “the need” for subsidy disappears and the carrier is transferred to the service rate for mail pay. The difficulty here is that the Board, in concluding that a part of the profits from the sale to United should not be used as an offset, forsook the standard of “need” and adopted a different one. The Board wanted “to safeguard the incentive for voluntary route transfers.” It thought it could not keep this incentive alive in the industry unless the profit were allowed in addition to the subsidy. The Board thought it important to keep that incentive alive in order to promote route transfers and mergers which the Board could not compel. The Board therefore argues that allowance of the profit over and above a subsidy enables Western “to maintain and continue the development of air transportation” within the meaning of § 406 (b), since the sale of Route 68 was consistent with the development program which the Board deemed desirable.
The Act, however, speaks of “the need” of the carrier for the subsidy, not the effect of a policy on carriers in general. This is not a case of recapture of earnings. Western keeps the entire amount of the profit. The issue is how much additional money Western is to receive in the form of a subsidy. Western’s “need” is the measure of the amount authorized by Congress. No finding was made that there was “need” for the additional subsidy, in the sense that otherwise Western would not have been willing or able to make the transfer of Route 68 in accordance with the development program which the Board deems advisable. Whether such a finding would have satisfied the statutory requirement is a question we do not reach, since the opinion of the Board makes plain that other considerations were controlling:
“. . . our decision not to include the net profit from the sale of intangibles was reached solely because we are thus seeking to encourage improvement of the air route pattern through voluntary route transfers by other air carriers.” 14 C. A. B., at 246.
The standard prescribed by Congress, however, is “the need” of the air carrier whose subsidy rates are being fixed.
Affirmed.
“The [Board] is empowered and directed, upon its own initiative or upon petition of the Postmaster General or an air carrier, (1) to fix and determine from time to time, after notice and hearing, the fair and reasonable rates of compensation for the transportation of mail by aircraft, the facilities used and useful therefor, and the services connected therewith (including the transportation of mail by an air carrier by other means than aircraft whenever such transportation is incidental to the transportation of mail by aircraft or is made necessary by conditions of emergency arising from aircraft operation), by each holder of a certificate authorizing the transportation of mail by aircraft, and to make such rates effective from such date as it shall determine to be proper; (2) to prescribe the method or methods, by aircraft-mile, pound-mile, weight, space, or any combination thereof, or otherwise, for ascertaining such rates of compensation for each air carrier or class of air carriers; and (3) to publish the same; and the rates so fixed and determined shall be paid by the Postmaster General from appropriations for the transportation of mail by aircraft.”
“In fixing and determining fair and reasonable rates of compensation under this section, the [Board], considering the conditions peculiar to transportation by aircraft and to the particular air carrier or class of air carriers, may fix different rates for different air carriers or classes of air carriers, and different classes of service. In determining the rate in each case, the [Board] shall take into consideration, among other factors, the condition that such air carriers may hold and operate under certificates authorizing the carriage of mail only by providing necessary and adequate facilities and service for the transportation of mail; such standards respecting the character and quality of service to be rendered by air carriers as may be prescribed by or pursuant to law; and the need of each such air carrier for compensation for the transportation of mail sufficient to insure the performance of such service, and, together with all other revenue of the air carrier, to enable such air carrier under honest, economical, and efficient management, to maintain and continue the development of air transportation to the extent and of the character and quality required for the commerce of the United States, the Postal Service, and the national defense.”
United-Western, Acquisition of Air Carrier Property, 8 C. A. B. 298 (1947).
The Postmaster General has not only the duty to pay the mail rates from appropriations for the transportation of mail by aircraft but also is given standing by § 406 (a) to petition the Board to fix and determine the rates. A change in the function of the Postmaster General was made by Reorganization Plan No. 10 of 1953, effective October 1,1953, 67 Stat. 644.
See, for example, Eastern Air Lines, Mail Rates, 3 C. A. B. 733 (1942).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Court of Appeals has held, without opinion, that petitioner’s notice of appeal from the District Court, filed on July 8, 1957, was untimely. The Government has conceded that the Clerk of the District Court did not mail to petitioner or his attorney a notice of the entry of the order of June 14 denying petitioner’s motion for a new trial and judgment of acquittal, as required by Rule 49 (c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In our opinion the record in this case fails to show with sufficient certainty that petitioner or his attorney had actual notice of the entry of that order by reason of the proceedings which took place in the District Court on June 14. Cf. Huff v. United States, 192 F. 2d 911; Gonzalez v. United States, 233 F. 2d 825, 827, reversed on other grounds, 352 U. S. 978. What transpired at those proceedings is too ambiguous to permit the conclusion that petitioner and his attorney were not justified in believing that petitioner’s time to appeal would begin to run on July 8. In these circumstances we think that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner’s notice of appeal was untimely. Rule 37 (a)(2), Fed. Rules Crim. Proc.; see Carter v. United States, 168 F. 2d 310. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The record shows the following:
“The Court: . . .
“Do you want some time for your client before he turns in?
“Mr. Shaw: Your Honor, I was going to ask for some time in which to get his affairs straightened out, and within which to file an appeal, should we so desire to do.
“The Court: Very well. If you file an appeal, of course, if you apply for bond, I will tell you now that I will grant you bond. Be permitted to go under the bond you are under now. How much time do you want?
“Mr. Shaw: About two weeks, your Honor.
“The Court: How about Monday, July 1st, or do you want it the 8th, the following Monday?
“Mr. Shaw: That will be all right.
“The Court: Be given until July 8th.
“Mr. Shaw: Thank you."
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns enforcement, through private suits, of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA or Act), 47 U. S. C. § 227. Voluminous consumer complaints about abuses of telephone technology — for example, computerized calls dispatched to private homes — prompted Congress to pass the TCPA. Congress determined that federal legislation was needed because telemarketers, by operating interstate, were escaping state-law prohibitions on intrusive nuisance calls. The Act bans certain practices invasive of privacy and directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) to prescribe implementing regulations. It authorizes States to bring civil actions to enjoin prohibited practices and to recover damages on their residents’ behalf. The Commission must be notified of such suits and may intervene in them. Jurisdiction over state-initiated TCPA suits, Congress provided, lies exclusively in the U. S. district courts. Congress also provided for civil actions by private parties seeking redress for violations of the TCPA or of the Commission’s implementing regulations.
Petitioner Marcus D. Mims, complaining of multiple violations of the Act by respondent Arrow Financial Services, LLC (Arrow), a debt-collection agency, commenced an action for damages against Arrow in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Mims invoked the court’s “federal question” jurisdiction, i. e., its authority to adjudicate claims “arising under the... laws... of the United States,” 28 U. S. C. § 1331. The District Court, affirmed by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, dismissed Mims’s complaint for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Both courts relied on Congress’ specification, in the TCPA, that a private person may seek redress for violations of the Act (or of the Commission’s regulations thereunder) “in an appropriate court of [a] State,” “if [such an action is] otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of [that] State.” 47 U. S. C. §§227(b)(3), (c)(5).
The question presented is whether Congress’ provision for private actions to enforce the TCPA renders state courts the exclusive arbiters of such actions. We have long recognized that “[a] suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.” American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U. S. 257, 260 (1916). Beyond doubt, the TCPA is a federal law that both creates the claim Mims has brought and supplies the substantive rules that will govern the case. We find no convincing reason to read into the TCPA’s permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts any barrier to the U. S. district courts’ exercise of the general federal-question jurisdiction they have possessed since 1875. See Act of Mar. 3, 1875, § 1,18 Stat. 470; 13D C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, & R. Freer, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3561, p. 163 (3d ed. 2008) (hereinafter Wright & Miller). We hold, therefore, that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private suits arising under the TCPA.
W
A
In enacting the TCPA, Congress made several findings relevant here. “Unrestricted telemarketing,” Congress determined, “can be an intrusive invasion of privacy.” TCPA, §2, ¶ 5, 105 Stat. 2394, note following 47 U. S. C. § 227 (Congressional Findings) (internal quotation marks omitted). In particular, Congress reported, “[m]any consumers are outraged over the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance [telemarketing] calls to their homes.” ¶6, ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]utomated or prerecorded telephone calls” made to private residences, Congress found, were rightly regarded by recipients as “an invasion of privacy.” ¶¶10, 12, ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). Although over half the States had enacted statutes restricting telemarketing, Congress believed that federal law was needed because “telemarketers [could] evade [state-law] prohibitions through interstate operations.” ¶ 7, ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). See also S. Rep. No. 102-178, p. 3 (1991) (“[B]ecause States do not have jurisdiction over interstate calls[,] [m]any States have expressed a desire for Federal legislation...,”).
Subject to exceptions not pertinent here, the TCPA principally outlaws four practices. First, the Act makes it unlawful to use an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice message, without the prior ex-' press consent of the called party, to call any emergency telephone line, hospital patient, pager, cellular telephone, or other service for which the receiver is charged for the call. See 47 U. S. C. § 227(b)(1)(A). Second, the TCPA forbids using artificial or prerecorded voice messages to call residential telephone lines without prior express consent. § 227(b)(1)(B). Third, the Act proscribes sending unsolicited advertisements to fax machines. § 227(b)(1)(C). Fourth, it bans using automatic telephone dialing systems to engage two or more of a business’ telephone lines simultaneously. § 227(b)(1)(D).
The TCPA delegates authority to the FCC to ban artificial and prerecorded voice calls to businesses, § 227(b)(2)(A), and to exempt particular types of calls from the law’s requirements, §§ 227(b)(2)(B), (C). The Act also directs the FCC to prescribe regulations to protect the privacy of residential telephone subscribers, possibly through the creation of a national “do not call” system. § 227(c).
Congress provided complementary means of enforcing the Act. State Attorneys General may “bring a civil action on behalf of [state] residents,” if the Attorney General “has reason to believe that any person has engaged... in a pattern or practice” of violating the TCPA or FCC regulations thereunder. § 227(g)(1) (2006 ed., Supp. IV). “The district courts of the United States... have exclusive jurisdiction” over all TCPA actions brought by State Attorneys General. § 227(g)(2). The Commission may intervene in such suits. § 227(g)(3).
Title 47 U. S. C. § 227(b)(3), captioned “Private right of action,” provides:
“A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State—
“(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,
“(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or
“(C) both such actions.
“If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion,' increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.”
A similar provision authorizes a private right of action for a violation of the FCC’s implementing regulations.
B
Mims, a Florida resident, alleged that Arrow, seeking to collect a debt, repeatedly used an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded or artificial voice to call Mims’s cellular phone without his consent. Commencing suit in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Mims charged that Arrow “willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA.” App. 14. He sought declaratory relief, a permanent injunction, and damages. Id., at 18-19.
The District Court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Mims’s TCPA claim. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, the District Court explained, federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 was unavailable “because Congress vested jurisdiction over [private actions under] the TCPA exclusively in state courts.” Civ. No. 09-22347 (SD Fla., Apr. 1, 2010), App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a-5a (citing Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc., 136 F. 3d 1287 (CA11 1998)). Adhering to Circuit precedent, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 421 Fed. Appx. 920, 921 (2011) (per curiam) (“Congress granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private actions under the [TCPA].” (quoting Nicholson, 136 F. 3d, at 1287-1288)).
We granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011), to resolve a split among the Circuits as to whether Congress granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private actions brought under the TCPA. Compare Murphey v. Lanier, 204 F. 3d 911, 915 (CA9 2000) (U. S. district courts lack federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA actions), ErieNet, Inc. v. Velocity Net, Inc., 156 F. 3d 513, 519 (CA3 1998) (same), Foxhall Realty Law Offices, Inc. v. Telecommunications Premium Servs., Ltd., 156 F. 3d 432, 434 (CA2 1998) (same), Nicholson, 136 F. 3d, at 1287-1288 (same), Chair King, Inc. v. Houston Cellular Corp., 131 F. 3d 507, 514 (CA5 1997) (same), and International Science & Technology Inst. v. Inacom Communications, Inc., 106 F. 3d 1146,1158 (CA4 1997) (same), with Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, 630 F. 3d 459, 463-465 (CA6 2010) (U. S. district courts have federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA actions), Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F. 3d 446, 447 (CA7 2005) (same), and ErieNet, 156 F. 3d, at 521 (Alito, J., dissenting) (same). We now hold that Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits.
II
Federal courts, though “courts of limited jurisdiction,” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U. S. 375, 377 (1994), in the main “have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821). Congress granted federal courts general federal-question jurisdiction in 1875. See Act of Mar. 3,1875, § 1,18 Stat. 470. As now codified, the law provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 1331. The statute originally included an amount-in-controversy requirement, set at $500. See Act of Mar. 3, 1875, § 1,18 Stat. 470. Recognizing the responsibility of federal courts to decide claims, large or small, arising under federal law, Congress in 1980 eliminated the amount-in-controversy requirement in federal question (but not diversity) cases. See Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 2369 (amending 28 U. S. C. §1331). See also H. R. Rep. No. 96-1461, p. 1 (1980). Apart from deletion of the amount-in-controversy requirement, the general federal-question provision has remained essentially unchanged since 1875. See 13D Wright & Miller 163.
Because federal law creates the right of action and provides the rules of decision, Mims’s TCPA claim, in 28 U. S. C. § 1331⅛ words, plainly “aris[es] under” the “laws... of the United States.” As already noted, supra, at 371, “[a] suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.” American Well Works, 241 U. S., at 260. Although courts have described this formulation as “more useful for inclusion than for... exclusion,” Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U. S. 804, 809, n. 5 (1986) (quoting T B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F. 2d 823, 827 (CA2 1964)), there is no serious debate that a federally created claim for relief is generally a “sufficient condition for federal-question jurisdiction,” Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U. S. 308, 317 (2005).
Arrow agrees that this action arises under federal law, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 27, but urges that Congress vested exclusive adjudicatory authority over private TCPA actions in state courts. In cases “arising under” federal law, we note, there is a “deeply rooted presumption in favor of concurrent state court jurisdiction,” rebuttable if “Congress affirmatively ousts the state courts of jurisdiction over a particular federal claim.” Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458-459 (1990). E. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1333 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction....”). The presumption of concurrent state-court jurisdiction, we have recognized, can be overcome “by an explicit statutory directive, by unmistakable implication from legislative history, or by a clear incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and federal interests.” Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U. S. 473, 478 (1981).
Arrow readily acknowledges the presumption of concurrent state-court jurisdiction, but maintains that 28 U. S. C. § 1331 creates no converse presumption in favor of federal-court jurisdiction. Instead, Arrow urges, the TCPA, a later, more specific statute, displaces § 1331, an earlier, more general prescription. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29; Brief for Respondent 31.
Section 1331, our decisions indicate, is not swept away so easily. As stated earlier, see supra, at 377, when federal law creates a private right of action and furnishes the substantive rules of decision, the claim arises under federal law, and district courts possess federal-question jurisdiction under §1331. That principle endures unless Congress divests federal courts of their §1331 adjudicatory authority. See, e. g., Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U. S. 635, 642 (2002) (Nothing in 47 U. S. C. § 252(e)(6) “divest[s] the district courts of their authority under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 to review the [state agency’s] order for compliance with federal law.”); K mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 485 U. S. 176, 182-183 (1988) (“The District Court would be divested of [§ 1331] jurisdiction... if this action fell within one of several specific grants of exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of International Trade [under 28 U. S. C. § 1581(a) or § 1581(i)(3)].”).
“[D]ivestment of district court jurisdiction” should be found no more readily than “divestmen[t] of state court jurisdiction,” given “the longstanding and explicit grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U. S. C. § 1331.” ErieNet, 156 F. 3d, at 523 (Alito, J., dissenting); see Gonell, Note, Statutory Interpretation of Federal Jurisdictional Statutes: Jurisdiction of the Private Right of Action Under the TCPA, 66 Ford. L. Rev. 1895, 1929-1930 (1998). Accordingly, the District Court retains § 1331 jurisdiction over Mims’s complaint unless the TCPA, expressly or by fair implication, excludes federal-court adjudication. See Verizon Md., 535 U. S., at 644; Gonell, supra, at 1929 (Jurisdiction over private TCPA actions “is proper under §1331 unless Congress enacted a partial repeal of § 1331 in the TCPA.”).
HH HH HH
Arrow’s arguments do not persuade us that Congress has eliminated §1331 jurisdiction over private actions under the TCPA.
The language of the TCPA — “A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring [an action] in an appropriate court of that State,” 47 U. S. C. § 227(b)(3) — Arrow asserts, is uniquely state-court oriented. See Brief for Respondent 13. That may be, but “[i]t is a general rule that the grant of jurisdiction to one court does not, of itself, imply that the jurisdiction is to be exclusive.” United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U. S. 463, 479 (1936).
Nothing in the permissive language of § 227(b)(3) makes state-court jurisdiction exclusive, or otherwise purports to oust federal courts of their 28 U. S. C. § 1331 jurisdiction over federal claims. See, e. g., Verizon Md., 535 U. S., at 643 (“[N]othing in 47 U. S. C. § 252(e)(6) purports to strip [§ 1331] jurisdiction.”). Cf. Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U. S. 820, 823 (1990) (Title VIPs language — “[e]ach United States district court... shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter,” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(f)(3) — does not “ous[t] state courts of their presumptive jurisdiction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Congress may indeed provide a track for a federal claim exclusive of § 1331. See, e. g., 42 U. S. C. § 405(h) (“No action... shall be brought under [§ 1331] to recover on any claim arising under [Title II of the Social Security Act].”); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 756-757 (1975). Congress has done nothing of that sort here, however.
Title 47 U. S.- C. § 227(b)(3) does not state that a private plaintiff may bring an action under the TCPA “only” in state court, or “exclusively” in state court. The absence of such a statement contrasts with the Act’s instruction on suits instituted by State Attorneys General. As earlier noted, see swpra, at 374, § 227(g)(2) (2006 ed., Supp. IV) vests “exclusive jurisdiction over [such] actions” in “[t]he district courts of the United States.” Section 227(g)(2)’s exclusivity prescription “reinforcefe] the conclusion that [§227(b)(3)’s] silence.., leaves the jurisdictional grant of § 1331 untouched. For where otherwise applicable jurisdiction was meant to be excluded, it was excluded expressly.” Verizon Md., 535 TJ. S., at 644; see ErieNet, 156 F. 3d, at 522 (Alito, J., dissenting) (“Section [227(g)(2)] reveals that, while drafting the TCPA, Congress knew full well how to grant exclusive jurisdiction with mandatory language. The most natural interpretation of Congress’ failure to use similar language in section 227(b)(3) is that Congress did not intend to grant exclusive jurisdiction in that section.”); Brill, 427 F. 3d, at 451 (“[Section 227(g)(2)] is explicit about exclusivity, while § 227(b)(3) is not; the natural inference is that the state forum mentioned in § 227(b)(3) is optional rather than mandatory.”).
Arrow urges that Congress would have had no reason to provide for a private action “in an appropriate [state] court,” § 227(b)(3), if it did not mean to make the state forum exclusive. Had Congress said nothing at all about bringing private TCPA claims in state courts, Arrow observes, those courts would nevertheless have concurrent jurisdiction. See supra, at 378. True enough, but Congress had simultaneously provided for TCPA enforcement actions by state authorities, § 227(g) (2006 ed., Supp. IV), and had made federal district courts exclusively competent in such cases, § 227(g)(2). Congress may simply have wanted to avoid any argument that in private actions, as in actions brought by State Attorneys General, “federal jurisdiction is exclusive.” Brill, 427 F. 3d, at 451 (emphasis deleted) (citing Yellow Freight, 494 U. S. 820 (holding, after 26 years of litigation, that claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may be resolved in state as well as federal courts), and Taffiin, 493 U. S. 455 (holding, after 20 years of litigation, that claims under RICO may be resolved in state as well as federal courts)). Moreover, by providing that private actions may be brought in state court “if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of [the] State,” 47 U. S. C. § 227(b)(3), Congress arguably gave States leeway they would otherwise lack to “decide for [themselves] whether to entertain claims under the [TCPA],” Brill, 427 F. 3d, at 451. See Brief for Respondent 16 (Congress “le[ft] States free to decide what TCPA claims to allow.”).
Making state-court jurisdiction over § 227(b)(3) claims exclusive, Arrow further asserts, “fits hand in glove with [Congress’] objective”: enabling States to control telemarketers whose interstate operations evaded state law. Id., at 15. Even so, we have observed, jurisdiction conferred by 28 U. S. C. § 1331 should hold firm against “mere implication flowing from subsequent legislation.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 808, 809, n. 15 (1976) (quoting Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U. S. 257, 262 (1897)).
We are not persuaded, moreover, that Congress sought only to fill a gap in the States’ enforcement capabilities. Had Congress so limited its sights, it could have passed a statute providing that out-of-state telemarketing calls directed into a State would be subject to the laws of the receiving State. Congress did not enact such a law. Instead, it enacted detailed, uniform, federal substantive prescriptions and provided for a regulatory regime administered by a federal agency. See 47 U. S. C. § 227. TCPA liability thus depends on violation of a federal statutory requirement or an FCC regulation, §§ 227(b)(3)(A), (c)(5), not on a violation of any state substantive law.
The federal interest in regulating telemarketing to “pro-tec[t] the privacy of individuals” while “permit[ting] legitimate [commercial] practices,” §2, ¶9, 105 Stat. 2394, note following 47 U. S. C. § 227 (Congressional Findings) (internal quotation marks omitted), is evident from the regulatory role Congress assigned to the FCC. See, e. g., § 227(b)(2) (delegating to the FCC authority to exempt calls from the Act’s reach and prohibit calls to businesses). Congress’ design would be less well served if consumers had to rely on “the laws or rules of court of a State,” § 227(b)(3), or the accident of diversity jurisdiction, to gain redress for TCPA violations.
Arrow emphasizes a statement made on the Senate floor by Senator Hollings, the TCPA’s sponsor:
“Computerized calls are the scourge of modern civilization. They wake us up in the morning; they interrupt our dinner at night; they force the sick and elderly out of bed; they hound us until we want to rip the telephone right out of the wall.
“The substitute bill contains a private right-of-action provision that will make it easier for consumers to recover damages from receiving these computerized calls. The provision would allow consumers to bring an action in State court against any entity that violates the bill. The bill does not, because of constitutional constraints, dictate to the States which court in each State shall be the proper venue for such an action, as this is a matter for State legislators to determine. Nevertheless, it is my hope that States will make it as easy as possible for consumers to bring such actions, preferably in small claims court....
“Small claims court or a similar court would allow the consumer to appear before the court without an attorney. The amount of damages in this legislation is set to be fair to both the consumer and the telemarketer. However, it would defeat the purposes of the bill if the attorneys’ costs to consumers of bringing an action were greater than the potential damages. I thus expect that the States will act reasonably in permitting their citizens to go to court to enforce this bill.” 137 Cong. Rec. 30821-30822 (1991).
This statement does not bear the weight Arrow would place on it.
First, the views of a single legislator, even a bill’s sponsor, are not controlling. Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102,118 (1980). Second, Senator Hollings did not mention federal-court jurisdiction or otherwise suggest that 47 U. S. C. § 227(b)(3) is intended to divest federal courts of authority to hear TCPA claims. Hollings no doubt believed that mine-run TCPA claims would be pursued most expeditiously in state small-claims court. But one cannot glean from his statement any expectation that those courts, or state courts generally, would have exclusive jurisdiction over private actions alleging violations of the Act or of the FCC’s implementing regulations. Third, even if we agreed with Arrow that Senator Hollings expected private TCPA actions to proceed solely in state courts, and even if other supporters shared his view, that expectation would not control our judgment on 28 U. S. C. § 1331⅛ compass. Cf. Yellow Freight, 494 U. S., at 826 (“persuasive showing that most legislators, judges, and administrators... involved in the enactment, amendment, enforcement, and interpretation of Title VII expected that such litigation would be processed exclusively in federal courts” did not overcome presumption of concurrent state-court jurisdiction).
Among its arguments for state-court exclusivity, Arrow raises a concern about the impact on federal courts were we to uphold § 1331 jurisdiction over private actions under the TCPA. “[Gjiven the enormous volume of telecommunications presenting potential claims,” Arrow projects, federal courts could be inundated by $500-per-violation TCPA claims. Brief for Respondent 33. “Moreover, if plaintiffs are free to bring TCPA claims in federal court under § 1331, then defendants sued in state court would be equally free to remove those cases to federal court under 28 U. S. C. § 1441.” Id., at 22-23. Indeed, Arrow suggests, defendants could use removal as a mechanism to force small-claims-court plaintiffs to abandon suit rather than “figh[t] it out” in the “more expensive federal forum.” Id., at 23.
Arrow’s floodgates argument assumes “a shocking degree of noncompliance” with the Act, Reply Brief 11, and seems to us more imaginary than real. The current federal district court civil filing fee is $350. 28 U. S. C. § 1914(a). How likely is it that a party would bring a $500 claim in, or remove a $500 claim to, federal court? Lexis and Westlaw searches turned up 65 TCPA claims removed to federal district courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin since the Seventh Circuit held, in October 2005, that the Act does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on state courts. All 65 cases were class actions, not individual cases removed from small-claims court. There were also 26 private TCPA claims brought initially in federal district courts; of those, 24 were class actions.
IV
Nothing in the text, structure, purpose, or legislative history of the TCPA calls for displacement of the federal-question jurisdiction U. S. district courts ordinarily have under 28 U. S. C. § 1331. In the absence of direction from Congress stronger than any Arrow has advanced, we apply the familiar default rule: Federal courts have § 1331 jurisdiction over claims that arise under federal law. Because federal law gives rise to the claim for relief Mims has stated and specifies the substantive rules of decision, the Eleventh Circuit erred in dismissing Mims’s case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
* * *
For the reasons stated, 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.
In general, the Communications Act of 1934 grants to the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) authority to regulate interstate telephone communications and reserves to the States authority to regulate intrastate telephone communications. See Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U. S. 355, 360, 369-370 (1986).
In 2010, Congress amended the statute to prohibit an additional practice: the manipulation of caller-identification information. See Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-331, 124 Stat. 3572. This legislation inserted a new subsection (e) into 47 U. S. C. § 227 and redesignated the former subsections (e), (f), and (g) as subsections (f), (g), and (h), respectively. Ibid. While the new subsection (e) does not bear on this ease and is not here discussed, our citations of subsection (g) refer to the current, redesignated statutory text.
The National Do Not Call Registry is currently managed by the Federal Trade Commission. See 15 U. S. C. § 6151 (2006 ed., Supp. IV); 16 CFR § 310.4(b)(l)(iii) (2011).
The TCPA envisions civil actions instituted by the Commission for violations of the implementing regulations. See 47 U. S. C. § 227(g)(7) (2006 ed., Supp. IV). The Commission may also seek forfeiture penalties for willful or repeated failure to comply with the Act or regulations. 47 U. S. C. § 503(b) (2006 ed. and Supp. IV), § 504(a) (2006 ed.).
Title 47 U. S. C. § 227(c)(5), also captioned “Private right of action,” provides:
“A person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State bring in an appropriate court of that State—
“(A) an action based on a violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,
“(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or
“(C) both such actions.”
Congress had previously granted general federal-question jurisdiction to federal courts, but the grant was short lived. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 464, n. 14 (1974) (describing Midnight Judges Act of 1801, § 11, 2 Stat. 92, repealed by Act of Mar. 8, 1802, § 1, 2 Stat. 132).
At the time it was repealed, the amount-in-controversy requirement in federal-question cases had reached $10,000. See Act of July 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 415. Currently, the amount in controversy in diversity cases must exceed $75,000. See 28 U. S. C. § 1332.
For a rare exception to the rule that a federal cause of action suffices to ground federal-question jurisdiction, see Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rut-ter, 177 U. S. 505 (1900), discussed in R. Fallon, J. Manning, D. Meltzer, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 784-785 (6th ed. 2009). In Shoshone Mining, we held that a suit for a federal mining patent did not arise under federal law for jurisdictional purposes because “the right of possession” in controversy could be determined by “local rules or customs or state statutes,” 177 U. S., at 509, 510, or “may present simply a question of fact,” id., at 509. Here, by contrast, the TCPA not only creates the claim for relief and designates the remedy; critically, the Act and regulations thereunder supply the governing substantive law.
Even when a right of action is created by state law, if the claim requires resolution of significant issues of federal law, the case may arise under federal law for 28 U. S. C. § 1331 purposes. See Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U. S. 308, 312 (2005).
“How strange it would be,” the Seventh Circuit observed, “to make federal courts the exclusive forum for suits by the states, while making state courts the exclusive forum for suits by private plaintiffs.” Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F. 3d 446, 451 (2005).
por TCPA actions brought by State Attorneys General, or “an[other] official or agency designated by a State,” 47 U. S. C. § 227(g)(1) (2006 ed., Supp. IV), Arrow points out, Congress specifically addressed venue, service of process, § 227(g)(4), and potential conflicts between federal and state enforcement efforts, § 227(g)(7). No similar prescriptions appear in the section on private actions, 47 U. S. C. § 227(b)(3), for this obvious reason: “[As] the general rules governing venue and service of process in the district courts are well established, see 28 U. S
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968), we held that a defendant is deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause when his codefendant’s incriminating confession is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the co-defendant. In Parker v. Randolph, 442 U. S. 62 (1979), we considered, but were unable authoritatively to resolve, the question whether Bruton applies where the defendant’s own confession, corroborating that of his codefendant, is introduced against him. We resolve that question today.
HH
Jerry Cruz was murdered on March 15, 1982. That is not the murder for which petitioner was tried and convicted, but the investigation of the one led to the solving of the other. On the day following Jerry Cruz’s murder, and on several later occasions, the police talked to Jerry’s brother Norberto about the killing. On April 27, Norberto for the first time informed the police of a November 29, 1981, visit by petitioner Eulogio Cruz and his brother Benjamin to the apartment Norberto shared with Jerry. (Eulogio and Benjamin Cruz were longtime friends of Norberto and Jerry Cruz, but the two sets of brothers were not related.) Norberto said that at the time of the visit Eulogio was nervous and was wearing a bloodstained bandage around his arm. According to Norberto, Eulogio confided that he and Benjamin had gone to a Bronx gas station the night before, intending to rob it; that Eulogio and the attendant had struggled; and that, after the attendant had grabbed a gun from behind a counter and shot Eulogio in the arm, Benjamin had killed him. Norberto claimed that Benjamin gave a similar account of the incident.
On May 3, 1982, the police questioned Benjamin about the murder of Jerry Cruz. He strongly denied any connection with that homicide and became frustrated when the police seemed unwilling to believe him. Suddenly, to prove that he would tell the truth about killing someone if he were guilty, Benjamin spontaneously confessed to the murder of the gas station attendant. Later that evening, he gave a detailed videotaped confession to an Assistant District Attorney, in which he admitted that he, Eulogio, Jerry Cruz, and a fourth man had robbed the gas station, and that he had killed the attendant after the attendant shot Eulogio. Benjamin and Eulogio were indicted for felony murder of the station attendant.
The brothers were tried jointly, over Eulogio’s objection. Likewise over Eulogio’s objection, the trial judge allowed the prosecutor to introduce Benjamin’s videotaped confession, warning the jury that the confession was not to be used against Eulogio. The government also called Norberto, who testified about his November 29 conversation with'Eulogio and Benjamin. Finally, the government introduced police testimony, forensic evidence, and photographs of the scene of the murder, all of which corroborated Benjamin’s videotaped confession and the statements recounted by Norberto. At the trial’s end, however, Norberto’s testimony stood as the only evidence admissible against Eulogio that directly linked him to the crime. Eulogio’s attorney tried to persuade the jury that Norberto had suspected Eulogio and Benjamin of killing his brother Jerry and had fabricated his testimony to gain revenge. Unconvinced, the jury convicted both defendants.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed Eulogio’s conviction, 66 N. Y. 2d 61, 485 N. E. 2d 221 (1985), adopting the reasoning of the plurality opinion in Parker that Bruton did not require the codefendant’s confession to be excluded because Eulogio had himself confessed and his confession “interlocked” with Benjamin’s. We granted certiorari. 476 U. S. 1168 (1986).
II
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a criminal defendant “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” We have held that that guarantee, extended against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, includes the right to cross-examine witnesses. See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 404 (1965). Where two or more defendants are tried jointly, therefore, the pretrial confession of one of them that implicates the others is not admissible against the others unless the confessing defendant waives his Fifth Amendment rights so as to permit cross-examination.
Ordinarily, a witness is considered to be a witness “against” a defendant for purposes of the Confrontation Clause only if his testimony is part of the body of evidence that the jury may consider in assessing his guilt. Therefore, a witness whose testimony is introduced in a joint trial with the limiting instruction that it be used only to assess the guilt of one of the defendants will not be considered to be a witness “against” the other defendants. In Bruton, however, we held that this principle will not be applied to validate, under the Confrontation Clause, introduction of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession implicating the defendant, with instructions that the jury should disregard the confession insofar as its consideration of the defendant’s guilt is concerned. We said:
“[TJhere are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored. Such a context is presented here, where the powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused side-by-side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial. Not only are the incrimi-nations devastating to the defendant but their credibility is inevitably suspect . . . .” 391 U. S., at 135-136 (citations omitted).
We had occasion to revisit this issue in Parker, which resembled Bruton in all major respects save one: Each of the jointly tried defendants had himself confessed, his own confession was introduced against him, and his confession recited essentially the same facts as those of his nontestifying codefendants. The plurality of four Justices found no Sixth Amendment violation. It understood Bruton to hold that the Confrontation Clause is violated only when introduction of a codefendant’s confession is “devastating” to the defendant’s case. When the defendant has himself confessed, the plurality reasoned, “[his] case has already been devastated,” 442 U. S., at 75, n. 7, so that the codefendant’s confession “will seldom, if ever, be of the ‘devastating’ character referred to in Bruton,” and impeaching that confession on cross-examination “would likely yield small advantage,” id., at 73. Thus, the plurality would have held Bruton inapplicable to cases involving interlocking confessions. The four remaining Justices participating in the case disagreed, subscribing to the view expressed by Justice Blackmun that introduction of the defendant’s own interlocking confession might, in some cases, render the violation of the Confrontation Clause harmless, but could not cause introduction of the nontestifying codefendant’s confession not to constitute a violation. Id., at 77-80 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). (Justice Blackmun alone went on to find that the interlocking confession did make the error harmless in the ease before the Court, thereby producing a majority for affirmance of the convictions. Id., at 80-81.) We face again today the issue on which the Court was evenly divided in Parker.
We adopt the approach espoused by Justice Blackmun. While “devastating” practical effect was one of the factors that Bruton considered in assessing whether the Confrontation Clause might sometimes require departure from the general rule that jury instructions suffice to exclude improper testimony, 391 U. S., at 136, it did not suggest that the existence of such an effect should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Rather, that factor was one of the justifications for excepting from the general rule the entire category of co-defendant confessions that implicate the defendant in the crime. It is impossible to imagine why there should be excluded from that category, as generally not “devastating,” codefendant confessions that “interlock” with the defendant’s own confession. “[T]he infinite variability of inculpatory statements (whether made by defendants or codefendants), and of their likely effect on juries, makes [the assumption that an interlocking confession will preclude devastation] untenable.” Parker, 442 U. S., at 84 (Stevens, J., dissenting). In this case, for example, the precise content and even the existence of petitioner’s own confession were open to question, since they depended upon acceptance of Norberto’s testimony, whereas the incriminating confession of codefen-dant Benjamin was on videotape.
In fact, it seems to us that “interlocking” bears a positively inverse relationship to devastation. A codefendant’s confession will be relatively harmless if the incriminating story it tells is different from that which the defendant himself is alleged to have told, but enormously damaging if it confirms, in all essential respects, the defendant’s alleged confession. It might be otherwise if the defendant were standing by his confession, in which case it could be said that the codefen-dant’s confession does no more than support the defendant’s very own case. But in the real world of criminal litigation, the defendant is seeking to avoid his confession — on the ground that it was not accurately reported, or that it was not really true when made. In the present case, for example, petitioner sought to establish that Norberto had a motive for falsely reporting a confession that never in fact occurred. In such circumstances a codefendant’s confession that corroborates the defendant’s confession significantly harms the defendant’s case, whereas one that is positively incompatible gives credence to the defendant’s assertion that his own alleged confession was nonexistent or false. Quite obviously, what the “interlocking” nature of the codefendant’s confession pertains to is not its harmfulness but rather its reliability: If it confirms essentially the same facts as the defendant’s own confession it is more likely to be true. Its reliability, however, may be relevant to whether the confession should (despite the lack of opportunity for cross-examination) be admitted as evidence against the defendant, see Lee v. Illinois, 476 U. S. 530 (1986), but cannot conceivably be relevant to whether, assuming it cannot be admitted, the jury is likely to obey the instruction to disregard it, or the jury’s failure to obey is likely to be inconsequential. The law cannot command respect if such an inexplicable exception to a supposed constitutional imperative is adopted. Having decided Bru-ton, we must face the honest consequences of what it holds.
The dissent makes no effort to respond to these points, urging instead a rejection of our “remorseless logic” in favor of “common sense and judgment.” See post, at 197. But those qualities, even in their most remorseless form, are not separable. It seems to us illogical, and therefore contrary to common sense and good judgment, to believe that codefen-dant confessions are less likely to be taken into account by the jury the more they are corroborated by the defendant’s own admissions; or that they are less likely to be harmful when they confirm the validity of the defendant’s alleged confession. Far from carrying Bruton “to the outer limits of its logic,” ibid., our holding here does no more than reaffirm its central proposition. This case is indistinguishable from Bruton with respect to those factors the Court has deemed relevant in this area: the likelihood that the instruction will be disregarded, Bruton, 391 U. S., at 135; the probability that such disregard will have a devastating effect, id., at 136; and the determinability of these facts in advance of trial, Richardson v. Marsh, post, at 208.
We hold that, where a nontestifying codefendant’s confession incriminating the defendant is not directly admissible against the defendant, see Lee v. Illinois, supra, the Confrontation Clause bars its admission at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed not to consider it against the defendant, and even if the defendant’s own confession is admitted against him. Of course, the defendant’s confession may be considered at trial in assessing whether his codefendant’s statements are supported by sufficient “indicia of reliability” to be directly admissible against him (assuming the “unavailability” of the codefendant) despite the lack of opportunity for cross-examination, see Lee, supra, at 543-544; Bruton, supra, at 128, n. 3, and may be considered on appeal in assessing whether any Confrontation Clause violation was harmless, see Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969).
Because the Court of Appeals analyzed petitioner’s Confrontation Clause claim under an approach we have now rejected, we reverse and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was arrested and convicted for refusing to identify himself during a stop allowed by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). He challenges his conviction under the Fourth and Fifth- Amendments to the United States Constitution, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
The sheriff’s department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop.
The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked him if he had “any identification on [him],” which we understand as a request to produce a driver’s license or some other form of written identification. The man refused and asked why the officer wanted to see identification. The officer responded that he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification. The unidentified man became agitated and insisted he had done nothing wrong. The officer explained that he wanted to find out who the man was and what he was doing there. After continued refusals to comply with the officer’s request for identification, the man began to taunt the officer by placing his hands behind his back and telling the officer to arrest him and take him to jail. This routine kept up for several minutes: The officer asked for identification 11 times and was refused each time. After warning the man that he would be arrested if he continued to refuse to comply, the officer placed him under arrest.
We now know that the. man arrested on Grass Valley Road is Larry Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel was charged with “willfully resisting], delaying] or obstructing] a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office” in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. (NRS) § 199.280 (2003). The government reasoned that Hiibel had obstructed the officer in carrying out his duties under § 171.123, a Nevada statute that defines the legal rights and duties of a police officer in the context of an investigative stop. Section 171.123 provides in relevant part:
“1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
“3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.”
Hiibel was tried in the Justice Court of Union Township. The court agreed that Hiibel’s refusal to identify himself as required by §171.123 “obstructed and delayed Dove as a public officer in attempting to discharge his duty” in violation of §199.280. App. 5. Hiibel was convicted and fined $250. The Sixth Judicial District Court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the application of § 171.123 to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. On review the Supreme Court of Nevada rejected the Fourth Amendment challenge in a divided opinion. 118 Nev. 868, 59 P. 3d 1201 (2002). Hiibel petitioned for rehearing, seeking explicit resolution of his Fifth Amendment challenge. The petition was denied without opinion. We granted certiorari. 540 U. S. 965 (2003).
II
NRS § 171.123(3) is an enactment sometimes referred to as a “stop and identify” statute. See Ala. Code §15-5-30 (West 2003); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-213(a)(1) (2004); Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1) (2003); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§ 1902(a), 1321(6) (2003); Fla. Stat. §856.021(2) (2003); Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (2003); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14 (2004); Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1) (2003); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A) (West 2004); Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2) (2003); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-5-401(2)(a) (2003); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-829 (2003); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 594:2, 644:6 (Lexis 2003); N. M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3 (2004); N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law §140.50(1) (West 2004); N. D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (2003); R. I. Gen. Laws § 12-7-1 (2003); Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15 (2003); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983 (Supp. 2003); Wis. Stat. § 968.24 (2003). See also Note, Stop and Identify Statutes: A New Form of an Inadequate Solution to an Old Problem, 12 Rutgers L. J. 585 (1981); Note, Stop-and-Identify Statutes After Kolender v. Lawson: Exploring the Fourth and Fifth Amendment Issues, 69 Iowa L. Rev. 1057 (1984).
Stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. The statutes vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity. A few States model their statutes on the Uniform Arrest Act, a model code that permits an officer to stop a person reasonably suspected of committing a crime and “demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going.” Warner, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 344 (1942). Other statutes are based on the text proposed by the American Law Institute as part of the Institute’s Model Penal Code. See ALI, Model Penal Code § 250.6, Comment 4, pp. 392-393 (1980). The provision, originally designated §250.12,- provides that a person who is loitering “under circumstances which justify suspicion that he may be engaged or about to engage in crime commits a violation if he refuses the request of a peace officer that he identify himself and give a reasonably credible account of the lawfulness of his conduct and purposes.” §250.12 (Tent. Draft No. 13) (1961). In some States, a suspect’s refusal to identify himself is a misdemeanor offense or civil violation; in others, it is a factor to be considered in whether the suspect has violated loitering laws. In other States, a suspect may decline to identify himself without penalty.
Stop and identify statutes have their roots in early English vagrancy laws that required suspected vagrants to face arrest unless they gave “a good Account of themselves,” 15 Geo. 2, ch. 5, §2 (1744), a power that itself reflected common-law rights of private persons to “arrest any suspicious night-walker, and detain him till he give a good account of himself....” 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, ch. 13, § 6, p. 130 (6th ed. 1787). In recent decades, the Court has found constitutional infirmity in traditional vagrancy laws. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156 (1972), the Court held that a traditional vagrancy law was void for vagueness. Its broad scope and imprecise terms denied proper notice to potential offenders and permitted police officers to exercise unfettered discretion in the enforcement of the law. See id., at 167-171.
The Court has recognized similar constitutional limitations on the scope and operation of stop and identify statutes. In Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity. See id., at 51-52. Absent that factual basis for detaining the defendant, the Court held, the risk of “arbitrary and abusive police practices” was too great and the stop was impermissible. Id., at 52. Four Terms later, the Court invalidated a modified stop and identify statute on vagueness grounds. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352 (1983). The California law in Kolender required a suspect to give an officer “ ‘credible and reliable’ ” identification when asked to identify himself. Id., at 360. The Court held that the statute was void because it provided no standard for determining what a suspect must do to comply with it, resulting in “ ‘virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation.’” Ibid, (quoting Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130, 135 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring in result)).
The present case begins where our prior cases left off. Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, the petitioner has not alleged that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Ko-lender. Here the Nevada statute is narrower and more precise. The statute in Kolender had been interpreted to require a suspect to give the officer “credible and reliable” identification. In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS § 171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. See 118 Nev., at 875, 59 P. 3d, at 1206 (opinion of Young, C. J.) (“The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists”). As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver’s license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means — a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make — the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. See id., at 876-877, 59 P. 3d, at 1206-1207.
Ill
Hiibel argues that his conviction cannot stand because the officer’s conduct violated his Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree.
Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment. “[Interrogation relating to one’s identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.” INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 216 (1984). Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Delgado, supra, at 216; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 881 (1975). To ensure that the resulting seizure is constitutionally reasonable, a Terry stop must be limited. The officer’s action must be “ ‘justified at its inception, and . . . reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.’” United States v. Sharpe, 470 U. S. 675, 682 (1985) (quoting Terry, supra, at 20). For example, the seizure cannot continue for an excessive period of time, see United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 709 (1983), or resemble a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 212 (1979).
Our decisions make clear that questions concerning a suspect’s identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops. See United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229 (1985) (“[T]he ability to briefly stop [a suspect], ask questions, or check identification in the absence of probable cause promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice”); Hayes v. Florida, 470 U. S. 811, 816 (1985) (“[I]f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information”); Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 146 (1972) (“A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time”).
Obtaining a suspect’s name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests. Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Identity may prove particularly important in cases such as this, where the police are investigating what appears to be a domestic assault. Officers called to investigate domestic disputes need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim.
Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself in the course of a Terry stop, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer. See Brown, 443 U. S., at 53, n. 3. Petitioner draws our attention to statements in prior opinions that, according to him, answer the question in his favor. In Terry, Justice White stated in a concurring opinion that a person detained in an investigative stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.” 392 U. S., at 34. The Court cited this opinion in dicta in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984), a decision holding that a routine traffic stop is not a custodial stop requiring the protections of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). In the course of explaining why Terry stops have not been subject to Miranda, the Court suggested reasons why Terry stops have a “nonthreatening character,” among them the fact that a suspect detained during a Terry stop “is not obliged to respond” to questions. See Berkemer, supra, at 439, 440. According to petitioner, these statements establish a right to refuse to answer questions during a Terry stop.
We do not read these statements as controlling. The passages recognize that the Fourth Amendment does not impose obligations on the citizen but instead provides rights against the government. As a result, the Fourth Amendment itself cannot require a suspect to answer questions. This case concerns a different issue, however. Here, the source of the legal obligation arises from Nevada state law, not the Fourth Amendment. Further, the statutory obligation does not go beyond answering an officer’s request to disclose a name. See NRS § 171.123(3) (“Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer”). As a result, we cannot view the dicta in Berkemer or Justice White’s concurrence in Terry as answering the question whether a State' can compel a suspect to disclose his name during a Terry stop.
The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. The reasonableness of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment is determined “by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate government interests.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 654 (1979). The Nevada statute satisfies that standard. The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop. The threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request for identity does not become a legal nullity. On the other hand, the Nevada statute does not alter the nature of the stop itself: it does not change its duration, Place, supra, at 709, or its location, Dunaway, supra, at 212. A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Petitioner argues that the Nevada statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement, in effect allowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious. According to petitioner, this creates a risk of arbitrary police conduct that the Fourth Amendment does not permit. Brief for Petitioner 28-33. These are familiar concerns; they were central to the opinion in Papachristou, and also to the decisions limiting the operation of stop and identify statutes in Kolender and Brown. Petitioner’s concerns are met by the requirement that a Terry stop must be justified at its inception and “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop. 392 U. S., at 20. Under these principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. The Court noted a similar limitation in Hayes, where it suggested that Terry may permit an officer to determine a suspect’s identity by compelling the suspect to submit to fingerprinting only if there is “a reasonable basis for believing that fingerprinting will establish or negate the suspect’s connection with that crime.” 470 U. S., at 817. It is clear in this case that the request for identification was “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the stop. Terry, supra, at 20. The officer’s request was a commonsense inquiry, not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence. The stop, the request, and the State’s requirement of a response did not contravene the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment.
IV
Petitioner further contends that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on compelled self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment states that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” To qualify for the Fifth Amendment privilege, a communication must be testimonial, incriminating, and compelled. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U. S. 27, 34-38 (2000).
Respondents urge us to hold that the statements NRS § 171.123(3) requires are nontestimonial, and so outside the Clause’s scope. We decline to resolve the case on that basis. “[T]o be testimonial, an accused’s communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information.” Doe v. United States, 487 U. S. 201, 210 (1988). See also Hubbell, 530 U. S., at 35. Stating one’s name may qualify as an assertion of fact relating to identity. Production of identity documents might meet the definition as well. As we noted in Hubbell, acts of production may yield testimony establishing “the existence, authenticity, and custody of items [the police seek].” Id., at 41. Even if these required actions are testimonial, however, petitioner’s challenge must fail because in this case disclosure of his name presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating. See Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 598 (1896) (noting that where “the answer of the witness will not directly show his infamy, but only tend to disgrace him, he is bound to answer”). A claim of Fifth Amendment privilege must establish
“ ‘reasonable ground to apprehend danger to the witness from his being compelled to answer .... [T]he danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things, — not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency, so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct.’ ” Id., at 599-600 (quoting Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, 330, 121 Eng. Rep. 730, 738 (Q. B. 1861) (Cockburn, C. J.)).
As we stated in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 445 (1972), the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination “protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.” Suspects who have been granted immunity from prosecution may, therefore, be compelled to answer; with the threat of prosecution removed, there can be no reasonable belief that the evidence will be used against them. See id., at 453.
In this case petitioner’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it “would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute” him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951). As best we' can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business. Even today, petitioner does not explain how the disclosure of his name could have been used against him in a criminal case. While we recognize petitioner’s strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him.
The narrow scope of the disclosure requirement is also important. One’s identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic. Answering, a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances. See Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U. S. 549, 555 (1990) (suggesting that “fact[s] the State could readily establish” may render “any testimony regarding existence or authenticity [of them] insufficiently incriminating”); cf. California v. Byers, 402 U. S. 424, 432 (1971) (opinion of Burger, C. J.). In every criminal case, it is known and must be known who has been arrested and who is being tried. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U. S. 582, 601-602 (1990) (principal opinion of Brennan, J.). Even witnesses who plan to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege answer when their names are called to take the stand. Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here.
The judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns government officials — entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense in a “constitutional tort” action — who seek an immediate appeal of a district court order denying their motions for summary judgment. The order in question resolved a/aci-related dispute about the pretrial record, namely, whether or not the evidence in the pretrial record was sufficient to show a genuine issue of fact for trial. We hold that the defendants cannot immediately appeal this kind of fact-related district court determination. And, we affirm the similar holding of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
I
The plaintiff in this case, Houston Jones, is a diabetic. Police officers found him on the street while he was having an insulin seizure. The officers thought he was drunk, they arrested him, and they took him to the police station. Jones later found himself in a hospital, with several broken ribs. Subsequently, Jones brought this “constitutional tort” action against five named policemen. Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Jones claimed that these policemen used excessive force when they arrested him and that they beat him at the station.
Three of the officers (the petitioners here) moved for summary judgment arguing that, whatever evidence Jones might have about the other two officers, he could point to no evir dence that these three had beaten him or had been present while others did so. Jones responded by pointing to his deposition, in which he swore that officers (though he did not name them) had used excessive force when arresting him and, later, in the booking room at the station house. He also pointed to the three officers’ own depositions, in which they admitted they were present at the arrest and in or near the booking room when Jones was there.
The District Court denied the officers’ summary judgment motion. The court wrote that Seventh Circuit precedent indicated potential liability if the three officers “stood by and allowed others to beat the plaintiff.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 7a. And, the court held that there was “sufficient circumstantial evidence supporting [Jones’] theory of the case.” Id., at 8a.
The three officers immediately appealed the District Court’s denial of their summary judgment motion. They argued, in relevant part, that the denial was wrong because the record contained “not a scintilla of evidence . .. that one or more” of them had “ever struck, punched or kicked the plaintiff, or ever observed anyone doing so.” Brief for Appellants in No. 93-3777 (CA7), p. 10. But, the Seventh Circuit refused to consider this argument — namely, that the District Court had improperly rejected their contention that the record lacked sufficient evidence even to raise a “genuine” (i. e., triable) issue of fact. The Seventh Circuit held that it “lack[ed] appellate jurisdiction over th[is] contention,” i e., of the “evidence insufficiency” contention that “we didn’t do it.” 26 P. 3d 727, 728 (1994). It consequently dismissed their appeal.
Courts of Appeals hold different views about the immediate appealability of such pretrial “evidence insufficiency” claims made by public official defendants who assert qualified immunity defenses. Compare, e. g., Kaminsky v. Rosenblum, 929 F. 2d 922, 926 (CA2 1991) (saying that no appellate jurisdiction exists); Giuffre v. Bissell, 31 F. 3d 1241, 1247 (CA3 1994) (same); Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F. 2d 604, 609 (CA5 1987) (same); Elliott v. Thomas, 937 F. 2d 338, 341-342 (CA7 1991) (same), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1074, 1121 (1992); Crawford-El v. Britton, 951 F. 2d 1314, 1317 (CADC 1991) (same), with Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F. 2d 124, 128 (CA1 1988) (saying that appellate jurisdiction does exist); Turner v. Dammon, 848 F. 2d 440, 444 (CA4 1988) (same); Kelly v. Bender, 23 F. 3d 1328, 1330 (CA8 1994) (same); Burgess v. Pierce County, 918 F. 2d 104, 106, and n. 3 (CA9 1990) (per curiam) (same); Austin v. Hamilton, 945 F. 2d 1155, 1157, 1162-1163 (CA10 1991) (same). We therefore granted cer-tiorari. 513 U. S. 1071 (1995).
II
A
Three backgroundprinciples guide our effort to decide this issue. First, the relevant statute grants appellate courts jurisdiction to hear appeals only from “final decisions” of district courts. 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Given this statute, interlocutory appeals — appeals before the end of district court proceedings — are the exception, not the rule. The statute recognizes that rules that permit too many interlocutory appeals can cause harm. An interlocutory appeal can make it more difficult for trial judges to do their basic job — supervising trial proceedings. It can threaten those proceedings with delay, adding costs and diminishing coherence. It also risks additional, and unnecessary, appellate court work either when it presents appellate courts with less developed records or when it brings them appeals that, had the trial simply proceeded, would have turned out to be unnecessary. See Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Roller, 472 U. S. 424, 430 (1985); Flanagan v. United States, 465 U. S. 259, 263-264 (1984); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S. 368, 374 .(1981).
Of course, sometimes interlocutory appellate review has important countervailing benefits. In certain cases, it may avoid injustice by quickly correcting a trial court’s error. It can simplify, or more appropriately direct, the future course of litigation. And, it can thereby reduce the burdens of future proceedings, perhaps freeing a party from those burdens entirely. Congress consequently has authorized, through other statutory provisions, immediate appeals (or has empowered courts to authorize immediate appeals) in certain classes of cases — classes in which these countervailing benefits may well predominate. None of these special “immediate appeal” statutes, however, is applicable here. See 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (immediate appeal of, e. g., orders granting or denying injunctions; authority to “certify” certain important legal questions); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(b) (authorizing district courts to “direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties”); 28 U. S. C. §§ 1292(e), 2072(c) (1988 ed., Supp. V) (authorizing this Court to promulgate rules designating certain kinds of orders as immediately appealable); cf. 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (authorizing federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate,” including writs of mandamus).
Second, in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949), this Court held that certain so-called collateral orders amount to “final decisions,” immediately appeal-able under the here-relevant statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1291, even though the district court may have entered those orders before (perhaps long before) the case has ended. These special “collateral orders” were those that fell within
“that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Cohen, supra, at 546.
More recently, this Court has restated Cohen as requiring that the order “‘[1] conclusively determine the disputed question, [2] resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and [3] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’ ” Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 144 (1993) (brackets in original) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978)).
In determining which “collateral orders” amount to “final decisions,” these requirements help qualify for immediate appeal classes of orders in which the considerations that favor immediate appeals seem comparatively strong and those that disfavor such appeals seem comparatively weak. The requirement that the issue underlying the order be “ ‘effectively unreviewable’ ” later on, for example, means that failure to review immediately may well cause significant harm. See 15A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3911, pp. 334-335 (1992) (hereinafter Wright & Miller). The requirement that the district court’s order “conclusively determine” the question means that appellate review is likely needed to avoid that harm. Id., at 333. The requirement that the matter be separate from the merits of the action itself means that review now is less likely to force the appellate court to consider approximately the same (or a very similar) matter more than once, and also seems less likely to delay trial court proceedings (for, if the matter is truly collateral, those proceedings might continue while the appeal is pending). Id., at 333-334.
Third, in Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511 (1985), this Court held that a district court’s order denying a defendant’s motion for summary judgment was an immediately appeal-able “collateral order” (i. e., a “final decision”) under Cohen, where (1) the defendant was a public official asserting a defense of “qualified immunity,” and (2) the issue appealed concerned, not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of “clearly established” law. 472 U. S., at 528; see Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982) (holding that public officials are entitled to a “qualified immunity” from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known”). Applying Cohen’s criteria, the Mitchell Court held that this kind of summary judgment order was, in a sense, “effectively unreviewable,” for review after trial would come too late to vindicate one important purpose of “qualified immunity” — namely, protecting public officials, not simply from liability, but also from standing trial. Mitchell, supra, at 525-527. For related reasons, the Court found that the order was conclusive, i. e., it “conclusively” settled the question of the defendant’s immunity from suit. 472 U. S., at 527.
The Court in Mitchell found more difficult the “separability” question, i. e., whether or not the “qualified immunity” issue was “completely separate from the merits of the action,” supra, at 310. The Court concluded that:
“it follows from the recognition that qualified immunity is in part an entitlement not to be forced to litigate the consequences of official conduct that a claim of immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of the plaintiff’s claim that his rights have been violated.” Mitchell, supra, at 527-528 (emphasis added).
And, the Court said that this “conceptual distinctness” made the immediately appealable issue “separate” from the merits of the plaintiff’s claim, in part because an
“appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant’s claim of immunity need not consider the correctness of the plaintiff’s version of the facts, nor even determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations actually state a claim. All it need determine is a question of law: whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, in cases where the district court has denied summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims he took.” Id., at 528 (footnote omitted).
B
We now consider the appealability of a portion of a district court’s summary judgment order that, though entered in a “qualified immunity” case, determines only a question of “evidence sufficiency,” i. e., which facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial. This kind of order, we conclude, is not appealable. That is, the District Court’s determination that the summary judgment record in this case raised a genuine issue of fact concerning petitioners’ involvement in the alleged beating of respondent was not a “final decision” within the meaning of the relevant statute. We so decide essentially for three reasons.
First, consider Mitchell itself, purely as precedent. The dispute underlying the Mitchell appeal involved the application of “clearly established” law to a given (for appellate purposes undisputed) set of facts. And, the Court, in its opinion, explicitly limited its holding to appeals challenging, not a district court’s determination about what factual issues are “genuine,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c), but the purely legal issue what law was “clearly established.” The opinion, for example, referred specifically to a district court’s “denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” 472 U. S., at 530 (emphasis added). It “emphasize[d]... that the appealable issue is a purely legal one: whether the facts, alleged (by the plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Id., at 528, n. 9. It distinguished precedent not permitting interlocutory appeals on the ground that “a qualified immunity ruling ... is ... a legal issue that can be decided with reference only to undisputed facts and in isolation from the remaining issues of the case.” Id., at 530, n. 10. And, it explained its separability holding by saying that “[a]n appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant’s claim of immunity need not consider the correctness of the plaintiff’s version of the facts.” Id., at 528. Although there is some language in the opinion that sounds as if it might imply the contrary, it does not do so when read in context. See, e.g., id., at 526 (referring to defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment, not to appealability, by saying that “defendant is entitled to summary judgment if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue”).
Second, consider, in the context of an “evidence sufficiency” claim, Cohen’s conceptual theory of appealability— the theory that brings immediate appealability within the scope of the jurisdictional statute’s “final decision” requirement. That theory finds a “final” district court decision in part because the immediately appealable decision involves issues significantly different from those that underlie the plaintiff’s basic case. As we have just pointed out, Mitchell rested upon the view that “a claim of immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.” 472 U. S., at 527. It held that this was so because, although sometimes practically intertwined with the merits, a claim of immunity nonetheless raises a question that is significantly different from the questions underlying plaintiff’s claim on the merits (i. e., in the absence of qualified immunity). Id., at 528.
Where, however, a defendant simply wants to appeal a district court’s determination that the evidence is sufficient to permit a particular finding of fact after trial, it will often prove difficult to find any such “separate” question — one that is significantly different from the fact-related legal issues that likely underlie the plaintiff’s claim on the merits. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 248 (1986) (district court’s task, in deciding whether there is a “genuine” issue of fact, is to determine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party”); see also Elliott v. Thomas, 937 F. 2d, at 341 (“[Wjhether the defendants did the deeds alleged ... is precisely the question for trial”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1074, 1121 (1992); Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc., 800 F. 2d 199, 203 (CA8 1986) (saying that this question “is ... less clearly separable from the merits” than the question in Mitchell)', see also Brief for United States 18 (“In one sense, a ruling regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is closely intertwined with the merits”).
It has been suggested that Mitchell implicitly recognized that “the need to protect officials against the burdens of further pretrial proceedings and trial” justifies a relaxation of the separability requirement. 15A Wright & Miller §3914.10, at 656; see id., §3911, at 344-345; id., §3911.2, at 387; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 20 (“[W]here the right not to be tried is at stake, [closer] association with the merits is tolerated”) (argument of the United States). Assuming that to be so, and despite a similar interest in avoiding trial in the kind of case here at issue, we can find no separability. To take what petitioners call a small step beyond Mitchell, Brief for Petitioners 18, would more than relax the separability requirement — it would in many cases simply abandon it.
Finally, consider the competing considerations that underlie questions of finality. See supra, at 309-310. We of course decide appealability for categories of orders rather than individual orders. See Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 868 (1994). Thus, we do not now in each individual case engage in ad hoc balancing to decide issues of appealability. See generally P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P. Mishkin, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and The Federal System 1810 (3d ed. 1988). But, that does not mean that, in delineating appealable categories, we should not look to “the competing considerations underlying all questions of finality — ‘the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review on the one hand and the danger of denying justice by delay on the other.’ ” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U. S. 156, 171 (1974) (quoting Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U. S. 507, 511 (1950)). And, those considerations, which we discussed above in Part II-A, argue against extending Mitchell to encompass orders of the kind before us.
For one thing, the issue here at stake — the existence, or nonexistence, of a triable issue of fact — is the kind of issue that trial judges, not appellate judges, confront almost daily. Institutionally speaking, appellate judges enjoy no comparative expertise in such matters. Cf. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 560-561 (1988); id., at 584 (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting that the “special expertise and experience of appellate courts” lies in “assessing the relative force of . . . applications of legal norms”) (internal quotation marks omitted). And, to that extent, interlocutory appeals are less likely to bring important error-correcting benefits here than where purely legal matters are at issue, as in Mitchell. Cf. Richardson-Merrell, 472 U. S., at 434 (stating that the fact that “[m]ost pretrial orders [of the kind there at issue] are ultimately affirmed by appellate courts” militated against immediate appealability).
For another thing, questions about whether or not a record demonstrates a “genuine” issue of fact for trial, if appealable, can consume inordinate amounts of appellate time. Many constitutional tort cases, unlike the simple “we didn’t do it” case before us, involve factual controversies about, for example, intent — controversies that, before trial, may seern nebulous. To resolve those controversies — to determine whether there is or is not a triable issue of fact about such a matter— may require reading a vast pretrial record, with numerous conflicting affidavits, depositions, and other discovery materials. This fact means, compared with Mitchell, greater delay.
For a third thing, the close connection between this kind of issue and the factual matter that will likely surface at trial means that the appellate court, in the many instances in which it upholds a district court’s decision denying summary judgment, may well be faced with approximately the same factual issue again, after trial, with just enough change (brought about by the trial testimony) to require it, once again, to canvass the record. That is to say, an interlocutory appeal concerning this kind of issue in a sense makes unwise use of appellate courts’ time, by forcing them to decide in the context of a less developed record, an issue very similar to one they may well decide anyway later, on a record that will permit a better decision. See 15A Wright & Miller §3914.10, at 664 (“[I]f [immunity appeals] could be limited to ... issues of law ... there would be less risk that the court of appeals would need to waste time in duplicating investigations of the same facts on successive appeals”).
The upshot is that, compared with Mitchell, considerations of delay, comparative expertise of trial and appellate courts, and wise use of appellate resources argue in favor of limiting interlocutory appeals of “qualified immunity” matters to cases presenting more abstract issues of law. Considering these “competing considerations,” we are persuaded that “[i]mmunity appeals . . . interfere less with the final judgment rule if they [are] limited to cases presenting neat abstract issues of law.” 16A Wright & Miller § 3914.10, at 664; cf. Puerto Rico Aqueduct, 506 U. S., at 147 (noting the argument for a distinction between fact-based and law-based appeals, but seeing no “basis for drawing” it with respect to the particular kind of order at hand); 15A Wright & Miller §3914.10, at 85 (1995 Supp.).
We recognize that, whether a district court’s denial of summary judgment amounts to (a) a determination about preexisting “clearly established” law, or (b) a determination about “genuine” issues of fact for trial, it still forces public officials to trial. See Brief for Petitioners 11-16. And, to that extent, it threatens to undercut the very policy (protecting public officials from lawsuits) that (the Mitchell Court held) militates in favor of immediate appeals. Nonetheless, the countervailing considerations that we have mentioned (precedent, fidelity to statute, and underlying policies) are too strong to permit the extension of Mitchell to encompass appeals from orders of the sort before us.
C
We mention one final point. Petitioners argue that our effort to separate reviewable from unreviewable summary-judgment determinations will prove unworkable. First, they say that the parties can easily manipulate our holding. A defendant seeking to create a reviewable summary judgment order might do so simply by adding a reviewable claim to a motion that otherwise would create an unreviewable order. “[H]ere, for example,” they say, “petitioners could have contended that the law was unclear on how much force may be exerted against suspects who resist arrest.” Brief for Petitioners 29, n. 11.
We do not think this is a serious problem. We concede that, if the District Court in this case had determined that beating respondent violated clearly established law, petitioners could have sought review of that determination. But, it does not automatically follow that the Court of Appeals would also have reviewed the here more important determination that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether petitioners participated in (or were present at) a beating. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that it may sometimes be appropriate to exercise “pendent appellate jurisdiction” over such a matter, but cf. Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U. S. 35, 50-51 (1995), it seems unlikely that courts of appeals would do so in a case where the appealable issue appears simply a means to lead the court to review the underlying factual matter, see, e. g., Natale v. Ridgefield, 927 F. 2d 101, 104 (CA2 1991) (saying exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction is proper only in “exceptional circumstances”); United States ex rel. Valders Stone & Marble, Inc. v. C-Way Constr. Co., 909 F. 2d 259, 262 (CA7 1990) (saying exercise of such jurisdiction is proper only where there are “ ‘compelling reasons’ ”).
Second, petitioners add, if appellate courts try to separate an appealed order’s reviewable determination (that a given set of facts violates clearly established law) from its unre-viewable determination (that an issue of fact is “genuine”), they will have great difficulty doing so. District judges may simply deny summary judgment motions without indicating their reasons for doing so. How, in such a case, will the court of appeals know what set of facts to assume when it answers the purely legal question about “clearly established” law?
This problem is more serious, but not serious enough to lead us to a different conclusion. When faced with an argument that the district court mistakenly identified clearly established law, the court of appeals can simply take, as given, the facts that the district court assumed when it denied summary judgment for that (purely legal) reason. Knowing that this is “extremely helpful to a reviewing court,” Anderson, 477 U. S., at 250, n. 6, district courts presumably will often state those facts. But, if they do not, we concede that a court of appeals may have to undertake a cumbersome review of the record to determine what facts the district court, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, likely assumed. Regardless, this circumstance does not make a critical difference to our result, for a rule that occasionally requires a detailed evidence-based review of the record is still, from a practical point of view, more manageable than the rule that petitioners urge us to adopt. Petitioners’ approach would make that task, not the exception, but the rule. We note, too, that our holding here has been the law in several Circuits for some time. See supra, at 308-309. Yet, petitioners have not pointed to concrete examples of the unmanageability they fear.
III
For these reasons, we hold that a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a “genuine” issue of fact for trial. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is therefore
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the particular context of this case we must decide whether federal law pre-empts a state-law cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit is brought by an employee of a nuclear-fuels production facility against her employer and arises out of actions by the employer allegedly taken in retaliation for the employee’s nuclear-safety complaints.
I
Petitioner Vera M. English was employed from 1972 to 1984 as a laboratory technician at the nuclear-fuels production facility operated by respondent General Electric Company (GE) in Wilmington, N. C. In February 1984, petitioner complained to GE’s management and to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about several perceived violations of nuclear-safety standards at the facility, including the failure of her co-workers to clean up radioactive material spills in the laboratory.
Frustrated by the company’s failure to address her concerns, petitioner on one occasion deliberately failed to clean a work table contaminated with a uranium solution during a preceding shift. Instead, she outlined the contaminated areas with red tape so as to make them conspicuous. A few days later, petitioner called her supervisor’s attention to the marked-off areas, which still had not been cleaned. As a result, work was halted while the laboratory was inspected and cleaned.
Shortly after this episode, GE charged petitioner with a knowing failure to clean up radioactive contamination and temporarily assigned her to other work. On April 30, 1984, GE’s management informed petitioner that she would be laid off unless, within 90 days, she successfully bid for a position in an area of the facility where she would not be exposed to nuclear materials. On May 15, petitioner was notified of the company’s final decision affirming the disciplinary action taken against her. Petitioner did not find another position by July 30, and her employment was terminated.
In August, petitioner filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor charging GE with violating § 210(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as added, 92 Stat. 2951, 42 U. S. C. § 5851(a) (1982 ed.), which makes it unlawful for an employer in the nuclear industry to
“discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee . . .
“(1) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under, this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or a proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any requirement imposed under this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
“(2) testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or;
“(3) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in any manner in such a proceeding . . . or in any other action to carry out the purposes of this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.”
In her charge, petitioner alleged that GE’s actions constituted unlawful employment discrimination in retaliation for her nuclear-safety complaints to GE’s management and to the NRC. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to whom the matter was referred found that GE had violated § 210(a) when it transferred and then discharged petitioner. The Secretary, however, dismissed the complaint as untimely because it had not been filed, as required by § 210(b)(1), within 30 days after the May 15 notice of the company’s final decision.
In March 1987, petitioner filed a diversity action against GE in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Petitioner in four counts raised two claims, one for wrongful discharge and one for intentional infliction of emotional distress. With respect to the latter, petitioner alleged that she was suffering from severe depression and emotional harm as a result of GE’s “extreme and outrageous conduct.” App. 20. Petitioner alleged that, in addition to transferring and ultimately firing her, GE (1) had removed her from the laboratory position under guard “as if she were a criminal,” id., at 14; (2) had assigned her to degrading “make work” in her substitute assignment, ibid.; (3) had derided her as paranoid; (4) had barred her from working in controlled areas; (5) had placed her under constant surveillance during working hours; (6) had isolated her from coworkers, even during lunch periods; and (7) had conspired to charge her fraudulently with violations of safety and criminal laws. Id., at 14-17. Petitioner sought punitive as well as compensatory damages.
Although the District Court concluded that petitioner had stated a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under North Carolina law, it nonetheless granted GE’s motion to dismiss. 683 F. Supp. 1006, 1017-1018 (1988). The court did not accept GE’s argument that petitioner’s claim fell within the field of nuclear safety, a field that, according to GE, had been completely pre-empted by the Federal Government. The court held, however, that petitioner’s claim was pre-empted because it conflicted with three particular aspects of § 210: (1) a provision that bars recovery under the section to any employee who “deliberately causes a violation of any requirement of [the Energy Reorganization Act,] or of the Atomic Energy Act,” § 210(g); (2) the absence of any provision generally authorizing the Secretary to award exemplary or punitive damages; and (3) the provisions requiring that a whistle-blower invoking the statute file an administrative complaint within 30 days after the violation occurs, and that the Secretary resolve the complaint within 90 days after its filing. See §§ 210(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A). In the court’s view, Congress enacted this scheme to foreclose all remedies to whistle-blowers who themselves violate nuclear-safety requirements, to limit exemplary damages awards against the nuclear industry, and to guarantee speedy resolution of allegations of nuclear-safety violations— goals the court found incompatible with the broader remedies petitioner sought under state tort law.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s emotional distress claim on the basis of the District Court’s reasoning. 871 F. 2d 22, 23 (1989). That court concluded that Congress had intended to foreclose nuclear whistle-blowers from pursuing state tort remedies and stated its belief that the District Court “correctly identified and applied the relevant federal and state law.” Id., at 23. Because of an apparent conflict with a decision of the First Circuit, see Norris v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., 881 F. 2d 1144 (1989), we granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 1055 (1990).
II
A
The sole question for our resolution is whether the Federal Government has pre-empted petitioner’s state-law tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Our cases have established that state law is pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, in three circumstances. First, Congress can define explicitly the extent to which its enactments pre-empt state law. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 95-98 (1983). Preemption fundamentally is a question of congressional intent, see Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U. S. 293, 299 (1988), and when Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory language, the courts’ task is an easy one.
Second, in the absence of explicit statutory language, state law is pre-empted where it regulates conduct in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy exclusively. Such an intent may be inferred from a “scheme of federal regulation . . . so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it,” or where an Act of Congress “touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). Although this Court has not hesitated to draw an inference of field pre-emption where it is supported by the federal statutory and regulatory schemes, it has emphasized: “Where . . . the field which Congress is said to have pre-empted” includes areas that have “been traditionally occupied by the States,” congressional intent to supersede state laws must be “‘clear and manifest.’” Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977), quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S., at 230.
Finally, state law is pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Thus, the Court has found pre-emption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements, see, e. g., Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941). See also Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 747 (1981).
It is undisputed that Congress has not explicitly preempted petitioner’s state-law tort action by inserting specific pre-emptive language into any of its enactments governing the nuclear industry. The District Court and apparently the Court of Appeals did not rest their decisions on a field preemption rationale either, but rather on what they considered an actual tension between petitioner’s cause of action and the congressional goals reflected in § 210. In this Court, respondent seeks to defend the judgment both on the lower courts’ rationale and on the alternative ground that petitioner’s tort claim is located within a field reserved for federal regulation—the field of nuclear safety. Before turning to the specific aspects of § 210 on which the lower courts based their decisions, we address the field pre-emption question.
B
This is not the first case in which the Court has had occasion to consider the extent to which Congress has pre-empted the field of nuclear safety. In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190 (1983), the Court carefully analyzed the congressional enactments relating to the nuclear industry in order to decide whether a California law that conditioned the construction of a nuclear powerplant on a state agency’s approval of the plant’s nuclear-waste storage and disposal facilities fell within a pre-empted field. Although we need not repeat all of that analysis here, we summarize briefly the Court’s discussion of the actions Congress has taken in the nuclear realm and the conclusions it drew from these actions.
Until 1954, the use, control, and ownership of all nuclear technology remained a federal monopoly. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 919, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2011 et seq. (1982 ed.), stemmed from Congress’ belief that the national interest would be served if the Government encouraged the private sector to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes under a program of federal regulation and licensing. The Act implemented this policy decision by opening the door to private construction, ownership, and operation of commercial nuclear-power reactors under the strict supervision of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 63 (1978). The AEC was given exclusive authority to license the transfer, delivery, receipt, acquisition, possession, and use of all nuclear materials. As was observed in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 550 (1978): “The [Federal Government’s] prime area of concern in the licensing context . . . [was] national security, public health, and safety.” With respect to these matters, no significant role was contemplated for the States.
In 1959, Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act in order to “clarify the respective responsibilities . . . of the States and the [Federal Government] with respect to the regulation of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials,” 42 U. S. C. § 2021(a)(1) (1982 ed.), and generally to increase the States’ role. The 1959 amendments authorized the AEC, by agreements with state governors, to discontinue the Federal Government’s regulatory authority over certain nuclear materials under specified conditions. State regulatory programs adopted under the amendment were required to be “coordinated and compatible” with those of the AEC. § 2021(g).
In 1974, Congress passed the Energy Reorganization Act, 88 Stat. 1233, 42 U. S. C. § 5801 et seq. (1982 ed.), which abolished the AEC and transferred its regulatory and licensing authority to the NRC. § 5841(f). The 1974 Act also expanded the number and range of safety responsibilities under the NRC’s charge. As was observed in Pacific Gas, the NRC does not purport to exercise its authority based upon economic considerations, but rather is concerned primarily with public health and safety. See 461 U. S., at 207. Finally, in 1978, Congress amended both the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act. Pub. L. 95-601, 92 Stat. 2947. Among these amendments is § 210, 42 U. S. C. § 5851 (1982 ed.), which, as discussed above, encourages employees to report safety violations and provides a mechanism for protecting them against retaliation for doing so.
After reviewing the relevant statutory provisions and legislative history, the Court in Pacific Gas concluded that “the Federal Government has occupied the entire field of nuclear safety concerns, except the limited powers expressly ceded to the States.” 461 U. S., at 212. Although we ultimately determined that the California statute at issue there did not fall within the pre-empted field, we made clear our view that Congress intended that only “the Federal Government should regulate the radiological safety aspects involved in the construction and operation of a nuclear plant.” Id., at 205. In the present dispute, respondent and petitioner disagree as to whether petitioner’s tort action falls within the boundaries of the pre-empted field referred to in Pacific Gas.
Respondent maintains that the pre-empted field of “nuclear safety” is a large one, and that §210 is an integral part of it. Specifically, respondent contends that because the Federal Government is better able to promote nuclear safety if whistle-blowers pursue the federal remedy, the whole area marked off by § 210 should be considered part of the pre-empted field identified in Pacific Gas. Accordingly, respondent argues that all state-law remedies for conduct that is covered by § 210 are pre-empted by Congress’ decision to have the Federal Government exclusively regulate the field of nuclear safety.
Petitioner and the United States as amicus curiae, on their part, contend that petitioner’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not pre-empted because the Court made clear in Pacific Gas that state laws supported by nonsafety rationales do not lie within the pre-empted field. They argue that since the state tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is supported by a nonsafety rationale— namely, the State’s “substantial interest in protecting its citizens from the kind of abuse of which [petitioner] complain[s],” see Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U. S. 290, 302 (1977)—petitioner’s cause of action must be allowed to go forward.
We think both arguments are somewhat wide of the mark. With respect to respondent’s contention, we find no “clear and manifest” intent on the part of Congress, in enacting § 210, to pre-empt all state tort laws that traditionally have been available to those persons who, like petitioner, allege outrageous conduct at the hands of an employer. Indeed, acceptance of respondent’s argument would require us to conclude that Congress has displaced not only state tort law, which is at issue in this case, but also state criminal law, to the extent that such criminal law is applied to retaliatory conduct occurring at the site of a nuclear employer. For example, if an employer were to retaliate against a nuclear whistle-blower by hiring thugs to assault the employee on the job (conduct literally covered by § 210), respondent’s position would imply that the state criminal law prohibiting such conduct is within the pre-empted field. We simply cannot believe that Congress intended that result. Instead, we think the District Court was essentially correct in observing that while § 210 obviously bears some relation to the field of nuclear safety, its “paramount” purpose was the protection of employees. See 683 F. Supp., at 1013. Accordingly, we see no basis for respondent’s contention that all state-law claims arising from conduct covered by the section are necessarily included in the pre-empted field.
Nor, however, can we accept petitioner’s position, or the reading of Pacific Gas on which it is based. It is true that the holding in that case was premised, in part, on the conclusion that the California ban on nuclear construction was not motivated by safety concerns. Indeed, the majority of the Court suggested that a “state moratorium on nuclear construction grounded in safety concerns falls squarely within the prohibited field.” 461 U. S., at 213. In other words, the Court defined the pre-empted field, in part, by reference to the motivation behind the state law. This approach to defining the field had some support in the text of the 1959 amendments to the Atomic Energy Act, which provided, among other things, that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect the authority of any State or local agency to regulate activities for purposes other than protection against radiation hazards.” 42 U. S. C. § 2021(k) (1982 ed.) (emphasis added). But the Court did not suggest that a finding of safety motivation was necessary to place a state law within the pre-empted field. On the contrary, it took great pains to make clear that state regulation of matters directly affecting the radiological safety of nuclear-plant construction and operation, “even if enacted out of nonsafety concerns, would nevertheless [infringe upon] the NRC’s exclusive authority.” 461 U. S., at 212. Thus, even as the Court suggested that part of the pre-empted field is defined by reference to the purpose of the state law in question, it made clear that another part of the field is defined by the state law’s actual effect on nuclear safety.
Because it is clear that the state tort law at issue here is not motivated by safety concerns, the former portion of the field argument is not relevant. The real issue, then, is whether petitioner’s tort claim is so related to the “radiological safety aspects involved in the . . . operation of a nuclear [facility],” see id., at 205, that it falls within the pre-empted field. In addressing this issue, we must bear in mind that not every state law that in some remote way may affect the nuclear safety decisions made by those who build and run nuclear facilities can be said to fall within the pre-empted field. We have no doubt, for instance, that the application of state minimum wage and child labor laws to employees at nuclear facilities would not be pre-empted, even though these laws could be said to affect tangentially some of the resource allocation decisions that might have a bearing on radiological safety. Instead, for a state law to fall within the pre-empted zone, it must have some direct and substantial effect on the decisions made by those who build or operate nuclear facilities concerning radiological safety levels. We recognize that the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress at issue here may have some effect on these decisions, because liability for claims like petitioner’s will attach additional consequences to retaliatory conduct by employers. As employers find retaliation more costly, they will be forced to deal with complaints by whistle-blowers by other means, including altering radiological safety policies. Nevertheless, we believe that this effect is neither direct nor substantial enough to place petitioner’s claim in the pre-empted field.
This result is strongly suggested by the decision in Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238 (1984). The Court there held that a claim for punitive damages in a state tort action arising out of the escape of plutonium from a federally licensed nuclear facility did not fall within the pre-empted field discussed in Pacific Gas. The Court reached this result notwithstanding the “tension between the conclusion that [radiological] safety regulation is the exclusive concern of the federal law and the conclusion that a State may nevertheless award damages [including punitive damages] based on its own law of liability” governing unsafe working conditions. 464 U. S., at 256. Although the decision in Silkwood was based in substantial part on legislative history suggesting that Congress did not intend to include in the pre-empted field state tort remedies for radiation-based injuries, see id., at 251-256, we think it would be odd, if not irrational, to conclude that Congress intended to include tort actions stemming from retaliation against whistle-blowers in the pre-empted field but intended not to include tort actions stemming from radiation damage suffered as a result of actual safety violations. Potential liability for the kind of claim at issue in Silkwood will affect radiological safety decisions more directly than will potential liability under the kind of claim petitioner raises, because the tort claim in Silkwood attaches additional consequences to safety violations themselves, rather than to employer conduct that merely arises from allegations of safety violations. Moreover, and related, the prospect of compensatory and punitive damages for radiation-based injuries will undoubtedly affect nuclear employers’ primary decisions about radiological safety in the construction and operation of nuclear power facilities far more substantially than will liability under the kind of claim petitioner asserts. It is thus not surprising that we find no evidence of a “clear and manifest” intent on the part of Congress to pre-empt tort claims like petitioner’s. Cf. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U. S. 174, 186 (1988) (increased workers’ compensation award for injury caused by a safety violation at a Government-owned nuclear facility is “incidental regulatory pressure” that Congress finds acceptable). Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner’s claim does not lie within the pre-empted field of nuclear safety.
c
We now turn to the question whether, as the lower courts concluded, petitioner’s claim conflicts with particular aspects of § 210. On its face, the section does no more than grant a federal administrative remedy to employees in one industry against one type of employer discrimination—retaliation for whistle-blowing. Ordinarily, the mere existence of a federal regulatory or enforcement scheme, even one as detailed as § 210, does not by itself imply pre-emption of state remedies. The Court has observed: “Undoubtedly, every subject that merits congressional legislation is, by definition, a subject of national concern. That cannot mean, however, that every federal statute ousts all related state law. . . . Instead, we must look for special features warranting pre-emption.” Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 719 (1985). Here, the District Court identified three “special features” of § 210 that it believed were incompatible with petitioner’s claim.
The District Court relied first on § 210(g), which provides that “Subsection (a) of this section [the prohibition on employer retaliation] shall not apply” where an employee “deliberately causes a violation of any requirement of this Act or of the Atomic Energy Act.” According to the District Court and respondent, this section reflects a congressional desire to preclude all relief, including state remedies, to a whistle-blower who deliberately commits a safety violation referred to in § 210(g). Permitting any state-law claim based on whistle-blowing retaliation, the court reasoned, would frustrate this congressional objective. We do not agree. As an initial matter, we note that the text of § 210(g) specifically limits its applicability to the remedy provided by § 210(a) and does not suggest that it bars state-law tort actions. Nor does the legislative history of § 210 reveal a clear congressional purpose to supplant state-law causes of action that might afford broader relief. Indeed, the only explanation for any of the statute’s remedial limitations is the Committee Report’s statement that employees who deliberately violate nuclear-safety requirements would be denied protection under § 210(g) “[i]n order to avoid abuse of the protection afforded under this section.” S. Rep. No. 95-848, p. 30 (1978) (emphasis added).
In any event, even if the District Court and respondent are correct in concluding that Congress wanted those who deliberately commit nuclear-safety violations, as defined under § 210(g), to be denied all remedies against employer retalia tion, this federal interest would be served by pre-empting state law only to the extent that it afforded recovery to such violators. See Norris v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., 881 F. 2d 1144, 1150 (CA1 1989). In the instant case, the ALJ found that petitioner had not deliberately committed a safety violation within the meaning of § 210(g), App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a, and neither the Secretary nor the lower courts have suggested otherwise. Thus, barring petitioner’s tort action would not even serve the federal interest the lower courts and respondent have gleaned from their reading of this section.
The District Court also relied on the absence in § 210 of general authorization for the Secretary to award exemplary damages against employers who engage in retaliatory conduct. The District Court concluded, and respondent now argues, that this absence implies a congressional intent to bar a state action, like petitioner’s, that permits such an award. As the District Court put it, § 210 reflects “an informed judgment [by Congress] that in no circumstances should a nuclear whistler blower receive punitive damages when fired or discriminated against because of his or her safety complaints.” 683 F. Supp., at 1014. We believe the District Court and respondent have read too much into Congress’ decision not to authorize exemplary damages for most § 210 violations. First, even with respect to actions brought under § 210, the District Court was incorrect in stating that “in no circumstances” will a nuclear whistle-blower receive punitive damages; § 210(d) authorizes a district court to award exemplary damages in enforcement proceedings brought by the Secretary. Moreover, and more importantly, we think the District Court failed to follow this Court’s teaching that “[o]rdinarily, state causes of action are not pre-empted solely because they impose liability over and above that authorized by federal law.” California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U. S. 93, 105 (1989). Absent some specific suggestion in the text or legislative history of § 210, which we are unable to find, we cannot conclude that Congress intended to pre-empt all state actions that permit the recovery of exemplary damages.
Finally, we address the District Court’s holding that the expeditious timeframes provided by Congress for the processing of § 210 claims reflect a congressional decision that no whistle-blower should be able to recover under any other law after the time for filing under § 210 has expired. The District Court reasoned, and respondent agrees, that if a state-law remedy is available after the time for filing a § 210 complaint has run, a whistle-blower will have less incentive to bring a § 210 complaint. As a result, the argument runs, federal regulatory agencies will remain unaware of some safety violations and retaliatory behavior and will thus be unable to ensure radiological safety at nuclear facilities. We cannot deny that there is some force to this argument, but we do not believe that the problem is as great as respondent suggests.
First, many, if not most, retaliatory incidents come about as a response to safety complaints that employees register with federal regulatory agencies. The Federal Government thus is already aware of these safety violations, whether or not the employee invokes the remedial provisions of § 210. Also, we are not so sure as respondent seems to be that employees will forgo their § 210 options and rely solely on state remedies for retaliation. Such a prospect is simply too speculative a basis on which to rest a finding of pre-emption. The Court has observed repeatedly that pre-emption is ordinarily not to be implied absent an “actual conflict.” See, e. g., Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 533 (1912). The “teaching of this Court’s decisions . . . enjoin[s] seeking out conflicts between state and federal regulation where none clearly exists.” Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440, 446 (1960).
III
We conclude that petitioner’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress does not fall within the pre-empted field of nuclear safety as that field has been defined in prior cases. Nor does it conflict with any particular aspect of § 210. The contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Although, technically, petitioner was placed on a layoff status on July 30, and retained certain benefits and recall rights at that point, as a practical matter she no longer was employed by GE after that date.
If an employee believes that he has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of the statute, he may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor within 30 days after the violation occurs. § 210(b)(1). The Secretary then must investigate the alleged violation, hold a public hearing, and, within 90 days of receiving the complaint, issue an order that either provides or denies relief. § 210(b)(2)(A). If a violation is found, the Secretary may order reinstatement with backpay, award compensatory damages, and require the violator to pay the employee’s costs and attorney’s fees. § 210(b)(2)(B). Any person adversely affected by an order of the Secretary may obtain judicial review in the appropriate United States court of appeals, and either the Secretary or the complainant may seek enforcement of the Secretary’s order in United States district court. §§ 210(c) through (e).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that decision but remanded the case for consideration of petitioner’s separate claim that she was subjected to a continuing course of retaliatory harassment after the May 15 disciplinary decision. English v. Whitfield, 858 F. 2d 957 (1988). Upon remand, the ALJ concluded that that claim, also, should be dismissed as time barred. The ALJ’s recommended decision on this issue is still pending before the Secretary.
The District Court ruled that petitioner had not made out a claim under state law for wrongful discharge. Because petitioner has not appealed that ruling, the wrongful-discharge claim is not now before us.
By referring to these three categories, we should not be taken to mean that they are rigidly distinct. Indeed, field pre-emption may be understood as a species of conflict pre-emption: A state law that falls within a pre-empted field conflicts with Congress’ intent (either express or plainly implied) to exclude state regulation. Nevertheless, because we previously have adverted to the three-category framework, we invoke and apply it here.
In this regard, we note that the enforcement and implementation of § 210 was entrusted by Congress not to the NRC—the body primarily responsible for nuclear safety regulation—but to the Department of Labor.
Two Justices thought that since the California statute at issue in Pacific Gas was not motivated by safety concerns, there was no reason for the majority to discuss this portion of the field argument there either. See 461 U. S., at 223-224. Whether the suggestion of the majority in Pacific Gas that legislative purpose is relevant to the definition of the pre-empted field is part of the holding of that case is not an issue before us today because, as discussed above, even if safety motivation is relevant, petitioner’s broad suggestion that safety motivation is necessary to a finding that a particular state law falls within the occupied field lacks merit.
Respondent relies, see Brief for Respondent 45-49, on decisions construing the pre-emptive effect of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., to argue that petitioner’s claim falls within the pre-empted field. We regard this reliance as misplaced. To begin with, the NLRA, unlike statutes governing the nuclear-employment field, comprehensively deals with labor-management relations from the inception of organizational activity through the negotiation of a collective-bargaining agreement. Moreover, special factors support the conclusion that pre-emption of state labor relations law is warranted—specifically, Congress’ perception that the NLRA was needed because state legislatures and courts were unable to provide an informed and coherent labor policy. See Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U. S. 274, 286 (1971).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fourth Amendment recognizes a valid warrantless entry and search of premises when police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, authority over the area in common with a co-occupant who later objects to the use of evidence so obtained. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177 (1990); United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974). The question here is whether such an evidentiary seizure is likewise lawful with the permission of one occupant when the other, who later seeks to suppress the evidence, is present at the scene and expressly refuses to consent. We hold that, in the circumstances here at issue, a physically present co-occupant’s stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him.
I
Respondent Scott Randolph and his wife, Janet, separated in late May 2001, when she left the marital residence in Americus, Georgia, and went to stay with her parents in Canada, taking their son and some belongings. In July, she returned to the Americus house with the child, though the record does not reveal whether her object was reconciliation or retrieval of remaining possessions.
On the morning of July 6, she complained to the police that after a domestic dispute her husband took their son away, and when officers reached the house she told them that her husband was a cocaine user whose habit had caused financial troubles. She mentioned the marital problems, and said that she and their son had only recently returned after a stay of several weeks with her parents. Shortly after the police arrived, Scott Randolph returned and explained that he had removed the child to a neighbor’s house out of concern that his wife might take the boy out of the country again; he denied cocaine use, and countered that it was in fact his wife who abused drugs and alcohol.
One of the officers, Sergeant Murray, went with Janet Randolph to reclaim the child, and when they returned she not only renewed her complaints about her husband’s drug use, but also volunteered that there were “‘items of drug evidence’ ” in the house. Brief for Petitioner 3. Sergeant Murray asked Scott Randolph for permission to search the house, which he unequivocally refused.
The sergeant turned to Janet Randolph for consent to search, which she readily gave. She led the officer upstairs to a bedroom that she identified as Scott’s, where the sergeant noticed a section of a drinking straw with a powdery residue he suspected was cocaine. He then left the house to get an evidence bag from his car and to call the district attorney’s office, which instructed him to stop the search and apply for a warrant. When Sergeant Murray returned to the house, Janet Randolph withdrew her consent. The police took the straw to the police station, along with the Randolphs. After getting a search warrant, they returned to the house and seized further evidence of drug use, on the basis of which Scott Randolph was indicted for possession of cocaine.
He moved to suppress the evidence, as products of a warrantless search of his house unauthorized by his wife’s consent over his express refusal. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Janet Randolph had common authority to consent to the search.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed, 264 Ga. App. 396, 590 S. E. 2d 834 (2003), and was itself sustained by the State Supreme Court, principally on the ground that “the consent to conduct a warrantless search of a residence given by one occupant is not valid in the face of the refusal of another occupant who is physically present at the scene to permit a warrantless search,” 278 Ga. 614, 604 S. E. 2d 835, 836 (2004). The Supreme Court of Georgia acknowledged this Court’s holding in Matlock, 415 U. S. 164, that “the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared,” id., at 170, and found Matlock distinguishable just because Scott Randolph was not “absent” from the colloquy on which the police relied for consent to make the search. The State Supreme Court stressed that the officers in Matlock had not been “faced with the physical presence of joint occupants, with one consenting to the search and the other objecting.” 278 Ga., at 615, 604 S. E. 2d, at 837. It held that an individual who chooses to live with another assumes a risk no greater than “ 'an inability to control access to the premises during [his] absence,’” ibid, (quoting 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.3(d), p. 731 (3d ed. 1996) (hereinafter LaFave)), and does not contemplate that his objection to a request to search commonly shared premises, if made, will be overlooked.
We granted certiorari to resolve a split of authority on whether one occupant may give law enforcement effective consent to search shared premises, as against a co-tenant who is present and states a refusal to permit the search. 544 U. S. 973 (2005). We now affirm.
II
To the Fourth Amendment rule ordinarily prohibiting the warrantless entry of a person’s house as unreasonable per se, Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 586 (1980); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 454-455 (1971), one “jealously and carefully drawn” exception, Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 499 (1958), recognizes the validity of searches with the voluntary consent of an individual possessing authority, Rodriguez, 497 U. S., at 181. That person might be the householder against whom evidence is sought, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 222 (1973), or a fellow occupant who shares common authority over property, when the suspect is absent, Matlock, supra, at 170, and the exception for consent extends even to entries and searches with the permission of a co-occupant whom the police reasonably, but erroneously, believe to possess shared authority as an occupant, Rodriguez, supra, at 186. None of our co-occupant consent-to-search cases, however, has presented the further fact of a second occupant physically present and refusing permission to search, and later moving to suppress evidence so obtained. The significance of such a refusal turns on the underpinnings of the co-occupant consent rule, as recognized since Matlock.
A
The defendant in that case was arrested in the yard of a house where he lived with a Mrs. Graff and several of her relatives, and was detained in a squad ear parked nearby. When the police went to the door, Mrs. Graff admitted them and consented to a search of the house. 415 U. S., at 166. In resolving the defendant’s objection to use of the evidence taken in the warrantless search, we said that “the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared.” Id., at 170. Consistent with our prior understanding that Fourth Amendment rights are not limited by the law of property, cf. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 352-353 (1967), we explained that the third party’s “common authority” is not synonymous with a technical property interest:
“The authority which justifies the third-party consent does not rest upon the law of property, with its attendant historical and legal refinements, but rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.” 415 U. S., at 171, n. 7 (citations omitted).
See also Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731, 740 (1969) (“[I]n allowing [his cousin to share use of a duffel bag] and in leaving it in his house, [the suspect] must be taken to have assumed the risk that [the cousin] would allow someone else to look inside”). The common authority that counts under the Fourth Amendment may thus be broader than the rights accorded by property law, see Rodriguez, supra, at 181-182 (consent is sufficient when given by a person who reasonably appears to have common authority but who, in fact, has no property interest in the premises searched), although its limits, too, reflect specialized tenancy arrangements apparent to the police, see Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610 (1961) (landlord could not consent to search of tenant’s home).
The constant element in assessing Fourth Amendment reasonableness in the consent cases, then, is the great significance given to widely shared social expectations, which are naturally enough influenced by the law of property, but not controlled by its rules. Cf. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 144, n. 12 (1978) (an expectation of privacy is reasonable if it has “a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society”). Matlock accordingly not only holds that a solitary co-inhabitant may sometimes consent to a search of shared premises, but stands for the proposition that the reasonableness of such a search is in significant part a function of commonly held understanding about the authority that co-inhabitants may exercise in ways that affect each other’s interests.
B
Matlock’s example of common understanding is readily apparent. When someone comes to the door of a domestic dwelling with a baby at her hip, as Mrs. Graff did, she shows that she belongs there, and that fact standing alone is enough to tell a law enforcement officer or any other visitor that if she occupies the place along with others, she probably lives there subject to the assumption tenants usually make about their common authority when they share quarters. They understand that any one of them may admit visitors, with the consequence that a guest obnoxious to one may nevertheless be admitted in his absence by another. As Matlock put it, shared tenancy is understood to include an “assumption of risk,” on which police officers are entitled to rely, and although some group living together might make an exceptional arrangement that no one could admit a guest without the agreement of all, the chance of such an eccentric scheme is too remote to expect visitors to investigate a particular household’s rules before accepting an invitation to come in. So, Matlock relied on what was usual and placed no burden on the police to eliminate the possibility of atypical arrangements, in the absence of reason to doubt that the regular scheme was in place.
It is also easy to imagine different facts on which, if known, no common authority could sensibly be suspected. A person on the scene who identifies himself, say, as a landlord or a hotel manager calls up no customary understanding of authority to admit guests without the consent of the current occupant. See Chapman v. United States, supra (landlord); Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483 (1964) (hotel manager). A tenant in the ordinary course does not take rented premises subject to any formal or informal agreement that the landlord may let visitors into the dwelling, Chapman, supra, at 617, and a hotel guest customarily has no reason to expect the manager to allow anyone but his own employees into his room, see Stoner, supra, at 489; see also United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48, 51 (1951) (hotel staff had access to room for purposes of cleaning and maintenance, but no authority to admit police). In these circumstances, neither state-law property rights, nor common contractual arrangements, nor any other source points to a common understanding of authority to admit third parties generally without the consent of a person occupying the premises. And when it comes to searching through bureau drawers, there will be instances in which even a person clearly belonging on premises as an occupant may lack any perceived authority to consent; “a child of eight might well be considered to have the power to consent to the police crossing the threshold into that part of the house where any caller, such as a pollster or salesman, might well be admitted,” 4 LaFave § 8.4(c), at 207 (4th ed. 2004), but no one would reasonably expect such a child to be in a position to authorize anyone to rummage through his parents’ bedroom.
c
Although we have not dealt directly with the reasonableness of police entry in reliance on consent by one occupant subject to immediate challenge by another, we took a step toward the issue in an earlier case dealing with the Fourth Amendment rights of a social guest arrested at premises the police entered without a warrant or the benefit of any exception to the warrant requirement. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U. S. 91 (1990), held that overnight houseguests have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their temporary quarters because “it is unlikely that [the host] will admit someone who wants to see or meet with the guest over the objection of the guest,” id., at 99. If that customary expectation of courtesy or deference is a foundation of Fourth Amendment rights of a houseguest, it presumably should follow that an inhabitant of shared premises may claim at least as much, and it turns out that the co-inhabitant naturally has an even stronger claim.
To begin with, it is fair to say that a caller standing at the door of shared premises would have no confidence that one occupant’s invitation was a sufficiently good reason to enter when a fellow tenant stood there saying, “stay out.” Without some very good reason, no sensible person would go inside under those conditions. Fear for the safety of the occupant issuing the invitation, or of someone else inside, would be thought to justify entry, but the justification then would be the personal risk, the threats to life or limb, not the disputed invitation.
The visitor’s reticence without some such good reason would show not timidity but a realization that when people living together disagree over the use of their common quarters, a resolution must come through voluntary accommodation, not by appeals to authority. Unless the people living together fall within some recognized hierarchy, like a household of parent and child or barracks housing military personnel of different grades, there is no societal understanding of superior and inferior, a fact reflected in a standard formulation of domestic property law, that “[e]ach cotenant... has the right to use and enjoy the entire property as if he or she were the sole owner, limited only by the same right in the other cotenants.” 7 R. Powell, Powell on Real Property § 50.03[1], p. 50-14 (M. Wolf gen. ed. 2005). The want of any recognized superior authority among disagreeing tenants is also reflected in the law’s response when the disagreements cannot be resolved. The law does not ask who has the better side of the conflict; it simply provides a right to any co-tenant, even the most unreasonable, to obtain a decree partitioning the property (when the relationship is one of co-ownership) and terminating the relationship. See, e. g., 2 H. Tiffany, Real Property §§468, 473, 474, pp. 297, 307-309 (3d ed. 1939 and 2006 Cum. Supp.). And while a decree of partition is not the answer to disagreement among rental tenants, this situation resembles co-ownership in lacking the benefit of any understanding that one or the other rental co-tenant has a superior claim to control the use of the quarters they occupy together. In sum, there is no common understanding that one co-tenant generally has a right or authority to prevail over the express wishes of another, whether the issue is the color of the curtains or invitations to outsiders.
D
Since the co-tenant wishing to open the door to a third party has no recognized authority in law or social practice to prevail over a present and objecting co-tenant, his disputed invitation, without more, gives a police officer no better claim to reasonableness in entering than the officer would have in the absence of any consent at all. Accordingly, in the balancing of competing individual and governmental interests entailed by the bar to unreasonable searches, Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 536-537 (1967), the cooperative occupant’s invitation adds nothing to the government’s side to counter the force of an objecting individual’s claim to security against the government’s intrusion into his dwelling place. Since we hold to the “centuries-old principle of respect for the privacy of the home,” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U. S. 603, 610 (1999), “it is beyond dispute that the home is entitled to special protection as the center of the private lives of our people,” Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U. S. 83, 99 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring). We have, after all, lived our whole national history with an understanding of “the ancient adage that a man’s house is his castle [to the point that t]he poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown,” Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301, 307 (1958) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Disputed permission is thus no match for this central value of the Fourth Amendment, and the State’s other countervailing claims do not add up to outweigh it. Yes, we recognize the consenting tenant’s interest as a citizen in bringing criminal activity to light, see Coolidge, 403 U. S., at 488 (“[I]t is no part of the policy underlying the Fourth :.. Amendment] to discourage citizens from aiding to the utmost of their ability in the apprehension of criminals”). And we understand a co-tenant’s legitimate self-interest in siding with the police to deflect suspicion raised by sharing quarters with a criminal, see 4 LaFave § 8.3(d), at 162, n. 72 (“The risk of being convicted of possession of drugs one knows are present and has tried to get the other occupant to remove is by no means insignificant”); cf. Schneckloth, 412 U. S., at 243 (evidence obtained pursuant to a consent search “may insure that a wholly innocent person is not wrongly charged with a criminal offense”).
But society can often have the benefit of these interests without relying on a theory of consent that ignores an inhabitant’s refusal to allow a warrantless search. The co-tenant acting on his own initiative may be able to deliver evidence to the police, Coolidge, supra, at 487-489 (suspect’s wife retrieved his guns from the couple’s house and turned them over to the police), and can tell the police what he knows, for use before a magistrate in getting a warrant. The reliance on a co-tenant’s information instead of disputed consent accords with the law’s general partiality toward “police action taken under a warrant [as against] searches and seizures without one,” United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 107 (1965); “the informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates empowered to issue warrants as to what searches and seizures are permissible under the Constitution are to be preferred over the hurried action of officers,” United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452, 464 (1932).
Nor should this established policy of Fourth Amendment law be undermined by the principal dissent’s claim that it shields spousal abusers and other violent co-tenants who will refuse to allow the police to enter a dwelling when their victims ask the police for help, post, at 138 (opinion of RobEETS, C. J.) (hereinafter the dissent). It is not that the dissent exaggerates violence in the home; we recognize that domestic abuse is a serious problem in the United States. See U. S. Dept, of Justice, National Institute of Justice, P. Tjaden & N. Thoennes, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women 25-26 (2000) (noting that over 20 million women and 6 million men will, in the course of their lifetimes, be the victims of intimate-partner abuse); U. S. Dept, of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States 19 (2003) (finding that nearly 5.3 million intimate-partner victimizations, which result in close to 2 million injuries and 1,300 deaths, occur among women in the United States each year); U. S. Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime Data Brief, C. Rennison, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001 (Feb. 2003) (noting that in 2001 intimate-partner violence made up 20% of violent crime against women); see also Becker, The Politics of Women’s Wrongs and the Bill of “Rights”: A Bicentennial Perspective, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 453, 507-508 (1992) (noting that women may feel physical insecurity in their homes as a result of abuse from domestic partners).
But this case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims. The dissent’s argument rests on the failure to distinguish two different issues: when the police may enter without committing a trespass, and when the police may enter to search for evidence. No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the opportunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine whether violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected. (And since the police would then be lawfully in the premises, there is no question that they could seize any evidence in plain view or take further action supported by any consequent probable cause, see Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730, 737-739 (1983) (plurality opinion).) Thus, the question whether the police might lawfully enter over objection in order to provide any protection that might be reasonable is easily answered yes. See 4 LaFave § 8.3(d), at 161 (“[E]ven when... two persons quite clearly have equal rights in the place, as where two individuals are sharing an apartment on an equal basis, there may nonetheless sometimes exist a basis for giving greater recognition to the interests of one over the other.... [W]here the defendant has victimized the third-party... the emergency nature of the situation is such that the third-party consent should validate a warrantless search despite defendant’s objections” (internal quotation marks omitted; third omission in original)). The undoubted right of the police to enter in order to protect a victim, however, has nothing to do with the question in this case, whether a search with the consent of one co-tenant is good against another, standing at the door and expressly refusing consent.
None of the cases cited by the dissent support its improbable view that recognizing limits on merely evidentiary searches would compromise the capacity to protect a fearful occupant. In the circumstances of those cases, there is no danger that the fearful occupant will be kept behind the closed door of the house simply because the abusive tenant refuses to consent to a search. See United States v. Donlin, 982 F. 2d 31, 32 (CA1 1992) (victimized individual was already outside of her apartment when police arrived and, for all intents and purposes, within the protective custody of law enforcement officers); United States v. Hendrix, 595 F. 2d 883, 885-886 (CADC 1979) (per curiam) (even if the consent of the threatened co-occupant did not justify a warrantless search, the police entry was nevertheless allowable on exigent circumstances grounds); People v. Sanders, 904 P. 2d 1311, 1313-1315 (Colo. 1995) (en banc) (victimized individual gave her consent to search away from her home and was not present at the time of the police visit; alternatively, exigent circumstances existed to satisfy the warrantless exception); Brandon v. State, 778 P. 2d 221, 223-224 (Alaska App. 1989) (victimized individual consented away from her home and was not present at the time of the police visit); United States v. Davis, 290 F. 3d 1239, 1241 (CA10 2002) (immediate harm extinguished after husband “order[ed]” wife out of the home).
The dissent’s red herring aside, we know, of course, that alternatives to disputed consent will not always open the door to search for evidence that the police suspect is inside. The consenting tenant may simply not disclose enough information, or information factual enough, to add up to a showing of probable cause, and there may be no exigency to justify fast action. But nothing in social custom or its reflection in private law argues for placing a higher value on delving into private premises to search for evidence in the face of disputed consent, than on requiring clear justification before the government searches private living quarters over a resident’s objection. We therefore hold that a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.
E
There are two loose ends, the first being the explanation given in Matlock for the constitutional sufficiency of a co-tenant’s consent to enter and search: it “rests... on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right....” 415 U. S., at 171, n. 7. If Matlock’s co-tenant is giving permission “in his own right,” how can his “own right” be eliminated by another tenant’s objection? The answer appears in the very footnote from which the quoted statement is taken: the “right” to admit the police to which Matlock refers is not an enduring and enforceable ownership right as understood by the private law of property, but is instead the authority recognized by customary social usage as having a substantial bearing on Fourth Amendment reasonableness in specific circumstances. Thus, to ask whether the consenting tenant has the right to admit the police when a physically present fellow tenant objects is not to question whether some property right may be divested by the mere objection of another. It is, rather, the question whether customary social understanding accords the consenting tenant authority powerful enough to prevail over the co-tenant’s objection. The Matlock Court did not purport to answer this question, a point made clear by another statement (which the dissent does not quote): the Court described the co-tenant’s consent as good against “the absent, nonconsenting” resident. Id., at 170.
The second loose end is the significance of Matlock and Rodriguez after today’s decision. Although the Matlock defendant was not present with the opportunity to object, he was in a squad car not far away; the Rodriguez defendant was actually asleep in the apartment, and the police might have roused him with a knock on the door before they entered with only the consent of an apparent co-tenant. If those cases are not to be undercut by today’s holding, we have to admit that we are drawing a fine line; if a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is in fact at the door and objects, the co-tenant’s permission does not suffice for a reasonable search, whereas the potential objector, nearby but not invited to take part in the threshold colloquy, loses out.
This is the line we draw, and we think the formalism is justified. So long as there is no evidence that the police have removed the potentially objecting tenant from the entrance for the sake of avoiding a possible objection, there is practical value in the simple clarity of complementary rules, one recognizing the co-tenant’s permission when there is no fellow occupant on hand, the other according dispositive weight to the fellow occupant’s contrary indication when he expresses it. For the very reason that Rodriguez held it would be unjustifiably impractical to require the police to take affirmative steps to confirm the actual authority of a consenting individual whose authority was apparent, we think it would needlessly limit the capacity of the police to respond to ostensibly legitimate opportunities in the field if we were to hold that reasonableness required the police to take affirmative steps to find a potentially objecting co-tenant before acting on the permission they had already received. There is no ready reason to believe that efforts to invite a refusal would make a difference in many cases, whereas every co-tenant consent case would turn into a test about the adequacy of the police’s efforts to consult with a potential objector. Better to accept the formalism of distinguishing Matlock from this case than to impose a requirement, time consuming in the field and in the courtroom, with no apparent systemic justification. The pragmatic decision to accept the simplicity of this line is, moreover, supported by the substantial number of instances in which suspects who are asked for permission to search actually consent, albeit imprudently, a fact that undercuts any argument that the police should try to locate a suspected inhabitant because his denial of consent would be a foregone conclusion.
Ill
This case invites a straightforward application of the rule that a physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant. Scott Randolph’s refusal is clear, and nothing in the record justifies the search on grounds independent of Janet Randolph’s consent. The State does not argue that she gave any indication to the police of a need for protection inside the house that might have justified entry into the portion of the premises where the police found the powdery straw (which, if lawfully seized, could have been used when attempting to establish probable cause for the warrant issued later). Nor does the State claim that the entry and search should be upheld under the rubric of exigent circumstances, owing to some apprehension by the police officers that Scott Randolph would destroy evidence of drug use before any warrant could be obtained.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is therefore affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
All four Courts of Appeals to have considered this question have concluded that consent remains effective in the face of an express objection. See United States v. Morning, 64 F. 3d 531, 533-536 (CA9 1995); United States v. Donlin, 982 F. 2d 31, 33 (CA1 1992); United States v. Hendrix, 595 F. 2d 883, 885 (CADC 1979) (per curiam); United States v. Sumlin, 567 F. 2d 684, 687-688 (CA6 1977). Of the state courts that have addressed the question, the majority have reached that conclusion as well. See, e. g., Love v. State, 355 Ark. 334, 342, 138 S. W. 3d 676, 680 (2003); Laramie v. Hysong, 808 P. 2d 199, 203-205 (Wyo. 1991); but cf. State v. Leach, 113 Wash. 2d 735, 744, 782 P. 2d 1035, 1040 (1989) (en bane) (requiring consent of all present co-occupants).
Mindful of the multiplicity of living arrangements, we vary the terms used to describe residential co-occupancies. In so doing we do not mean, however, to suggest that the rule to be applied to them is similarly varied.
Cf. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393 (1978) (acknowledging the right of police to respond to emergency situations “threatening life or limb” and indicating that police may conduct a warrantless search provided that the search is “ ‘strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation’ ”).
In the principal dissent’s view, the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over. The dissent equates inviting the police into a co-tenant’s home over his contemporaneous objection with reporting a secret, post, at 142 (opinion of Roberts, C. J.), and the emphasis it places on the false equation suggests a deliberate intent to devalue the importance of the privacy of a dwelling place. The same attitude that privacy of a dwelling is not special underlies the dissent’s easy assumption that privacy shared with another individual is privacy waived for all purposes including warrantless searches by the police. Post, at 131.
A generalized interest in expedient law enforcement cannot, without more, justify a warrantless search. See Mincey, supra, at 393 (“[T]he privacy of a person’s home and property may not be totally sacrificed in the name of maximum simplicity in enforcement of the criminal law”); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 481 (1971) (“The warrant requirement... is not an inconvenience to be somehow ‘weighed’ against the claims of police efficiency”).
Sometimes, of course, the very exchange of information like this in front of the objecting inhabitant may render consent irrelevant by creating an exigency that justifies immediate action on the police’s part; if the objecting tenant cannot be incapacitated from destroying easily disposable evidence during the time required to get a warrant, see Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U. S. 326, 331-332 (2001) (denying suspect access to his trailer home while police applied for a search warrant), a fairly perceived need to act on the spot to preserve evidence may justify entry and search under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, cf. Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 770-771 (1966) (warrant-less search permitted when “the delay necessary to obtain a warrant... threatened the destruction of evidence” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Additional exigent circumstances might justify warrantless searches. See, e. g., Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 298 (1967) (hot pursuit); Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969) (protecting the safety of the police officers); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499 (1978) (imminent destruction to building); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 15 (1948) (likelihood that suspect will imminently flee).
We understand the possibility that a battered individual will be afraid to express fear candidly, but this does not seem to be a reason to think such a person would invite the police into the dwelling to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The federal in forma pauperis statute, codified at 28 U. S. C. § 1915, allows an indigent litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court without paying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. The statute protects against abuses of this privilege by allowing a district court to dismiss the case “if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.” § 1915(d). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319 (1989), we considered the standard to be applied when determining whether the legal basis of an in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous under § 1915(d). The issues in this case are the appropriate inquiry for determining when an in forma pauperis litigant’s factual allegations justify a § 1915(d) dismissal for frivolousness, and the proper standard of appellate review of such a dismissal.
HH
Petitioners are 15 officials at various institutions in the California penal system. Between 1983 and 1985, respondent Mike Hernandez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, named petitioners as defendants in five civil rights suits filed in forma pauperis. In relevant part, the complaints in these five suits allege that Hernandez was drugged and homosexually raped a total of 28 times by inmates and prison officials at different institutions. With few exceptions, the alleged perpetrators are not identified in the complaints, because Hernandez does not claim any direct recollection of the incidents. Rather, he asserts that he found needle marks on different parts of his body, and fecal and semen stains on his clothes, which led him to believe that he had been drugged and raped while he slept.
Hernandez’s allegations that he was sexually assaulted on the nights of January 13, 1984, and January 27, 1984, are supported by an affidavit signed by fellow prisoner Armando Esquer (Esquer Affidavit), which states:
“On January 13, 1984, at approximately 7:30 a.m., I was on my way to the shower, when I saw correctional officer McIntyre, the P-2 Unit Officer, unlock inmate Mike Hernandez’s cell door and subsequently saw as two black inmates stepped inside his cell. I did not see Officer McIntyre order these two black inmates out of inmate Mike Hernandez’s cell after they stepped inside, even though inmate Mike Hernandez was asleep inside. After about ten minutes, I returned from the shower, and I noticed my friend, Mike Hernandez, was being sexually assaulted by the two black inmates. Officer Mcln-tyre returned to lock inmate Mike Hernandez’s cell door after the two black inmates stepped out. I watch[ed] all this activity from the hallway and my cell door.
“On January 27th, 1984,1 was again on my way to the shower, when I noticed the same correctional officer as he unlocked inmate Mike Hernandez’s cell door, and also saw as two black inmates stepped inside inmate Mike Hernandez’s cell. Then I knew right away that both they and Officer McIntyre were up to no good. After this last incident, I became convinced that Officer McIntyre was deliberately unlocking my friend, Mike Hernandez’s cell as he [lay] asleep, so that these two black inmates could sexually assault him in his cell.” Exhibit H in No. CIV S-85-0084, Brief for Respondent 9.
Hernandez also attempted to amend one complaint to include an affidavit signed by fellow inmate Harold Pierce, alleging that on the night of July 29, 1983, he “witnessed inmate Dushane B-71187 and inmate Milliard B-30802 assault and rape inmate Mike Hernandez as he lay . . . asleep in bed 206 in the N-2 Unit Dorm.” See Exhibit G to Motion to Amend Complaint in Hernandez v. Denton, et al., No. CIV S-83-1348 (June 19, 1984), Brief for Respondent 6.
The District Court determined that the five cases were related and referred them to a Magistrate, who recommended that the complaints be dismissed as frivolous. The Magistrate reasoned that “ ‘each complaint, taken separately, is not necessarily frivolous,’ ” but that “ ‘a different picture emerges from a reading of all five complaints together.’” Id., at 11. As he explained: “ ‘[Hernandez] alleges that both guards and inmates, at different institutions, subjected him to sexual assaults. Despite the fact that different defendants are allegedly responsible for each assault, the purported modus operandi is identical in every case. Moreover, the attacks occurred only sporadically throughout a three year period. The facts thus appear to be “wholly fanciful” and justify this court’s dismissal of the actions as frivolous.’” Ibid. By order dated May 5, 1986, the District Court adopted the recommendation of the Magistrate and dismissed the complaints.
Hernandez appealed the dismissal of three of the five cases (Nos. CIV S-83-0645, CIV S-83-1348, CIV S-85-0084; see n. 1, supra). Reviewing the dismissal de novo, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F. 2d 1421 (1988). In relevant part, Judge Schroeder’s lead opinion concluded that a district court could dismiss a complaint as factually frivolous only if the allegations conflicted with judicially noticeable facts, that is, facts “‘capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’” Id., at 1426 (quoting Fed. Rule Evid. 201). In this case, Judge Schroeder wrote, the court could not dismiss Hernandez’s claims as frivolous because it was impossible to take judicial notice that none of the alleged rapes occurred. 861 F. 2d, at 1426. Judge Wallace concurred on the ground that Circuit precedent required that Hernandez be given notice that his claims were to be dismissed as frivolous and a chance to amend his complaints to remedy the deficiencies. Id., at 1427. Judge Aldisert dissented. He was of the opinion that the allegations were “the hallucinations of a troubled man,” id., at 1440, and that no further amendment could save the complaint, id., at 1439-1440.
We granted petitioners’ first petition for a writ of certiorari, 493 U. S. 801 (1989), vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of our intervening decision in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319 (1989). On remand, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its earlier decision. 929 F. 2d 1374 (1991). Judge Schroeder modified her original opinion to state that judicial notice was just “one useful standard” for determining factual frivolousness under § 1916(d), but adhered to her position that the case could not be dismissed because no judicially noticeable fact could contradict Hernandez’s claims of rape. Id., at 1376. Judge Wallace and Judge Aldisert repeated their earlier views.
We granted the second petition for a writ of certiorari to consider when an informa pauperis claim may be dismissed as factually frivolous under § 1915(d). 502 U. S. 937 (1991). We hold that the Court of Appeals incorrectly limited the power granted the courts to dismiss a frivolous case under § 1915(d), and therefore vacate and remand the case for application of the proper standard.
II
In enacting the federal in forma pauperis statute, Congress “intended to guarantee that no citizen shall be denied an opportunity to commence, prosecute, or defend an action, civil or criminal, in any court of the United States, solely because ... poverty makes it impossible ... to pay or secure the costs” of litigation. Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U. S. 331, 342 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time that it sought to lower judicial access barriers to the indigent, however, Congress recognized that “a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Neitzke, supra, at 324. In response to this concern, Congress included subsection (d) as part of the statute, which allows the courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint “if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.”
Neitzke v. Williams, supra, provided us with our first occasion to construe the meaning of “frivolous” under § 1915(d). In that case, we held that “a complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Id., at 325. In Neitzke, we were concerned with the proper standard for determining frivolousness of legal conclusions, and we determined that a complaint filed informa pauperis which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) may nonetheless have “an arguable basis in law” precluding dismissal under § 1916(d). 490 U. S., at 328-329. In so holding, we observed that the informa pauperis statute, unlike Rule 12(b)(6), “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably merit-less legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Id., at 327. “Examples of the latter class,” we said, “are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Id., at 328.
Petitioners contend that the decision below is inconsistent with the “unusual” dismissal power we recognized in Neitzke, and we agree. Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assumption, our statement in Neitzke that § 1915(d) gives courts the authority to “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations” means that a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations. We therefore reject the notion that a court must accept as “having an arguable basis in fact,” id., at 325, all allegations that cannot be rebutted by judicially noticeable facts. At the same time, in order to respect the congressional goal of “assuring] equality of consideration for all litigants,” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U. S. 438, 447 (1962), this initial assessment of the informa pauperis plaintiff’s factual allegations must be weighted in favor of the plaintiff. In other words, the § 1915(d) frivolousness determination, frequently made sua sponte before the defendant has even been asked to file an answer, cannot serve as a factfinding process for the resolution of disputed facts.
As we stated in Neitzke, a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,” 490 U. S., at 327, a category encompassing allegations that are “fanciful,” id., at 325, “fantastic,” id., at 328, and “delusional,” ibid. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiff’s allegations unlikely. Some improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the age-old insight that many allegations might be “strange, but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction.” Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan, & W. Pratt eds. 1977).
Although Hernandez urges that we define the “clearly baseless” guidepost with more precision, we are confident that the district courts, who are “all too familiar” with factually frivolous claims, Neitzke, supra, at 328, are in the best position to determine which cases fall into this category. Indeed, the statute’s instruction that an action may be dismissed if the court is “satisfied” that it is frivolous indicates that frivolousness is a decision entrusted to the discretion of the court entertaining the in forma pauperis petition. We therefore decline the invitation to reduce the “clearly baseless” inquiry to a monolithic standard.
Because the frivolousness determination is a discretionary one, we further hold that a § 1915(d) dismissal is properly reviewed for an abuse of that discretion, and that it was error for the Court of Appeals to review the dismissal of Hernandez’s claims de novo. Cf. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U. S. 364, 365, n. (1982) (per curiam) (reversing dismissal of an informa pauperis petition when dismissal was based on an erroneous legal conclusion and not exercise of the “broad discretion” granted by § 1915(d)); Coppedge, supra, at 446 (district court’s certification that in forma pauperis appellant is taking appeal in good faith, as required by § 1915(a), is “entitled to weight”). In reviewing a § 1915(d) dismissal for abuse of discretion, it would be appropriate for the Court of Appeals to consider, among other things, whether the plaintiff was proceeding pro se, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519, 520-521 (1972); whether the court inappropriately resolved genuine issues of disputed fact, see supra, at 32-33; whether the court applied erroneous legal conclusions, see Boag, 454 U. S., at 365, n.; whether the court has provided a statement explaining the dismissal that facilitates “intelligent appellate review,” ibid.; and whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
With respect to this last factor: Because a § 1915(d) dismissal is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather an exercise of the court’s discretion under the informa pauperis statute, the dismissal does not prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations. It could, however, have a res judicata effect on frivolousness determinations for future in forma pauperis petitions. See, e. g., Bryant v. Civiletti, 214 U. S. App. D. C. 109, 110-111, 663 F. 2d 286, 287-288, n. 1 (1981) (§ 1915(d) dismissal for frivolousness is res judicata); Warren v. McCall, 709 F. 2d 1183, 1186, and n. 7 (CA7 1983) (same); cf. Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F. 2d 853, 855 (CA8 1988) (noting that application of res judicata principles after § 1915(d) dismissal can be “somewhat problematical”). Therefore, if it appears that frivolous factual allegations could be remedied through more specific pleading, a court of appeals reviewing a § 1915(d) disposition should consider whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice or without leave to amend. Because it is not properly before us, we express no opinion on the Ninth Circuit rule, applied below, that a pro se litigant bringing suit informa pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome any deficiency unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defect. E. g., Potter v. McCall, 433 F. 2d 1087, 1088 (1970); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446 (1987).
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case for proceedings consistent, with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See Amended Complaint in Hernandez v. Ylst, et al., No. CIV S-83-0645 (Feb. 9, 1984) (alleging rape by unidentified correctional officers at California State Prison at Folsom on the night of July 29, 1982), Brief for Respondent 2-4; Motion to Amend Complaint in Hernandez v. Denton, et al., No. CIV S-83-1348 (June 19,1984) (alleging rape by one or more prisoners at California Medical Facility at Vacaville on the night of July 29, 1983, and one additional episode in December 1983), Brief for Respondent 5; Complaint in Hernandez v. Ylst, et al., No. CIV S-84-1074 (Aug. 20, 1984) (alleging six additional druggings and rapes occurring between August 12 and November 4, 1983), Brief for Respondent 6; Complaint in Hernandez v. Ylst, et al., No. CIV S-84-1198 (Sept. 17, 1984) (alleging three additional incidents occurring between November 26 and December 12, 1983), Brief for Respondent 6-7; Complaint in Hernandez v. Ylst, et al., No. CIV S-85-0084 (Jan. 21,1985) (alleging 16 additional incidents occurring between January 13 and December 10, 1984), Brief for Respondent 7.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Before the Court for consideration are the exceptions of the State of Florida and of the United States to the Report of the Special Master filed February 19, 1974. Oral argument has been had.
The case consolidates two proceedings. In the first, the United States seeks a decree defining the seaward boundary of the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf in the Atlantic Ocean in which Florida has rights to the natural resources. 395 U. S. 955 (1969). In the second, the State of Florida and the United States seek a decree defining more specifically than does the decree entered in United States v. Louisiana, 364 U. S. 502 (1960), the seaward boundary of the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico in which Florida has rights to the natural resources. 403 U. S. 949 (1971).
In its exceptions to the Report, the State of Florida maintains that in his recommendations the Special Master should have recognized that the said boundaries extend to the boundaries defined in the State's 1868 Constitution, rather than to the limits specified in the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, § 2 (b), 67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 (b); that the Special Master should have recognized that the Florida Keys and the Straits of Florida southwest of longitude 25°40' N. are part of the Gulf of Mexico, rather than of the Atlantic Ocean; that the Special Master erred in construing the 1868 Constitution of the State as to its Atlantic Ocean boundary and as to its boundary between the Dry Tortugas Islands and Cape Romano; and that the Special Master erred in failing to recognize “Florida Bay” as a historic bay and thus as inland waters of the State.
Having considered each of these exceptions, we conclude that they are correctly answered in the Report of the Special Master. The exceptions of the State of Florida are therefore overruled.
In its exceptions to the Report, the United States maintains that the Special Master erred in recommending the recognition of a portion of Florida Bay as a “juridical” bay, and in recommending the drawing of “closing lines” around three groups of islands that make up the Florida Keys. It appears that these recommendations of the Special Master were made without benefit of the contentions now advanced by the United States and the opposing contentions now presented by the State of Florida. The exceptions of the United States are therefore referred to the Special Master for his prompt consideration. He is authorized to conduct any supplemental proceedings he may find useful with respect to the exceptions of the United States and is requested to file a supplemental report restricted to the issues raised in those exceptions.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas 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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by this case is whether the provision of a collective-bargaining agreement between petitioner, a general contractor, and the Oregon State Council of Carpenters, requiring that petitioner pay contributions to certain trust funds with respect to hours of carpentry work performed by employees of a nonsignatory subcontractor, violated §302 (a)(1) of the Labor Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act, 29 U. S. C. § 186 (a)(1). That section generally prohibits agreements of employers to pay money to any representative of their employees. Sections 302 (c) (5) and (6), however, exempt from this general proscription written agreements to pay money to trust funds jointly created and administered by trustees representing employer associations and the union for the purpose of providing medical or hospital care, pensions, pooled vacations for employees of signatory employers, or to defray the costs of apprenticeship or other training programs.
Petitioner constructed a federally subsidized low-income apartment project in Salem, Ore. A collective-bargaining agreement between petitioner and the Oregon State Council of Carpenters required petitioner to pay contributions to five employer-union trust funds jointly created by the carpenters’ union and multiemployer general contractors associations, and jointly administered by respondents, trustees designated in equal numbers by the employers and union. The trusts are, respectively, the Health and Welfare Trust Fund, the Pension Trust Fund, the Vacation Savings Trust Fund, the Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund, and the Construction Industry Advancement Fund (CIAF). Only signatory employers may contribute to the funds; and no carpenter employee of a nonsignatory employer is entitled to benefits in the Health and Welfare, Pension, and Vacation Savings Funds, the three funds that provide benefits for carpenter employees. Contributions were payable at the aggregate rate of 96 cents per hour of carpentry work done at the project.
Petitioner subcontracted the framing work on the project to Lloyd Jackson, a framing specialist, who was a nonsignatory employer and whose employees were therefore not eligible for trust fund benefits. In such cases petitioner had the option under a “subcontractor’s clause,” Art. IV of the collective-bargaining agreement, of requiring “such subcontractor to be bound to all the provisions of this Agreement,” or of maintaining “daily records of the subcontractors employees jobsite hours and be liable for payment of these employees [sic] . . . [trust fund] contributions in accordance with this Agreement.” Petitioner did neither. He did not require that the subcontractor “be bound” to the agreement and the subcontractor made no contributions to the funds. Instead the subcontractor paid directly to his carpenter employees, as fringe benefits, 96 cents per hour in addition to their wages at union scale, thus paying out the same aggregate of wages and fringe benefits paid by signatory employers in the form of wages to their employees and contributions to the trust funds.
Nor did petitioner maintain daily records of and pay contributions to the trust funds with respect to the hours of carpentry work performed on the project by the subcontractor’s carpenter employees. Therefore, after completion of the project, respondent trustees brought this action in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Ore., to enforce the provision of Art. IV. Grounded upon petitioner’s agreement to “be liable for payment of these [the subcontractor’s] employees [sic] . . . [trust fund] contributions . . . ,” the complaint sought, inter alia, an accounting of the hours of carpentry work performed by the subcontractor’s employees on the project, and a judgment for the amount of such work at 96 cents per hour. Petitioner’s principal defense was that the subcontractor’s clause violated § 302 (a)(1). The Circuit Court sustained respondents’ demurrer to that defense. The Circuit Court held, however, that it would be “inequitable” to require contributions to the Health and Welfare, Pension, and Vacation Savings Funds because they would in effect amount “to double fringe benefits” with respect to the subcontractor’s employees. It therefore ordered an accounting limited to contributions to the Apprenticeship and CIAF trusts that did “not accrue benefits directly to the workmen.” The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed the judgment insofar as it sustained the demurrer to petitioner’s defense based on § 302 (a)(1) but, construing the subcontractor’s clause as giving all the “funds . . . equal standing under the terms of the contract . . . ,” reversed the judgment insofar as it limited the accounting to the Apprenticeship and CIAF trusts. 273 Ore. 221, 225-226, 540 P. 2d 1011, 1013-1014 (1975). We granted certiorari, 424 U. S. 942 (1976). We affirm.
I
The parties agree that the determinative question for decision is that of the proper construction of the subcontractor’s clause: whether that clause binds petitioner to make contributions to the trust funds “on behalf of’’ or “for the benefit of” the subcontractor’s employees, so that they may participate in the benefits provided carpenters by the funds. Thus interpreted, the clause would violate § 302 (a)(1) because the subcontractor is not a signatory to the • collective-bargaining agreement and his employees are therefore ineligible for trust fund benefits based on carpentry work performed for him. On the other hand, if the clause merely obligates petitioner to pay contributions to the funds measured by the hours of carpentry work performed at the project by the subcontractor’s employees, the benefits being payable only to carpenters employed by petitioner and other signatory employers, then the clause is authorized by the exceptions to the general prohibition of § 302 (a) enacted in §§ 302 (c)(5) and (6).
Before turning to the question of the meaning of the clause we must address a threshold question — whether federal or state law principles of contract construction, if they differ, are to be applied. Plainly federal law principles apply. Although the Oregon courts were not foreclosed from entertaining- this suit merely because petitioner’s defense invoked §302 (a)(1) of the Taft-Hartley Act, Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502 (1962), we have proceeded “upon the hypothesis that state courts would apply federal law in exercising [such] jurisdiction” and that “incompatible doctrines of local law must give way to-principles of federal labor law.” Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 102 (1962) (citations omitted). Application of federal law is necessary to avoid the “possibility that individual contract terms might have different meanings under state and federal law . . . id., at 103.
The Oregon courts did not specify in this case whether federal or state principles of contract construction guided their concurring conclusions that the subcontractor’s clause was not to be read as violating § 302 (a)(1). We shall therefore assume that federal principles were applied. In any event, if in fact state rules of contract interpretation were employed, federal rules would require agreement with the Oregon courts’ construction. Since a general rule of construction presumes the legality and enforceability of contracts, 6A A. Corbin, Contracts §§ 1499, 1533 (1962), ambiguously worded contracts should not be interpreted to render them illegal and unenforceable where the wording lends itself to a logically acceptable construction that renders them legal and enforceable. The subcontractor’s clause although inartfully worded, lends itself to a construction that ties signatory employer contributions to the trust funds as measured both by hours worked by his own employees and hours worked by his nonsignatory subcontractor’s employees, and, so construed, Art. IV does not violate § 302 (a)(1).
Petitioner argues that the Oregon Supreme Court’s opinion reads the clause as requiring petitioner to make payments “on behalf of” Jackson’s employees in order that they may participate in the benefits of the trusts. This reading, he contends, is implicit in the following passage from the State Supreme Court’s opinion:
“In this case the requirement of such a written contract was satisfied in that defendant had a written contract with the union which required that he make contributions to the trust funds for his own employees and also specifically provided that in the event he engaged a subcontractor to do any work covered by the agreement he would be liable for payments into the various trust funds for the employees of such a subcontractor.” 273 Ore., at 229, 540 P. 2d, at 1015 (emphasis added).
Read in isolation, this somewhat ambiguous passage might appear to support petitioner’s argument. In the context of the entire opinion, however, particularly its reliance upon lower federal court decisions upholding the legality of payments measured in whole or in part by wages paid to employees ineligible to receive benefits, it becomes clear that the Oregon Supreme Court read the subcontractor’s clause as an agreement by petitioner to make contributions to the funds measured by the hours of carpentry work performed by the subcontractor’s employees, not “on behalf of” or “for the benefit of” the nonsignatory contractor’s ineligible employees, but solely for the benefit of the employees of petitioner and other signatory employers. This conclusion follows, we think, from the Oregon Supreme Court’s treatment of Moglia v. Geoghegan, 403 F. 2d 110 (CA2 1968), and Kreindler v. Clarise Sportswear Co., 184 F. Supp. 182 (SDNY 1960). In rejecting petitioner’s argument that § 302 (a) (1) prohibits an employer from making any contributions except for the benefit of his own and other signatory employers’ employees, the court characterized language in Moglia, cited by petitioner in support of this construction, as “not necessary to . . . decision in that case, in which there was no written agreement, and it is not binding upon this court in this case.” 273 Ore., at 229 n. 4, 540 P. 2d, at 1015 n. 4. Rather, the Oregon Supreme Court relied on Kreindler, also involving payments to a trust fund for employees of a nonunion contractor, where the contention was rejected that an employer’s contributions measured by the hours worked of another employer’s employees violated §302 (a)(1). The court quoted extensively from the Kreindler opinion’s reasoning in concluding that payments might be legal even though measured by hours worked by employees of another employer. The court stated flatly: “We agree with [the] statement” from Kreindler that “‘[t]he fact that the employees of Clarise’s contractors cannot share in the payments based on their payrolls which Clarise has agreed to make does not give Clarise the right to avoid its agreement as illegal.’ ” 273 Ore., at 230, 640 P. 2d, at 1015. Accord, Budget Dress Corp. v. Joint Board of Waistmakers’ Union, 198 F. Supp. 4 (SDNY 1961), aff’d, 299 F. 2d 936 (CA2 1962); Minkoff v. Scranton Frocks, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 542 (SDNY), aff’d, 279 F. 2d 115 (CA2 1960); Greenstein v. National Skirt & Sportswear Assn., 178 F. Supp. 681 (SDNY 1959).
We agree that enforcement of the subcontractor’s clause, as so construed by the Oregon Supreme Court to require petitioner to make contributions measured by the hours worked by his subcontractor’s employees, not only is consistent with the wording of §§302 (c)(5) and (6) but also does no disservice to the congressional purpose in enacting § 302 to combat “corruption of collective bargaining through bribery of employee representatives by employers, . . . extortion by employee representatives, and . . . the possible abuse by union officers of the power which they might achieve if welfare funds were left to their sole control.” Arroyo v. United States, 359 U. S. 419, 425-426 (1959).
II
Petitioner also advances an argument, apparently not made in the Oregon courts, that the subcontractor’s clause “frustrates” the objectives of the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U. S. C. § 276a, by increasing his labor costs over the minimum required by that Act. However, the Davis-Bacon Act “was not enacted to benefit contractors, but rather to protect their employees from substandard earnings by fixing a floor under wages on Government projects.” United States v. Binghamton Constr. Co., 347 U. S. 171, 176-177 (1954). That objective is clearly not “frustrated” when contractual arrangements between employers and their employees result in higher compensation and benefits than the floor established by the Act.
Affirmed.
Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 157, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 186, provides in pertinent part:
“(a) It shall be unlawful for any employer or association of employers .. . to pay, lend, or deliver, or agree to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing of value—
“(1) to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce;
“(c) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable ... (5) with respect to money or other thing of value paid to a trust fund established by such representative, for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer, and their families, and dependents (or of such employees, families, and dependents jointly with the employees of other employers making similar payments, and their families and dependents) : Provided, That (A) such payments are held in trust for the purpose of paying, either from principal or income or both, for the benefit of employees, their families and dependents, for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death of employees, compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupational activity or insurance tO' provide any of the foregoing, or unemployment benefits or life insurance, disability and sickness insurance, or accident insurance; (B) the detailed basis on which such payments are to be made is specified in a written agreement with the employer . . . ; (6) with respect to money or other thing of value paid by any employer to a trust fund 'established by such representative for the purpose of pooled vacation, holiday, severance or similar benefits, or defraying costs of apprenticeship or other training programs: Provided, That the requirements of clause (B) of the proviso to clause (5) of this subsection shall apply to such trust funds . . . .”
Petitioner conceded that the trustees will not accept contributions from nonsignatory employers. App. 53. The five trust funds involved in this case expressly limit participation in benefits to employees of signatory employers and petitioner makes no claim that the subcontractors’ employees received benefits from the funds.
Article IV of the Carpenters Master Labor Agreement between general contractors associations and the Oregon State and Southwest Washington District Councils of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, with which petitioner by memorandum agreement agreed to comply, provides as follows:
“If an employer, bound by this Agreement, contracts or subcontracts, any work covered by this Agreement to be done at the job site of the construction, alteration or repair of a building, structure or other work to any person or proprietor who is not signatory to this Agreement, the employer shall require such subcontractor to be bound to all the provisions of this Agreement, or such employer shall maintain daily records of the subcontractors employees job site hours and be liable for payment of these employees wages, travel, Health-Welfare and Dental, Pension, Vacation, Apprenticeship and CIAF contributions in accordance with this Agreement.” (Emphasis added.)
Agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development required employers participating in the Salem project to pay their employees according to the prevailing wage scale, as defined in the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U. S. C. § 276a. Under the Act, fringe benefits may be paid either to the workmen directly or to union-employer trusts for the benefit of the workmen. The Act applies to all construction contracts to which the United States is a party.
Moglia had been employed for 28 years by a single employer whose payments into the trust fund had been illegal because he was not a party to a written agreement as required by §302 (c)(5)(B). 403 F. 2d, at 114. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that Moglia was not eligible to receive benefits because he had never been an employee of an employer lawfully contributing to the fund.
A provision of the controlling collective-bargaining agreement required Clarise, as a member of a multiple-employer bargaining association, to make payments to the union’s health and welfare and retirement funds based both upon Clarise’s own payrolls and upon the payrolls of the contractors who manufactured Clarise’s product. The employees of Clarise’s contractors were not eligible to receive benefits from the funds.
The agreement establishing the CIAF trust provides for exclusive employer administration and that fund is therefore outside the coverage of § 302.
Our decision that the subcontractor’s clause does not violate § 302 makes it unnecessary to address petitioner’s argument that § 302 (c) (6) should be read to incorporate the “exclusive benefit” requirement of §302 (c) (5).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co., 467 U. S. 717 (1984), the Court held that retroactive application of the withdrawal liability provisions of the Multi-employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In these cases, we address the question whether the withdrawal liability provisions of the Act are valid under the Clause of the Fifth Amendment that forbids the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
I
A
The background and legislative history of both the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq., and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA or Act), 94 Stat. 1208, 29 U. S. C. §§ 1381-1461, are set forth in detail in Gray, supra, at 720-725. We therefore only summarize the relevant portions of that description for purposes of our discussion here.
Congress enacted ERISA in 1974 to provide comprehensive regulation for private pension plans. In addition to prescribing standards for the funding, management, and benefit provisions of these plans, ERISA also established a system of pension benefit insurance. This “comprehensive and reticulated statute” was designed “to ensure that employees and their beneficiaries would not be deprived of anticipated retirement benefits by the termination of pension plans before sufficient funds have been accumulated in the plans.. . . Congress wanted to guarantee that ‘if a worker has been promised a defined pension benefit upon retirement — and if he has fulfilled whatever conditions are required to obtain a vested benefit — he will actually receive it.’” 467 U. S., at 720, quoting Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 U. S. 359, 361-362, 374-375 (1980) (citations omitted).
To achieve this goal of protecting “anticipated retirement benefits,” Congress created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a wholly owned Government corporation, to administer an insurance program for participants in both single-employer and multiemployer pension plans. 29 U. S. C. § 1302 (1976 ed.). For single-employer plans that were in default, ERISA immediately obligated the PBGC to pay benefits. § 1381. With respect to multiemployer plans, ERISA delayed mandatory payment of guaranteed benefits until January 1, 1978. Until that date, Congress gave the PBGC discretionary authority to pay benefits upon the termination of multiemployer pension plans. §§ 1381(c)(2)-(4). As with single-employer plans, all contributors to covered multiemployer plans were assessed insurance premiums payable to the PBGC. If the PBGC exercised its discretion to pay benefits upon a plan’s termination, all employers that had contributed to the plan during the five years preceding its termination were liable to the PBGC in amounts proportional to their shares of the plan’s contributions during that period, subject to the limitation that any individual employer’s liability could not exceed 30% of the employer’s net worth. § 1362(b)(2).
During the period between the enactment of ERISA and 1978, when mandatory multiemployer guarantees were due to go into effect, the PBGC extended coverage to numerous plans. “Congress became concerned that a significant number of plans were experiencing extreme financial hardship,” Gray, supra, at 721, and that implementation of mandatory guarantees for multiemployer plans might induce several large plans to terminate, thus subjecting the insurance system to liability beyond its means. As a result, Congress delayed the effective date for the mandatory guarantees for 18 months, Pub. L. 95-214, 91 Stat. 1501, and directed the PBGC to prepare a report analyzing the problems of multi-employer plans and recommending possible solutions. See S. Rep. No. 95-570, pp. 1-4 (1977); H. R. Rep. No. 95-706, p. 1 (1977).
The PBGC’s Report found, inter alia, that “ERISA did not adequately protect plans from the adverse consequences that resulted when individual employers terminate their participation in, or withdraw from, multiemployer plans.” Gray, supra, at 722. The “basic problem,” the Report found, was the threat to the solvency and stability of multiemployer plans caused by employer withdrawals, which existing law actually encouraged. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Multiemployer Study Required by P. L. 95-214, pp. 96-97 (1978) (PBGC Report). As the PBGC’s Executive Director explained:
“A key problem of ongoing multiemployer plans, especially in declining industries, is the problem of employer withdrawal. Employer withdrawals reduce a plan’s contribution base. This pushes the contribution rate for remaining employers to higher and higher levels in order to fund past service liabilities, including liabilities generated by employers no longer participating in the plan, so-called inherited liabilities. The rising costs may encourage — or force — further withdrawals, thereby increasing the inherited liabilities to be funded by an ever decreasing contribution base. This vicious downward spiral may continue until it is no longer reasonable or possible for the pension plan to continue.” Pension Plan Termination Insurance Issues: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess., 22 (1978) (statement of Matthew M. Lind) (hereinafter 1978 Hearings).
“To alleviate the problem of employer withdrawals, the PBGC suggested new rules under which a withdrawing employer would be required to pay whatever share of the plan’s unfunded liabilities was attributable to that employer’s participation.” Gray, 467 U. S., at 723, citing PBGC Report, at 97-114 (footnote omitted). Again, the PBGC Executive Director explained:
“To deal with this problem, our report considers an approach under which an employer withdrawing from a multiemployer plan would be required to complete funding its fair share of the plan’s unfunded liabilities. In other words, the plan would have a claim against the employer for the inherited liabilities which would otherwise fall upon the remaining employers as a result of the withdrawal. . . .
“We think that such withdrawal liability would, first of all, discourage voluntary withdrawals and curtail the current incentives to flee the plan. Where such withdrawals nonetheless occur, we think that withdrawal liability would cushion the financial impact on the plan.” 1978 Hearings, at 23 (statement of Matthew M. Lind).
After 17 months of discussion, Congress agreed with the analysis put forward in the PBGC Report, and drafted legislation which implemented the Report’s recommendations. “As enacted, the Act requires that an employer withdrawing from a multiemployer pension plan pay a fixed and certain debt to the pension plan. This withdrawal liability is the employer’s proportionate share of the plan’s ‘unfunded vested benefits,’ calculated as the difference between the present value of the vested benefits and the current value of the plan’s assets.” Gray, supra, at 725, quoting 29 U. S. C. §§ 1381, 1391.
B
Appellant Trustees administer the Operating Engineers Pension Plan according to a written Agreement Establishing the Operating Engineers Pension Trust, executed in 1960, pursuant to § 302(c)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 186(c)(5). App. 29. The Trust receives contributions from several thousand employers under written collective-bargaining agreements covering employees in the construction industry throughout southern California and southern Nevada. Under these collective-bargaining agreements, the employers agree to contribute a certain amount to the Pension Plan, with the actual amount contributed by each employer determined by multiplying their employees’ hours of service by a rate specified in the current agreement. See id., at 33-35.
By the express terms of the Trust Agreement, id., at 30-31, and the Plan, id., at 31-32, the employer’s sole obligation to the Pension Trust is to pay the contributions required by the collective-bargaining agreement. The Trust Agreement clearly states that the employer’s obligation for pension benefits to the employee is ended when the employer pays the appropriate contribution to the Pension Trust. This is true even though the contributions agreed upon are insufficient to pay the benefits under the Plan.
In 1975, the Trustees filed suit, seeking declaratory and in-junctive relief, claiming that the Pension Plan is a “defined contribution plan” as defined by ERISA, and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the PBGC. Alternatively, the Trustees argued that if the Plan was subject to the provisions of ERISA requiring premium payments and imposing contingent termination liability, the statute was unconstitutional, as it deprived the Trustees, the employers, and the plan participants of property without due process and without proper compensation.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the Trustees, finding that the Plan was a “defined contribution plan,” and enjoining the PBGC from treating it in any other manner. Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 419 F. Supp. 737 (CD Cal. 1976). The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of the constitutional issues. Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 581 F. 2d 729 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 935 (1979). On remand, the District Court denied the Trustees’ motion to convene a three-judge court on the ground that the Trustees’ constitutional challenges were insubstantial. App. 55-56. The Trustees sought a petition of mandamus on the issue, but their petition was denied by both the Ninth Circuit and this Court. Connolly v. Williams, No. 79-7580 (Jan. 14, 1980); Connolly v. United States District Court, 445 U. S. 959 (1980).
On the merits, the District Court granted summary judgment to the PBGC, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. 673 F. 2d 1110 (1982). The court could not agree with the District Court that the constitutional claims raised by the Trustees were so “insubstantial” that a three-judge panel could be summarily denied. Id., at 1114. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case with directions to convene a three-judge court.
During the course of the litigation to convene the three-judge court, Congress enacted the MPPAA. The District Court permitted the Trustees to file an amended complaint to include a challenge to the constitutionality of the new Act. The court also permitted appellant Woodward Sand Co., an employer that had been assessed withdrawal liability by the Trustees, to intervene in the action. App. 82.
After oral argument, the three-judge panel granted summary judgment in favor of the PBGC. The court rejected appellants’ argument that the Act violated the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment, holding that “the contractual right which insulates employers from further liability to the pension plans in which they participate is not ‘property’ within the meaning of the takings clause.” 631 F. Supp. 640, 645 (1984). Because the court resolved this issue “on the basis that no ‘property’ is affected by the MPPAA,” it did not discuss whether a “taking” had occurred, or whether the taking would have been for a “public purpose.” Ibid.
Both the Trustees and Woodward Sand Co. invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. We noted probable jurisdiction, 472 U. S. 1006 (1985), and now affirm.
II
Appellants challenge the District Court’s conclusion that the Act does not effect a taking of “property” within the meaning of the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Rather than specifically asserting that the contractual limitation of liability is property, however, appellants argue that the imposition of noncontractual withdrawal liability violates the Taking Clause by requiring employers to transfer their assets for the private use of pension trusts and, in any event, by requiring an uncompensated transfer.
We agree that an employer subject to withdrawal liability is permanently deprived of those assets necessary to satisfy its statutory obligation, not to the Government, but to a pension trust. If liability is assessed under the Act, it constitutes a real debt that the employer must satisfy, and it is not an obligation which can be considered insubstantial. In the present litigation, for example, appellant Woodward Sand Co.’s withdrawal liability, after the Trustees’ assessment was reduced by an arbitrator, was approximately $200,000, or nearly 25% of the firm’s net worth. Juris. Statement in No. 84-1567, p. 7, n. 7.
But appellants’ submission — that such a statutory liability to a private party always constitutes an uncompensated taking prohibited by the Fifth Amendment — if accepted, would prove too much. In the course of regulating commercial and other human affairs, Congress routinely creates burdens for some that directly benefit others. For example, Congress may set minimum wages, control prices, or create causes of action that did not previously exist. Given the propriety of the governmental power to regulate, it cannot be said that the Taking Clause is violated whenever legislation requires one person to use his or her assets for the benefit of another. In Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U. S. 1 (1976), we sustained a statute requiring coal mine operators to compensate former employees disabled by pneumoconiosis, even though the operators had never contracted for such liability, and the employees involved had long since terminated their connection with the industry. We said: “[0]ur cases are clear that legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not unlawful solely because it upsets otherwise settled expectations. . . . This is true even though the effect of the legislation is to impose a new duty or liability based on past acts.” Id., at 15-16 (citations omitted).
Relying on Turner Elkhorn, we also rejected a due process attack on the imposition, under the statute now before us, of withdrawal liability on employers who withdrew before the effective date of the 1978 amendments. We held that Congress had acted within its powers and for sound reasons. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co., 467 U. S. 717 (1984). Although both Gray and Turner Elkhom were due process cases, it would be surprising indeed to discover now that in both cases Congress unconstitutionally had taken the assets of the employers there involved.
Appellants’ claim of an illegal taking gains nothing from the fact that the employer in the present litigation was protected by the terms of its contract from any liability beyond the specified contributions to which it had agreed. See nn. 2, 3, supra. “Contracts, however express, cannot fetter the constitutional authority of Congress. Contracts may create rights of property, but when contracts deal with a subject matter which lies within the control of Congress, they have a congenital infirmity. Parties cannot remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them.” Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 294 U. S. 240, 307-308 (1935).
If the regulatory statute is otherwise within the powers of Congress, therefore, its application may not be defeated by private contractual provisions. For the same reason, the fact that legislation disregards or destroys existing contractual rights does not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking. Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 517 (1944); Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 502, 508-510 (1923). This is not to say that contractual rights are never property rights or that the Government may always take them for its own benefit without compensation. But here, the United States has taken nothing for its own use, and only has nullified a contractual provision limiting liability by imposing an additional obligation that is otherwise within the power of Congress to impose. That the statutory withdrawal liability will operate in this manner and will redound to the benefit of pension trusts does not justify a holding that the provision violates the Taking Clause and is invalid on its face.
This conclusion is not inconsistent with our prior Taking Clause cases. See, e. g., Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986 (1984); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., 452 U. S. 264 (1981); Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164 (1979); Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978). In all of these cases, we have eschewed the development of any set formula for identifying a “taking” forbidden by the Fifth Amendment, and have relied instead on ad hoc, factual inquiries into the circumstances of each particular case. Monsanto Co., supra, at 1005; Kaiser Aetna, supra, at 175. To aid in this determination, however, we have identified three factors which have “particular significance”: (1) “the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant”; (2) “the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations”; and (3) “the character of the governmental action.” Penn Central Transportation Co., supra, at 124. Accord, Monsanto Co., supra, at 1005; PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74, 82-83 (1980). Examining the MPPAA in fight of these factors reinforces our belief that the imposition of withdrawal liability does not constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
First, with respect to the nature of the governmental action, we already have noted that, under the Act, the Government does not physically invade or permanently appropriate any of the employer’s assets for its own use. Instead, the Act safeguards the participants in multiemployer pension plans by requiring a withdrawing employer to fund its share of the plan obligations incurred during its association with the plan. This interference with the property rights of an employer arises from a public program that adjusts the benefits and burdens of economic fife to promote the common good and, under our cases, does not constitute a taking requiring Government compensation. Penn Central Transportation Co., supra, at 124; Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., supra, at 15, 16. See Andrus v. Allard, 444 U. S. 51, 65 (1979); Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 413 (1922).
Next, as to the severity of the economic impact of the MPPAA, there is no doubt that the Act completely deprives an employer of whatever amount of money it is obligated to pay to fulfill its statutory liability. The assessment of withdrawal liability is not made in a vacuum, however, but directly depends on the relationship between the employer and the plan to which it had made contributions. Moreover, there are a significant number of provisions in the Act that moderate and mitigate the economic impact of an individual employer’s liability. There is nothing to show that the withdrawal liability actually imposed on an employer will always be out of proportion to its experience with the plan, and the mere fact that the employer must pay money to comply with the Act is but a necessary consequence of the MPPAA’s regulatory scheme.
The final inquiry suggested for determining whether the Act constitutes a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment is whether the MPPAA has interfered with reasonable investment-backed expectations. Appellants argue that the only monetary obligations incurred by each employer involved in the Operating Engineers Pension Plan arose from the specific terms of the Plan and Trust Agreement between the employers and the union, and that the imposition of withdrawal liability upsets those reasonable expectations. Pension plans, however, were the objects of legislative concern long before the passage of ERISA in 1974, and surely as of that time, it was clear that if the PBGC exercised its discretion to pay benefits upon the termination of a multi-employer pension plan, employers who had contributed to the plan during the preceeding five years were liable for their proportionate share of the plan’s contributions during that period. 29 U. S. C. § 1364. It was also plain enough that the purpose of imposing withdrawal liability was to ensure that employees would receive the benefits promised them. When it became evident that ERISA fell short of achieving this end, Congress adopted the 1980 amendments. Prudent employers then had more than sufficient notice not only that pension plans were currently regulated, but also that withdrawal itself might trigger additional financial obligations. See Gray, 467 U. S., at 732. “Those who do business in the regulated field cannot object if the legislative scheme is buttressed by subsequent amendments to achieve the legislative end.” FHA v. The Darlington, Inc., 358 U. S. 84, 91 (1958). See also Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U. S., at 15-16 and cases cited therein.
The purpose of forbidding uncompensated takings of private property for public use is “to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960). We are far from persuaded that fairness and justice require the public, rather than the withdrawing employers and other parties to pension plan agreements, to shoulder the responsibility for rescuing plans that are in financial trouble. The employers in the present litigation voluntarily negotiated and maintained a pension plan which was determined to be within the strictures of ERISA. We do not know, as a fact, whether this plan was underfunded, but Congress determined that unregulated withdrawals from multiemployer plans could endanger their financial vitality and deprive workers of the vested rights they were entitled to anticipate would be theirs upon retirement. For this reason, Congress imposed withdrawal liability as one part of an overall statutory scheme to safeguard the solvency of private pension plans. We see no constitutionally compelled reason to require the Treasury to assume the financial burden of attaining this goal.
The judgment of the three-judge court is
Affirmed.
The inadequacy of existing law was demonstrated by the Report’s finding that roughly 10% of all multiemployer plans, covering 1.3 million participants, were experiencing financial difficulties. PBGC Report, at 1. Funding of all plan benefits under these plans, if they terminated, would cost the insurance system approximately $4.8 billion and necessitate an increase in premiums to unacceptable levels. Id., at 2, 16, 139. See also Hearings on the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1979 before the Task Force on Welfare and Pension Plans of the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 1156, 1170, 1291 (1980). See also Brief for National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans as Amicus Curiae 12-14; Brief of Trustees for United Mine Workers of America 1950 and 1974 Pension Plans as Amici Curiae 7.
Article II, § 7, of the Trust Agreement provides as follows:
“Neither the Employers nor any Signatory Association, or officer, agent, employee or committee member of the Employers or any Signatory Association, shall be liable to make Contributions to the Fund or with respect to the Pension Plan, except to the extent that he or it may be an Individual Employer required to make Contributions to the Fund with respect to his or its own individual or joint venture operations, or to the extent he or it may incur liability as a Trustee as hereinafter provided. Except as provided in Article III hereof, the liability of any Individual Employer to the Fund, or with respect to the Pension Plan, shall be limited to the payments required by the Collective Bargaining Agreements with respect to his or its individual or joint venture operations, and in no event shall he or it be liable or responsible for any portion of the Contributions due from other Individual Employers or with respect to the operations of such Individual Employers. The Individual Employers shall not be required to make any further payments or Contributions to the cost of operations of the Fund or of the Pension Plan, except as may be hereinafter provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreements.” App. 30-31.
Article VII, § 4, of the Plan provides as follows:
“This Pension Plan has been adopted on the basis of an actuarial calculation which has established, to the extent possible, that the contributions will, if continued, be sufficient to maintain the Plan on a permanent basis. However, it is recognized that the benefits provided by this Pension Plan can be paid only to the extent that the Plan has available adequate resources for those payments. No Individual Employer has any liability, directly or indirectly to provide the benefits established by this Plan beyond the obligation of the Individual Employer to make contributions as stipulated in any Collective Bargaining Agreement. In the event that at any time the Pension Fund does not have sufficient assets to permit continued payments under this Pension Plan, nothing contained in this Pension Plan and the Trust Agreement shall be construed as obliging any Individual Employer to make benefit payments or contributions (other than the eon-tributions for which the Individual Employer may be obliged by any Collective Bargaining Agreement) in order to provide for the benefits established by the Pension Plan. Likewise, there shall be no liability upon the Board of Trustees, individually or collectively, or upon the Employers, Signatory Association, Individual Employer, or Union to provide the benefits established by this Plan if the Pension Fund does not have the assets to make such benefit payments.” Id., at 31-32.
Title 29 U. S. C. §1002(34) describes a “defined contribution plan” as “a pension plan which provides for an individual account for each participant and for benefits based solely upon the amount contributed to the participant’s account, and any income, expenses, gains and losses, and any forfeitures of accounts of other participants which may be allocated to such participant’s account.” The Plan Termination Insurance provisions of ERISA do not apply to such plans. § 1321(b)(1).
Penfield & Smith, Inc., Roy L. Klema Engineers, Inc., and Municipal Engineers, Inc., also intervened in the proceedings before the District Court. These employers are not parties to this appeal, however, as the Trustees have determined that they have incurred no liability under the Act. Brief for Appellant in No. 84-1567, p. ii.
The three-judge court also rejected appellants’ arguments that the MPPAA violated due process, the Contract Clause, and several other constitutional provisions. See App. to Juris. Statement in No. 84-1555, pp. 8-14.
The panel’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the MPPAA is consistent with the result reached by every other court to have considered the issue. Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund, 762 F. 2d 1124 (CA1 1984), modified on other grounds, 762 F. 2d 1137 (1985); Board of Trustees of Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Thompson Building Materials, Inc., 749 F. 2d 1396 (CA9 1984), cert. denied, 471 U. S. 1054 (1985); Terson Co. v. Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local 194, 739 F. 2d 118 (CA3 1984); Washington Star Co. v. International Typographical Union Negotiated Pension Plan, 235 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 729 F. 2d 1502 (1984); Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co., 725 F. 2d 843 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co. v. Bakery Workers, 467 U. S. 1259 (1984); Peick v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 724 F. 2d 1247 (CA7 1983), cert. denied, 467 U. S. 1259 (1984); Republic Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters Joint Council No. 83 of Virginia Pension Fund, 718 F. 2d 628 (CA4 1983), cert. denied, 467 U. S. 1259 (1984); Dorn’s Transportation, Inc. v. I. A. M. National Pension Fund Benefit Plan, 578 F. Supp. 1222 (DC 1984), aff’d, 243 U. S. App. D. C. 348, 753 F. 2d 166 (1985); Speckmann v. Paddock Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 565 F. Supp. 469 (ED Mo. 1983). In Keith Fulton, Thompson Building Materials, Terson, Peick, Republic Industries, Dorn, and Speckmann, the Taking Clause claim was directly at issue.
Appellant Trustees make two additional arguments as well. First, they argue that if the imposition of withdrawal liability is invalid under the Taking Clause, then the related provisions of the MPPAA requiring multi-employer plans to pay premiums to the PBGC are also invalid, as they are inseverable from the overall statutory scheme. Second, the Trustees contend that the statutory provisions requiring multiemployer plans to pay premiums to the PBGC and authorizing the PBGC to use the funds “in its discretion” to pay benefits to participants of a terminated multiemployer plan violate the principle of separation of powers by delegating legislative authority to the PBGC.
Because we find that the withdrawal liability provisions of the Act are valid under the Taking Clause, we need not address the Trustees’ first assertion. As to the Trustees’ separation-of-powers contention, we find little merit in this argument. Title 29 U. S. C. § 1381(c)(2)(B) (1976 ed.) stated that the PBGC was to pay benefits if it determined that “the payment ... of benefits guaranteed under [ERISA] with respect to that plan [would] not jeopardize the payments the [PBGC] anticipate^] it may be required to make in connection with [the mandatory guarantee program].” Congress delegated discretionary, rather than mandatory, coverage for multiemployer plans prior to 1980 because it needed “time for thorough consideration of the complex issues posed by the termination of multi-employer pension plans.” Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co., 467 U. S. 717, 721, n. 1 (1984). In these circumstances, the delegation of discretionary authority was a reasonable means of achieving congressional aims, and we are not persuaded that Congress failed to provide a clear “intelligible principle” to guide the PBGC in the exercise of this authority under the Act. See J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 394, 409 (1928).
Several sections of the Act moderate the impact of a withdrawing employer’s liability by exempting certain transactions from being characterized as “withdrawals.” See, e. g., 29 U. S. C. §§ 1383(b), (c) (applying special definitions for determining whether there has been a complete or partial withdrawal from a pension plan in the building and construction industry and in the entertainment industry); § 1384 (cessation or reduction of contribution obligations as a result of an employer’s sale of its assets does not result in a withdrawal, provided certain other conditions are met); § 1398(1) (change of corporate structure where successor continues to contribute to plan is not a withdrawal); § 1398(2) (withdrawal does not occur where employer suspends contributions to plan during labor dispute involving its employees).
Other sections reduce the size of the financial liability in various instances. See, e. g., 29 U. S. C. § 1389(a) (creating a de minimis rule which eliminates withdrawal liability entirely for an employer whose obligation would be equal to or less than the smaller of (1) *U of 1% of the plan’s unfunded vested obligations; or (2) $50,000); § 1405(a)(1) (limiting withdrawal liability for employer who liquidates his business); § 1390(a)(2) (establishing a “free look” provision, whereby new employers may withdraw without liability if they had an obligation to contribute for no more than six consecutive plan years, or, if shorter, the number of years required for vesting under the plan).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice & alia, and Justice Kennedy join.
On certification to it by a lower state court, the Florida Supreme Court addressed the following question: “Whether surveillance of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residential backyard from the vantage point of a helicopter located 400 feet above the greenhouse constitutes a ‘search’ for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 12 of the Florida Constitution.” 511 So. 2d 282 (1987). The court answered the question in the affirmative, and we granted the State’s petition for certiorari challenging that conclusion. 484 U. S. 1058 (1988).
Respondent Riley lived in a mobile home located on five acres of rural property. A greenhouse was located 10 to 20 feet behind the mobile home. Two sides of the greenhouse were enclosed. The other two sides were not enclosed but the contents of the greenhouse were obscured from view from surrounding property by trees, shrubs, and the mobile home. The greenhouse was covered by corrugated roofing panels, some translucent and some opaque. At the time relevant to this case, two of the panels, amounting to approximately 10% of the roof area, were missing. A wire fence surrounded the mobile home and the greenhouse, and the property was posted with a “DO NOT ENTER” sign.
This case originated with an anonymous tip to the Pasco County Sheriff’s office that marijuana was being grown on respondent’s property. When an investigating officer discovered that he could not see the contents of the greenhouse from the road, he circled twice over respondent’s property in a helicopter at the height of 400 feet. With his naked eye, he was able to see through the openings in the roof and one or more of the open sides of the greenhouse and to identify what he thought was marijuana growing in the structure. A warrant was obtained based on these observations, and the ensuing search revealed marijuana growing in the greenhouse. Respondent was charged with possession of marijuana under Florida law. The trial court granted his motion to suppress; the Florida Court of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court, which quashed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s suppression order.
We agree with the State’s submission that our decision in California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207 (1986), controls this case. There, acting on a tip, the police inspected the backyard of a particular house while flying in a fixed-wing aircraft at 1,000 feet. With the naked eye the officers saw what they concluded was marijuana growing in the yard. A search warrant was obtained on the strength of this airborne inspection, and marijuana plants were found. The trial court refused to suppress this evidence, but a state appellate court held that the inspection violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and that the warrant was therefore invalid. We in turn reversed, holding that the inspection was not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. We recognized that the yard was within the curtilage of the house, that a fence shielded the yard from observation from the street, and that the occupant had a subjective expectation of privacy. We held, however, that such an expectation was not reasonable and not one “that society is prepared to honor.” Id., at 214. Our reasoning was that the home and its curtilage are not necessarily protected from inspection that involves no physical invasion. “ What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.’” Id., at 213, quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967). As a general proposition, the police may see what may be seen “from a public vantage point where [they have] a right to be,” 476 U. S., at 213. Thus the police, like the public, would have been free to inspect the backyard garden from the street if their view had been unobstructed. They were likewise free to inspect the yard from the vantage point of an aircraft flying in the navigable airspace as this plane was. “In an age where private and commercial flight in the public airways is routine, it is unreasonable for respondent to expect that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet. The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.” Id., at 215.
We arrive at the same conclusion in the present case. In this case, as in Ciraolo, the property surveyed was within the curtilage of respondent’s home. Riley no doubt intended and expected that his greenhouse would not be open to public inspection, and the precautions he took protected against ground-level observation. Because the sides and roof of his greenhouse were left partially open, however, what was growing in the greenhouse was subject to viewing from the air. Under the holding in Ciraolo, Riley could not reasonably have expected the contents of his greenhouse to be immune from examination by an officer seated in a fixed-wing aircraft flying in navigable airspace at an altitude of 1,000 feet or, as the Florida Supreme Court seemed to recognize, at an altitude of 500 feet, the lower limit of the navigable airspace for such an aircraft. 511 So. 2d, at 288. Here, the inspection was made from a helicopter, but as is the case with fixed-wing planes, “private and commercial flight [by helicopter] in the public airways is routine” in this country, Ciraolo, supra, at 215, and there is no indication that such flights are unheard of in Pasco County, Florida. Riley could not reasonably have expected that his greenhouse was protected from public or official observation from a helicopter had it been flying within the navigable airspace for fixed-wing aircraft.
Nor on the facts before us, does it make a difference for Fourth Amendment purposes that the helicopter was flying at 400 feet when the officer saw what was growing in the greenhouse through the partially open roof and sides of the structure. We would have a different case if flying at that altitude had been contrary to law or regulation. But helicopters are not bound by the lower limits of the navigable airspace allowed to other aircraft. Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley’s property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley’s greenhouse. The police officer did no more. This is not to say that an inspection of the curtilage of a house from an aircraft will always pass muster under the Fourth Amendment simply because the plane is within the navigable airspace specified by law. But it is of obvious importance that the helicopter in this case was not violating the law, and there is nothing in the record or before us to suggest that helicopters flying at 400 feet are sufficiently rare in this country to lend substance to respondent’s claim that he reasonably anticipated that his greenhouse would not be subject to observation from that altitude. Neither is there any intimation here that the helicopter interfered with respondent’s normal use of the greenhouse or of other parts of the curtilage. As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, and no wind, dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is accordingly reversed.
So ordered.
The Florida Supreme Court mentioned the State Constitution in posing the question, once in the course of its opinion, and again in finally concluding that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and the State Constitution. The bulk of the discussion, however, focused exclusively on federal cases dealing with the Fourth Amendment, and there being no indication that the decision “clearly and expressly ... is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds,” we have jurisdiction. Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1041 (1983).
The first use of the helicopter by police was in New York in 1947, and today every State in the country uses helicopters in police work. As of 1980, there were 1,500 such aircraft used in police work. E. Brown, The Helicopter in Civil Operations 79 (1981). More than 10,000 helicopters, both public and private, are registered in the United States. Federal Aviation Administration, Census of U. S. Civil Aircraft, Calendar Year 1987, p. 12. See also 1988 Helicopter Annual 9. And there are an estimated 31,697 helicopter pilots. Federal Aviation Administration, Statistical Handbook of Aviation, Calendar Year 1986, p. 147.
While Federal Aviation Administration regulations permit fixed-wing aircraft to be operated at an altitude of 1,000 feet while flying over congested areas and at an altitude of 500 feet above the surface in other than congested areas, helicopters may be operated at less than the mínimums for fixed-wing aircraft “if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specificálly prescribed for helicopters by the [FAA} Administrator.” 14 CFR §91.79 (1988).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, and IV-A, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV-B and V, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Kennedy join.
These two consolidated cases require us to decide whether the imposition of capital punishment on an individual for a crime committed at 16 or 17 years of age constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
i — l
The first case, No. 87-5765, involves the shooting death of 20-year-old Barbel Poore in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Petitioner Kevin Stanford committed the murder on January 7, 1981, when he was approximately 17 years and 4 months of age. Stanford and his accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized Poore during and after their commission of a robbery at a gas station where she worked as an attendant. They then drove her to a secluded area near the station, where Stanford shot her pointblank in the face and then in the back of her head. The proceeds from the robbery were roughly 300 cartons of cigarettes, two gallons of fuel, and a small amount of cash. A corrections officer testified that petitioner explained the murder as follows: “‘[H]e said, I had to shoot her, [she] lived next door to me and she would recognize me.... I guess we could have tied her up or something or beat [her up]... and tell her if she tells, we would kill her.... Then after he said that he started laughing.’” 734 S. W. 2d 781, 788 (Ky. 1987).
After Stanford’s arrest, a Kentucky juvenile court conducted hearings to determine whether he should be transferred for trial as an adult under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §208.170 (Michie 1982). That statute provided that juvenile court jurisdiction could be waived and an offender tried as an adult if he was either charged with a Class A felony or capital crime, or was over 16 years of age and charged with a felony. Stressing the seriousness of petitioner’s offenses and the unsuccessful attempts of the juvenile system to treat him for numerous instances of past delinquency, the juvenile court found certification for trial as an adult to be in the. best interest of petitioner and the community.
Stanford was convicted of murder, first-degree sodomy, first-degree robbery, and receiving stolen property, and was sentenced to death and 45 years in prison. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, rejecting Stanford’s “deman[d] that he has a constitutional right to treatment.” 734 S. W. 2d, at 792. Finding that the record clearly demonstrated that “there was no program or treatment appropriate for the appellant in the juvenile justice system,” the court held that the juvenile court did not err in certifying petitioner for trial as an adult. The court also stated that petitioner’s “age and the possibility that he might be rehabilitated were mitigating factors appropriately left to the consideration of the jury that tried him.” Ibid.
The second case before us today, No. 87-6026, involves the stabbing death of Nancy Allen, a 26-year-old mother of two who was working behind the sales counter of the convenience store she and David Allen owned and operated in Avondale, Missouri. Petitioner Heath Wilkins committed the murder on July 27, 1985, when he was approximately 16 years and 6 months of age. The record reflects that Wilkins’ plan was to rob the store and murder “whoever was behind the counter” because “a dead person can’t talk.” While Wilkins’ accomplice, Patrick Stevens, held Allen, Wilkins stabbed her, causing her to fall to the floor. When Stevens had trouble operating the cash register, Allen spoke up to assist him, leading Wilkins to stab her three more times in her chest. Two of these wounds penetrated the victim’s heart. When Allen began to beg for her life, Wilkins stabbed her four more times in the neck, opening her carotid artery. After helping themselves to liquor, cigarettes, rolling papers, and approximately $450 in cash and checks, Wilkins and Stevens left Allen to die on the floor.
Because he was roughly six months short of the age of majority for purposes of criminal prosecution, Mo. Rev. Stat. §211.021(1) (1986), Wilkins could not automatically be tried as an adult under Missouri law. Before that could happen, the juvenile court was required to terminate juvenile court jurisdiction and certify Wilkins for trial as an adult under §211.071, which permits individuals between 14 and 17 years of age who have committed felonies to be tried as adults. Relying on the “viciousness, force and violence” of the alleged crime, petitioner’s maturity, and the failure of the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate him after previous delinquent acts, the juvenile court made the necessary certification.
Wilkins was charged with first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and carrying a concealed weapon. After the court found him competent, petitioner entered guilty pleas to all charges. A punishment hearing was held, at which both the State and petitioner himself urged imposition of the death sentence. Evidence at the hearing revealed that petitioner had been in and out of juvenile facilities since the age of eight for various acts of burglary, theft, and arson, had attempted to kill his mother by putting insecticide into Tylenol capsules, and had killed several animals in his neighborhood. Although psychiatric testimony indicated that Wilkins had "personality disorders,” the witnesses agreed that Wilkins was aware of his actions and could distinguish right from wrong.
Determining that the death penalty was appropriate, the trial court entered the following order:
“[T]he court finds beyond reasonable doubt that the following aggravating circumstances exist:
“1. The murder in the first degree was committed while the defendant was engaged in the perpetration of the felony of robbery, and
“2. The murder in the first degree involved depravity of mind and that as a result thereof, it was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman.” App. in No. 87-6026, p. 77.
On mandatory review of Wilkins’ death sentence, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, rejecting the argument that the punishment violated the Eighth Amendment. 736 S. W. 2d 409 (1987).
We granted certiorari in these cases, 488 U. S. 887 (1988) and 487 U. S. 1233 (1988), to decide whether the Eighth Amendment precludes the death penalty for individuals who commit crimes at 16 or 17 years of age.
The thrust of both Wilkins’ and Stanford’s arguments is that imposition of the death penalty on those who were juveniles when they committed their crimes falls within the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments.” Wilkins would have us define juveniles as individuals 16 years of age and under; Stanford would draw the line at 17.
Neither petitioner asserts that his sentence constitutes one of “those modes or acts of punishment that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted.” Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 405 (1986). Nor could they support such a contention. At that time, the common law set the rebuttable presumption of incapacity to commit any felony at the age of 14, and theoretically permitted capital punishment to be imposed on anyone over the age of 7. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *23-*24; 1 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 24-29 (1800). See also In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 16 (1967); Streib, Death Penalty for Children: The American Experience with Capital Punishment for Crimes Committed While Under Age Eighteen, 36 Okla. L. Rev. 613, 614-615 (1983); Kean, The History of the Criminal Liability of Children, 53 L. Q. Rev. 364, 369-370 (1937). In accordance with the standards of this common-law tradition, at least 281 offenders under the age of 18 have been executed in this country, and at least 126 under the age of 17. See V. Streib, Death Penalty for Juveniles 57 (1987).
Thus petitioners are left to argue that their punishment is contrary to the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion). They are correct in asserting that this Court has “not confined the prohibition embodied in the Eighth Amendment to ‘barbarous’ methods that were generally outlawed in the 18th century,” but instead has interpreted the Amendment “in a flexible and dynamic manner.” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 171 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). • In determining what standards have “evolved,” however, we have looked not to our own conceptions of decency, but to those of modern American society as a whole. As we have said, “Eighth Amendment judgments should not be, or appear to be, merely the subjective views of individual Justices; judgment should be informed by objective factors to the maximum possible extent.” Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, 592 (1977) (plurality opinion). See also Penry v. Lynaugh, ante, at 331; Ford v. Wainwright, supra, at 406; Enrrmnd v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782, 788-789 (1982); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 277-279 (1972) (Brennan, J., concurring). -This approach is dictated both by the language of the Amendment — which proscribes only those punishments that are both “cruel and unusual”— and by the “deference we owe to the decisions of the state legislatures under our federal system,” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 176.
Ill
“[Fjirst” among the “‘objective indicia that reflect the public attitude toward a given sanction’ ” are statutes passed by society’s elected representatives. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279, 300 (1987), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 173. Of the 37 States whose laws permit capital punishment, 15 decline to impose it upon 16-year-old offenders and 12 decline to impose it on 17-year-old offenders. This does not establish the degree of national consensus this Court has previously thought sufficient to label a particular punishment cruel and unusual. In invalidating the death penalty for rape of an adult woman, we stressed that Georgia was the sole jurisdiction that authorized such a punishment. See Coker v. Georgia, supra, at 595-596. In striking down capital punishment for participation in a robbery in which an accomplice takes a life, we emphasized that only eight jurisdictions authorized similar punishment. Enmund v. Florida, supra, at 792. In finding that the Eighth Amendment precludes execution of the insane and thus requires an adequate hearing on the issue of sanity, we relied upon (in addition to the common-law rule) the fact that “no State in the Union” permitted such punishment. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S., at 408. And in striking down a life sentence without parole under a recidivist statute, we stressed that “[i]t appears that [petitioner] was treated more severely than he would have been in any other State.” Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 300 (1983).
Since a majority of the States that permit capital punishment authorize it for crimes committed at age 16 or above, petitioners’ cases are more analogous to Tison v. Arizona, 481 U. S. 137 (1987), than Coker, Enmund, Ford, and Solem. In Tison, which upheld Arizona’s imposition of the death penalty for major participation in a felony with reckless indifference to human life, we noted that only 11 of those jurisdictions imposing capital punishment rejected its use in such circumstances. Id., at 154. As we noted earlier, here the number is 15 for offenders under 17, and 12 for offenders under 18. We think the same conclusion as in Tison is required in these cases.
Petitioners make much of the recently enacted federal statute providing capital punishment for certain drug-related offenses, but limiting that punishment to offenders 18 and over. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4390, §7001(1), 21 U. S. C. §848(0 (1988 ed.). That reliance is entirely misplaced. To begin with, the statute in question does not embody a judgment by the Federal Legislature that no murder is heinous enough to warrant the execution of such a youthful offender, but merely that the narrow class of offense it defines is not. The congressional judgment on the broader question, if apparent at all, is to be found in the law that permits 16- and 17-year-olds (after appropriate findings) to be tried and punished as adults for all federal offenses, including those bearing a capital penalty that is not limited to 18-year-olds. See 18 U. S. C. § 5032 (1982 ed., Supp. V). Moreover, even if it were true that no federal statute permitted the execution of persons under 18, that would not remotely establish — in the face of a substantial number of state statutes to the contrary — a national consensus that such punishment is inhumane, any more than the absence of a federal lottery establishes a national consensus that lotteries are socially harmful. To be sure, the absence of a federal death penalty for 16- or 17-year-olds (if it existed) might be evidence that there is no national consensus in favor of such punishment. It is not the burden of Kentucky and Missouri, however, to establish a national consensus approving what their citizens have voted to do; rather, it is the “heavy burden” of petitioners, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 175, to establish a national consensus against it. As far as the primary and most reliable indication of consensus is concerned — the pattern of enacted laws — petitioners have failed to carry that burden.
IV
A
Wilkins and Stanford argue, however, that even if the laws themselves do not establish a settled consensus, the application of the laws does. That contemporary society views capital punishment of 16- and 17-year-old offenders as inappropriate is demonstrated, they say, by the reluctance of juries to impose, and prosecutors to seek, such sentences. Petitioners are quite correct that a far smaller number of offenders under 18 than over 18 have been sentenced to death in this country. From 1982 through 1988, for example, out of 2,106 total death sentences, only 15 were imposed on individuals who were 16 or under when they committed their crimes, and only 30 on individuals who were 17 at the time of the crime. See Streib, Imposition of Death Sentences For Juvenile Offenses, January 1, 1982, Through April 1, 1989, p. 2 (paper for Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, April 5, 1989). And it appears that actual executions for crimes committed under age 18 accounted for only about two percent, of the total number of executions that occurred between 1642 and 1986. See Streib, Death Penalty for Juveniles, at 55, 57. As Wilkins points out, the last execution of a person who committed a crime under 17 yeárs of age occurred in 1959. These statistics, however, carry little significance. Given the undisputed fact that a far smaller percentage of capital crimes are committed by persons under 18 than over 18, the discrepancy in treatment is much less than might seem. Granted, however, that a substantial discrepancy exists, that does not establish the requisite proposition that the death sentence for offenders under 18 is categorically unacceptable to prosecutors and juries. To the contrary, it is not only possible, but overwhelmingly probable, that the very considerations which induce petitioners and their supporters to believe that death should never be imposed on offenders under 18 cause prosecutors and juries to believe that it should rarely be imposed.
B
This last point suggests why there is also no relevance to the laws cited by petitioners and their amici which set 18 or more as the legal age for engaging in various activities, ranging from driving to drinking alcoholic beverages to voting. It is, to begin with, absurd to think that one must be mature enough to drive carefully, to drink responsibly, or to vote intelligently, in order to be mature enough to understand that murdering another human being is profoundly wrong, and to conform one’s conduct to that most minimal of all civilized standards. But even if the requisite degrees of maturity were comparable, the age statutes in question would still not be relevant. They do not represent a social judgment that all persons under the designated ages aré not responsible enough to drive, to drink, or to vote, but at most a judgment that the vast majority are not. These laws set the appropriate ages for the operation of a system that makes its determinations in gross, and that does not conduct individualized maturity tests for each driver, drinker, or voter. The criminal justice system, however, does provide individualized testing. In the realm of capital punishment in particular, “individualized consideration [is] a constitutional requirement,” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 605 (1978) (opinion of Burger, C. J.) (footnote omitted); see also Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 879 (1983) (collecting cases), and one of the individualized mitigating factors that sentencers must be permitted to consider is the defendant’s age, see Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 115-116 (1982). Twenty-nine States, including both Kentucky and Missouri, have codified this constitutional requirement in laws specifically designating the defendant’s age as a mitigating factor in capital cases. Moreover, the determinations required by juvenile transfer statutes to certify a juvenile for trial as an adult ensure individualized consideration of the maturity and moral responsibility of 16- and 17-year-old offenders before they are even held to stand trial as adults. The application of this particularized system to the petitioners can be declared constitutionally inadequate only if there is a consensus, not that 17 or 18 is the age at which most persons, or even almost all persons, achieve sufficient maturity to be held fully responsible for murder; but that 17 or 18 is the age before which no one can reasonably be held fully responsible. What displays society’s views on this latter point are not the ages set forth in the generalized system of driving, drinking, and voting laws cited by petitioners and their amici, but the ages at which the States permit their particularized capital punishment systems to be applied.
V
Having failed to establish a consensus against capital punishment for 16- and 17-year-old offenders through state and federal statutes and the behavior of prosecutors and juries, petitioners seek to demonstrate it through other indicia, including public opinion polls, the views of interest groups, and the positions adopted by various professional associations. We decline the invitation to rest constitutional law upon such uncertain foundations. A revised national consensus so broad, so clear, and so enduring as to justify a permanent prohibition upon all units of democratic government must appear in the operative acts (laws and the application of laws) that the people have approved.
We also reject petitioners’ argument that we should invalidate capital punishment of 16- and 17-year-old offenders on the ground that it fails to serve the legitimate goals of penology. According to petitioners, it fails to deter because juveniles, possessing less developed cognitive skills than adults, are less likely to fear death; and it fails to exact just retribution because juveniles, being less mature and responsible, are also less morally blameworthy. In support of these claims, petitioners and their supporting amici marshal an array of socioscientific evidence concerning the psychological and emotional development of 16- and 17-year-olds.
If such evidence could conclusively establish the entire lack of deterrent effect and moral responsibility, resort to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause would be unnecessary; the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would invalidate these laws for lack of rational basis. See Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U. S. 19 (1989). But as the adjective “socioscientific” suggests (and insofar as evaluation of moral responsibility is concerned perhaps the adjective “ethicoscientific” would be more apt), it is not demonstrable that no 16-year-old is “adequately responsible” or significantly deterred. It is rational, even if mistaken, to think the contrary. The battle must be fought, then, on the field of the Eighth Amendment; and in that struggle socioscientific, ethicoscientific, or even purely scientific evidence is not an available weapon. The punishment is either “cruel and unusual” (i. e., society has set its face against it) or it is not. The audience for these arguments, in other words, is not this Court but the citizenry of the United States. It is they, not we, who must be persuaded. For as we stated earlier, our job is to identify the “evolving standards of decency”; to determine, not what they should be, but what they are. We have no power under the Eighth Amendment to substitute our belief in the scientific evidence for the society’s apparent skepticism. In short, we emphatically reject petitioner’s suggestion that the issues in this case permit us to apply our “own informed judgment,” Brief for Petitioner in No. 87-6026, p. 23, regarding the desirability of permitting the death penalty for crimes by 16- and 17-year-olds.
We reject the dissent’s contention that our approach, by “largely return[ing] the task of defining the contours of Eighth Amendment protection to political majorities,” leaves “‘[constitutional doctrine [to] be formulated by the acts of those institutions which the Constitution is supposed to limit,”’ post, at 391, 392 (citation omitted). When this Court cast loose from the historical moorings consisting of the original application of the Eighth Amendment, it did not embark rudderless upon a wide-open sea. Rather, it limited the Amendment’s extension to those practices contrary to the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S., at 101 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). It has never been thought that this was a shorthand reference to the preferences of a majority of this Court. By reaching a decision supported neither by constitutional text nor by the demonstrable current standards of our citizens, the dissent displays a failure to appreciate that “those institutions which the Constitution is supposed to limit” include the Court itself. To say, as the dissent says, that “ ‘it is for us ultimately to judge whether the Eighth Amendment permits imposition of the death penalty,”’ post, at 391 (emphasis added), quoting Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S., at 797 — and to mean that as the dissent means it, i. e., that it is for us to judge, not on the basis of what we perceive the Eighth Amendment originally prohibited, or on the basis of what we perceive the society through its democratic processes now overwhelmingly disapproves, but on the basis of what we think “proportionate” and “measurably contributory to acceptable goals of punishment” — to say and mean that, is to replace judges of the law with a committee of philosopher-kings.
While the dissent is correct that several of our cases have engaged in so-called “proportionality” analysis, examining whether “there is a disproportion ‘between the punishment imposed and the defendant’s blameworthiness,’” and whether a punishment makes any “measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment,” see post, at 393, we have never invalidated a punishment on this basis alone. All of our cases condemning a punishment under this mode of analysis also found that the objective indicators of state laws or jury determinations evidenced a societal consensus against that penalty. See Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S., at 299-300; Enmund v. Florida, supra, at 789-796; Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S., at 593-597 (plurality opinion). In fact, the two methodologies blend into one another, since “proportionality” analysis itself can only be conducted on the basis of the standards set by our own society; the only alternative, once again, would be our personal preferences.
* * * '
We discern neither a historical nor a modern societal consensus forbidding the imposition of capital punishment on any person who murders at 16 or 17 years of age. Accordingly, we conclude that such punishment does not offend the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
The judgments of the Supreme Court of Kentucky and the Supreme Court of Missouri are therefore
Affirmed.
We emphasize that it is American conceptions of decency that are dis-positive, rejecting the contention of petitioners and their various amici (accepted by the dissent, see post, at 389-390) that the sentencing practices of other countries are relevant. While “[t]he practices of other nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant to determining whether a practice uniform among our people is not merely a historical accident, but rather so ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ that it occupies a place not merely in our mores, but, text permitting, in our Constitution as well,” Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815, 868-869, n. 4 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting), quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937) (Cardozo, J.), they cannot serve to establish the first Eighth Amendment prerequisite, that the practice is accepted among our people.
The following States preclude capital punishment of offenders under 18: California (Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.5 (West 1988)); Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-ll-103(l)(a) (1986)); Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-46a(g)(l) (1989)); Illinois (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶9-l(b) (1987)); Maryland (Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 412(f) (Supp. 1988)); Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.01 (1985)); New Hampshire (N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 630:5 (XIII) (Supp. 1988)); New Jersey (N. J. Stat. Ann. §2A:4A-22(a) (West 1987) and 2C:ll-3(g) (West Supp. 1988)); New Mexico (N. M. Stat. Ann. §§28-6-l(A), 31-18-14(A) (1987)); Ohio (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2929.02(A) (1987)); Oregon (Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 161.620 and 419.476(1) (1987)); Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 37-1-102(3), 37-1-102(4), 37-1-103, 37-l-134(a)(l) (1984 and Supp. 1988)). Three more States preclude the death penalty for offenders under 17: Georgia (Ga. Code Ann. § 17-9-3 (1982)); North Carolina (N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-17 (Supp. 1988)); Texas (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 8.07(d) (Supp. 1989)).
The dissent takes issue with our failure to include, among those States evidencing a consensus against executing 16- and 17-year-old offenders, the District of Columbia and the 14 States that do not authorize capital punishment. Post, at 384-385. It seems to us, however, that while the number of those jurisdictions bears upon the question whether there is a consensus against capital punishment altogether, it is quite irrelevant to the specific inquiry in this case: whether there is a settled consensus in favor of punishing offenders under 18 differently from those over 18 insofar as capital punishment is concerned. The dissent’s position is rather like discerning a national consensus that wagering on cockfights is inhumane by counting within that consensus those States that bar all wagering. The issue in the present case is not whether capital punishment is thought to be desirable but whether persons under 18 are thought to be specially exempt from it. With respect to that inquiry, it is no more logical to say that the capital-punishment laws of those States which prohibit capital punishment (and thus do not address age) support the dissent’s position, than it would be to say that the age-of-adult-criminal-responsibility laws of those same States (which do not address capital punishment) support our position.
The dissent again works its statistical magic by refusing to count among the States that authorize capital punishment of 16- and 17-year-old offenders those 19 States that set no minimum age in their death penalty statute, and specifically permit 16- and 17-year-olds to be sentenced as adults. Post, at 385. We think that describing this position is adequate response.
See 10 U. S. C. § 906a (1982 ed., Supp. V) (peacetime espionage); § 918 (murder by persons subject to Uniform Code of Military Justice); 18 U. S. C. §§32, 33, and 34 (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death); § 115(b)(3) (1982 ed., Supp. V) (retaliatory murder of member of immediate family of law enforcement officials) (by cross reference to § 1111 (1982 ed. and Supp. V)); § 351 (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (murder of Member of Congress, high-ranking executive official, or Supreme Court Justice) (by cross reference to §1111); §794 (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (espionage); §844(f) (1982 ed., Supp. V) (destruction of Government property resulting in death); § 1111 (first-degree murder within federal jurisdiction); § 1716 (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (mailing of injurious articles resulting in death); § 1751 (assassination or kidnaping resulting in death of President or Vice President); § 1992 (willful wrecking of train resulting in death); §2113 (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (bank robbery-related murder or kidnaping); §2381 (treason); 49 U. S. C. App. §§1472 and 1473 (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (death resulting from aircraft hijacking).
See Ala. Code §13A-5-51(7) (1982); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-703(G)(5) (Supp. 1988); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-605(4) (1987); Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.3(i) (West 1988); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-ll-103(5)(a) (1986); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-46a(g)(l) (1989); Fla. Stat. §921.141(6)(g) (1987); Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(e)(7) (1988); Ky. Rev Stat. Ann. § 532.025(2)(b)(8) (Baldwin 1988); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 905.5(f) (West 1984); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 413(g)(5) (1988); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6)(g) (Supp. 1988); Mo. Rev Stat. § 565.032(3)(7) (1986); Mont. Code Ann. §46-18-304(7) (1987); Neb. Rev Stat. § 29-2523(2)(d) (1985); Nev. Rev Stat. § 200.035(6) (1987); N. H. Rev Stat. Ann. § 630:5(II)(b)(5) (1986); N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:ll-3(c)(5)(c) (West Supp. 1988); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 31— 20A-6(I) (1987); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000(f )(7) (1988); Ohio Rev Code Ann. § 2929.04(B)(4) (1987); Ore. Rev Stat. § 163.150(l)(b)(B) (1987); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9711(e)(4) (1982); S. C. Code § 16-3-20(C)(b)(9) (Supp. 1988); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203(j)(7) (1982); Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-207 (2)(e) (Supp. 1988); Va. Code § 19.2-264.4(B)(v) (1983); Wash. Rev Code §10.95.070(7) (Supp. 1989); Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-102(j)(vii) (1988).
The Kentucky statute under which Stanford was certified to be tried as an adult provides in relevant part:
“(3) If the court determines that probable cause exists [to believe that a person 16 years old or older committed a felony or that a person under 16 years of age committed a Class A felony or a capital offense], it shall then determine if it is in the best interest of the child and the community to order such a transfer based upon the seriousness of the alleged offense; whether the offense was against person or property, with greater weight being given to offenses against persons; the maturity of the child as determined by his environment; the child’s prior record; and the prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the child by the use of procedures, services, and facilities currently available to the juvenile justice system.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §208.170 (Michie 1982) (repealed effective July 15, 1984).
The Missouri statute under which Wilkins was certified provides that in determining whether to transfer a juvenile the court must consider:
“(1) The seriousness of the offense alleged and whether the protection of the community requires transfer to the court of general jurisdiction;
“(2) Whether the offense alleged involved viciousness,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Agron Kucana moved to reopen his removal proceedings, asserting new evidence in support of his plea for asylum. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the motion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) sustained the IJ’s ruling, and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the administrative determination. For that conclusion, the court relied on a provision added to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act), 66 Stat. 166, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq., by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009-546. The provision found dispositive by the Seventh Circuit, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), states that no court shall have jurisdiction to review any action of the Attorney General “the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General,” § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added).
We granted certiorari to decide whether the proscription of judicial review stated in § 1252(a)(2)(B) applies not only to Attorney General determinations made discretionary by statute, but also to determinations declared discretionary by the Attorney General himself through regulation. We hold that the key words “specified under this subchapter” refer to statutory, but not to regulatory, specifications. We so rule based on the longstanding exercise of judicial review of administrative rulings on reopening motions, the text and context of § 1252(a)(2)(B), and the history of the relevant statutory provisions. We take account, as well, of the “presumption favoring interpretations of statutes [to] allow judicial review of administrative action.” Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U. S. 43, 63-64 (1993) (quoting McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U. S. 479, 496 (1991)). Separation-of-powers concerns, moreover, caution us against reading legislation, absent clear statement, to place in executive hands authority to remove cases from the Judiciary’s domain.
I
A
In HR IRA, Congress for the first time codified certain rules, earlier prescribed by the Attorney General, governing the reopening process. The amended Act instructs that reopening motions “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” § 1229a(c)(7)(B). Congress also prescribed that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Among matters excepted from the 90-day limitation are motions to reopen asylum applications because of changed conditions in the country of nationality or removal. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
Section 1252(a)(2), captioned “Matters not subject to judicial review,” contains the provision on which this case turns. Subparagraph (B) of that paragraph, headed “Denials of discretionary relief,” states:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory),... except as provided in subparagraph (D),[] and regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review—
“(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this title,[] or
“(ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General... the authority for which is specified under this subchapter[] to be in the discretion of the Attorney General..., other than the granting of relief under section 1158(a) of this title.”
A regulation, amended in 1996, just months before Congress enacted IIRIRA, 61 Fed. Reg. 18904, Pt. 3, § 3.2(a), states that “[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen... is within the discretion of the Board.” 8 CFR § 1003.2(a) (2009). As adjudicator in immigration cases, the Board exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General. See 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g)(2); 8 CFR §1003.1. See also 8 CFR § 1003.23(b)(3) (governing motions to reopen filed with an IJ).
B
Kucana, a citizen of Albania, entered the United States on a business visa in 1995 and remained after the visa expired. Alleging that he would be persecuted based on his political beliefs if returned to Albania, Kucana applied for asylum and withholding of removal in 1996. An IJ determined that Kucana was removable and scheduled a hearing to evaluate his eligibility for asylum. When Kucana failed to appear for the hearing, the IJ immediately ordered his removal in absentia. Kucana filed a motion to reopen, explaining that he had missed his hearing because he had overslept. The IJ denied the motion, and the BIA affirmed in 2002. Kucana did not seek judicial review, nor did he leave the United States.
Kucana filed a second motion to reopen his removal proceedings in 2006, contending that conditions in Albania had worsened. The BIA denied relief; it concluded that conditions in Albania had actually improved since 1997. Arguing that the BIA had abused its discretion in denying his motion, Kucana filed a petition for review in the Seventh Circuit.
In a fractured decision, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Kucana v. Mukasey, 533 F. 3d 534, 539 (2008). The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review not only of administrative decisions made discretionary by statute, but also “when the agency’s discretion is specified by a regulation rather than a statute.” 533 F. 3d, at 536. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit created a split between itself and other Courts of Appeals, all of them holding that denials of reopening motions are reviewable in court.
Judge Ripple concurred dubitante. He acknowledged that the court was following an earlier decision, Ali v. Gonzales, 502 F. 3d 659 (CA7 2007), but “suggested] that, had Congress intended to deprive th[e] court of jurisdiction..., it would have done so explicitly, as it did in 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).” 533 F. 3d, at 540. The court, he concluded, should revisit both All and Kucana and “chart a course... more closely adher[ing] to the statutory language chosen and enacted by Congress.” 533 F. 3d, at 540.
Judge Cudahy dissented. Given the absence of “specific [statutory] language entrusting the decision on a motion to reopen to the discretion of the Attorney General,” ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted), he saw no impediment to the exercise of jurisdiction over Kucana’s petition. In support of his position, Judge Cudahy invoked the “strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action.” Id., at 541 (quoting Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U. S. 535, 542 (1988)). With four judges dissenting, the Seventh Circuit denied Kucana’s petition for rehearing en banc. See 533 F. 3d, at 541-542 (dissenting statement of Ripple, J., joined by Rovner, Wood, and Williams, JJ.).
We granted certiorari, 556 U. S. 1207 (2009), to resolve the Circuit conflict. As it did before the Seventh Circuit, the Government agrees with Kucana that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not remove federal-court jurisdiction to review the denial of a reopening motion. We appointed Amanda C. Leiter to brief and argue the case, as amicus curiae, in support of the Seventh Circuit’s judgment. 557 U. S. 951 (2009). Ms. Leiter has ably discharged her assigned responsibilities.
II
The motion to reopen is an “important safeguard” intended “to ensure a proper and lawful disposition” of immigration proceedings. Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U. S. 1, 18 (2008); cf. Stone v. INS, 514 U. S. 386, 401 (1995) (analogizing motions to reconsider immigration decisions to motions for relief from a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)). Federal-court review of administrative decisions denying motions to reopen removal proceedings dates back to at least 1916. See Dada, 554 U. S., at 12-13 (citing cases). This Court has ultimately reviewed reopening decisions on numerous occasions. See, e. g., INS v. Doherty, 502 U. S. 314, 322-324 (1992); INS v. Abudu, 485 U. S. 94, 104-111 (1988); INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U. S. 444, 449-452 (1985); INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U. S. 139, 141-146. (1981) (per curiam). Mindful of the Board’s “broad discretion” in such matters, however, courts have employed a deferential, abuse-of-discretion standard of review. See Doherty, 502 U. S., at 323 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Seventh Circuit held that Congress removed the authority long exercised by federal courts to review denials of an alien’s reopening request. Congress did so, the Court of Appeals said, in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which removes jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General “the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General.” All agree that the Attorney General’s regulation, 8 CFR § 1003.2(a), places “[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen... within the discretion of the Board.” But the statute does not codify that prescription, and does not otherwise “specif [y]” that reopening decisions are “in the discretion of the Attorney General.”
III
A
1
The Board’s discretionary authority to act on a motion to reopen, we have thus far explained, is “specified” not in a statute, but only in the Attorney General’s regulation, which instructs: “The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen... is within the discretion of the Board, subject to the restrictions of this section. The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 CFR § 1008.2(a). Nevertheless, in defense of the Seventh Circuit’s judgment, amicus urges that regulations suffice to trigger 8. U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s proscription of judicial review.
The jurisdiction-stripping provision, amicus reminds, refers to “authority... specified under this subchapter.” As she reads that formulation, the word “under” is key. She comprehends “under” to mean “pursuant to,” “subordinate to,” “below or lower than,” “inferior... in rank or importance,” “by reason of the authority of.” Brief for Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below 15,17 (citing, inter alia, Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U. S. 33, 39 (2008); Ardestani v. INS, 502 U. S. 129, 135 (1991)). Administrative regulations count for § 1252(a)(2)(B) purposes, she urges, because they are issued “pursuant to,” and are measures “subordinate to,” the legislation they serve to implement. The parties, on the other hand, read “specified under this subchapter” to mean “specified in,” or “specified by,” the subchapter.
On the reading amicus advances, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) would bar judicial review" of any decision that an executive regulation places within the BIA’s discretion, including the decision to deny a motion to reopen. On the parties’ reading, however, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review only when the statute itself specifies the discretionary character of the Attorney General’s authority.
2
As the parties and amicus recognize, their diverse renderings of “under,” standing alone, do not equip us to resolve this case. The word “under” is chameleon; it “has many dictionary definitions and must draw its meaning from its context.” Ardestani, 502 U. S., at 135. Examining, in statutory context, the provision in which the word “under” is embedded, we conclude that the parties’ position stands on firmer ground.
Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), the provision at issue here, is far from the only jurisdictional limitation in IIRIRA. See Dada, 554 U. S., at 16 (“In reading a statute we must not look merely to a particular clause, but consider in connection with it the whole statute.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 809 (1989) (“[T]he words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”). Section 1252(a)(2), titled “Matters not subject to judicial review,” lists a variety of agency determinations the federal courts lack jurisdiction to review. Those determinations divide into three categories. The first, § 1252(a)(2)(A), concerns immigration officers’ determinations whether aliens applying for admission are admissible. Next in statutory order is the provision before us, § 1252(a)(2)(B), which involves denials of discretionary relief. The last category, § 1252(a)(2)(C), concerns final orders of removal entered against criminal aliens.
Both § 1252(a)(2)(A) and § 1252(a)(2)(C) depend on statutory provisions, not on any regulation, to define their scope. The latter provision, the criminal alien bar, precludes judicial review of “any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in” § 1182(a)(2), § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D), or certain offenses covered in § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). All the defining references are statutory; none invokes a regulation. The same holds for the admissibility bar in § 1252(a)(2)(A). Given § 1252(a)(2)(B)’s statutory placement, sandwiched between subsections (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(C), one would expect that it, too, would cover statutory provisions alone.
3
Focusing on § 1252(a)(2)(B), we note the lead line serving to introduce both of the subparagraph’s two clauses: “[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review....” Clause (i) then places within the no-judicial-review category “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255.” Each of the statutory provisions referenced in clause (i) addresses a different form of discretionary relief from removal, see supra, at 239, n. 2, and each contains language indicating that the decision is entrusted to the Attorney General’s discretion. See, e.g., § 1182(h) (“The Attorney General may, in his discretion, waive [inadmissibility based on certain criminal offenses].”). Clause (i) does not refer to any regulatory provision.
To the clause (i) enumeration of administrative judgments that are insulated from judicial review, Congress added in clause (ii) a catchall provision covering “any other decision... the authority for which is specified under this subchapter.” The proximity of clauses (i) and (ii), and the words linking them — “any other decision” — suggests that Congress had in mind decisions of the same genre, i. e., those made discretionary by legislation. The clause (i) enumeration, we find, is instructive in determining the meaning of the clause (ii) catchall. Read harmoniously, both clauses convey that Congress barred court review of discretionary decisions only when Congress itself set out the Attorney General’s discretionary authority in the statute. See Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U. S. 576, 586 (2008) (“[W]hen a statute sets out a series of specific items ending with a general term, that general term is confined to covering subjects comparable to the specifies it follows.”).
4
We also find significant the character of the decisions Congress enumerated in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), thereby insulating them from judicial review. As the Government explained at oral argument, the determinations there listed are “substantive decisions... made by the Executive in the immigration context as a matter of grace, things that involve whether aliens can stay in the country or not.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 14. They include waivers of inadmissibility based on certain criminal offenses, § 1182(h), or based on fraud or misrepresentation, § 1182(i); cancellation of removal, § 1229b; permission for voluntary departure, § 1229c; and adjustment of status, § 1255.
Other decisions specified by statute “to be in the discretion of the Attorney General,” and therefore shielded from court oversight by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), are of a like kind. See, e. g., § 1157(c)(1) (discretion to admit refugees “determined to be of special humanitarian concern to the United States”); § 1181(b) (discretion to waive requirement of documentation for readmission); § 1182(a)(3)(D)(iii) (discretion to waive, in certain cases, inadmissibility of aliens who have affiliated with a totalitarian party). Decisions on reopening motions made discretionary by regulation, in contrast, are adjunct rulings: The motion to reopen is a procedural device serving to ensure “that aliens [a]re getting a fair chance to have their claims heard.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 17. A court decision reversing the denial of a motion to reopen does not direct the Executive to afford the alien substantive relief; ordinarily, it touches and concerns only the question whether the alien's claims have been accorded a reasonable hearing.
If Congress wanted the jurisdictional bar to encompass decisions specified as discretionary by regulation along with those made discretionary by statute, moreover, Congress could easily have said so. In other provisions enacted simultaneously with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), Congress expressed precisely that meaning. See IIRIRA §213, 110 Stat. 3009-572 (“immigration benefits pursuant to this Act, or the regulations promulgated thereunder”), codified at 8 U. S. C. § 1324c(e)(2); IIRIRA §372, 110 Stat. 3009-646 (“any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this Act or regulations issued thereunder”), codified at 8 U. S. C. §1103(a)(10). “[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.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 430 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
B
The history of the relevant statutory provisions corroborates our determination that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not proscribe judicial review of denials of motions to reopen. Attorney General regulations have long addressed reopening requests. See 6 Fed. Reg. 71-72 (1941). The current regulations, adopted in 1996, 61 Fed. Reg. 18904-18906, derive from rules published in 1958, see 23 Fed. Reg. 9118-9119; Dada, 554 U. S., at 13.
Enacting IIRIRA in 1996, Congress “transformad] the motion to reopen from a regulatory procedure to a statutory form of relief available to the alien.” Id., at 14. IIRIRA largely codified the Attorney GeneraFs directions on filing reopening motions. See § 1229a(c)(7) (guaranteeing right to file one motion, prescribing contents, and setting deadlines).
In the same legislation, Congress amended the INA aggressively to expedite removal of aliens lacking a legal basis to remain in the United States. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U. S. 471, 475 (1999). Among IIRIRAs several proscriptions of judicial review is the one here at issue, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), barring review of administrative decisions Congress placed within the Attorney GeneraFs discretion.
Congress thus simultaneously codified the process for filing motions to reopen and acted to bar judicial review of a number of executive decisions regarding removal. But Congress did not codify the regulation delegating to the BIA discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen. See 8 CFR § 1003.2(a) (reopening may be entertained not only on application; Board “may at any time reopen... on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision”). Had Congress elected to insulate denials of motions to reopen from judicial review, it could have so specified together with its codification of directions on filing reopening motions.
From the Legislature’s silence on the discretion of the Attorney General (or his delegate, the Board) over reopening motions, see supra, at 243, n. 10, we take it that Congress left the matter where it was pre-IIRIRA: The BIA has broad discretion, conferred by the Attorney General, “to grant or deny a motion to reopen,” 8 CFR § 1003.2(a), but courts retain jurisdiction to review, with due respect, the Board’s decision. It is unsurprising that Congress would leave in place judicial oversight of this “important [procedural] safeguard” designed “to ensure a proper and lawful disposition” of immigration proceedings, Dada, 554 U. S., at 18, where, as here, the alien’s underlying claim (for asylum) would itself be reviewable.
In the REAL ID Act, Congress further amended the INA. By 2005, two Courts of Appeals had already ruled that 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not preclude them from reviewing denials of motions to reopen, see Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F. 3d 1359, 1361-1362 (CA10 2004); Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 371 F. 3d 520, 528-529 (CA9 2004), and no court had reached a contrary result. Although adding or reformulating provisions on asylum, § 101(a), (b), 119 Stat. 302-303, protection from removal, § 101(c), (d), id., at 303-305, even judicial review, § 106, id., at 310-311, the REAL ID Act did not disturb the unbroken line of decisions upholding court review of administrative denials of motions to reopen. See supra, at 242; supra, at 238-239, n. I.
IV Any lingering doubt about the proper interpretation of 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) would be dispelled by a familiar principle of statutory construction: the presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action. When a statute is “reasonably susceptible to divergent interpretation, we adopt the reading that accords with traditional understandings and basic principles: that executive determinations generally are subject to judicial review.” Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U. S. 417, 434 (1995). We have consistently applied that interpretive guide to legislation regarding immigration, and particularly to questions concerning the preservation of federal-court jurisdiction. See, e. g., INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 298 (2001); Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U. S., at 63-64; McNary, 498 U. S., at 496. Because the “presumption favoring interpretations of statutes [to] allow judicial review of administrative action” is “well-settled,” Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U. S., at 63-64 (quoting McNary, 498 U. S., at 496), the Court assumes that “Congress legislates with knowledge of” the presumption, id., at 496. It therefore takes “clear and convincing evidence” to dislodge the presumption. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U. S., at 64 (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no such evidence here.
Finally, we stress a paramount factor in the decision we render today. By defining the various jurisdictional bars by reference to other provisions in the INA itself, Congress ensured that it, and only it, would limit the federal courts’ jurisdiction. To read § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to apply to matters where discretion is conferred on the Board by regulation, rather than on the Attorney General by statute, would ignore that congressional design. If the Seventh Circuit’s construction of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) were to prevail, the Executive would have a free hand to shelter its own decisions from abuse-of-discretion appellate court review simply by issuing a regulation declaring those decisions “discretionary.” Such an extraordinary delegation of authority cannot be extracted from the statute Congress enacted.
V
A statute affecting federal jurisdiction “must be construed both with precision and with fidelity to the terms by which Congress has expressed its wishes.” Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U. S. 206, 212 (1968). As we have noted, see supra, at 249, and as amicus emphasizes, “many provisions of IIRIRA [we]re aimed at protecting [from court review exercises of] the Executive’s discretion.” American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U. S., at 486 (emphasis deleted). But “no law pursues its purpose at all costs, and... the textual limitations upon a law’s scope are no less a part of its ‘purpose’ than its substantive authorizations.” Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715, 752 (2006) (plurality opinion). While Congress pared back judicial review in IIRIRA, it did not delegate to the Executive authority to do so. Action on motions to reopen, made discretionary by the Attorney General only, therefore remain subject to judicial review.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Subparagraph (D) of § 1252(a)(2), enacted in 2005, REAL ID Act of 2005 (REAL ID Act), § 106(a), 119 Stat. 310, adds:
“Nothing in subparagraph (B)... or in any other provision of this Act (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.”
The addition of 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) in 2005 did not change the operative language of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) as enacted in 1996.
The REAL ID Act amendments also inserted into this introductory clause, inter alia, the words “(statutory or nonstatutory).” § 106(a)(1)(A)(ii), 119 Stat. 310. The introductory clause, however, does not define the scope of 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s jurisdictional bar. It simply informs that once the scope of the bar is determined, jurisdiction is precluded regardless of what any other provision or source of law might say.
Sections 1182(h) and 1182(i) address waivers of inadmissibility based on certain criminal offenses, and fraud or misrepresentation, respectively; § 1229b addresses cancellation of removal; § 1229c, voluntary departure; and § 1255, adjustment of status.
“[T]his subchapter” refers to Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, of the United States Code, codified at 8 U. S. C. §§ 1151-1381 and titled “Immigration.”
The exception for relief under § 1158(a) refers to administrative decisions whether to grant asylum. Kucana’s petition for judicial review is limited to the denial of his motion to reopen; he does not challenge in this proceeding the decision denying his application for asylum.
The statute “guarantees to each alien the right to file ‘one motion to reopen proceedings.’” Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U. S. 1, 15 (2008) (quoting § 1229a(c)(7)(A)). Attorney General regulations permit further motions to reopen to seek asylum or withholding of removal based on changed conditions in the country of nationality or removal. See 8 CFR §1003.2(e)(3)(ii) (2009).
While recognizing that a regulation, rather than the INA itself, confers on the Board discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen, the Court of Appeals said that the regulation, § 1003.2(a), “draw[s]... force from provisions in the Act allowing immigration officials to govern their own proceedings.” 533 F. 3d, at 536. The “force,” according to the Seventh Circuit, comes from 8 U. S. C. § 1229a(c)(7), which it described as providing “authority for reopening by [the] Board.” 533 F. 3d, at 536. Section 1229a(c)(7), however, is not directed to the agency’s discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen. In the main, “it simply lays out the requirements an alien must fulfill when filing a motion to reopen.” Id., at 541 (Cudahy, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). See also infra, at 243, n. 9.
See Singh v. Mukasey, 536 F. 3d 149, 153-154 (CA2 2008); Jahjaga v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 512 F. 3d 80, 82 (CA3 2008); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F. 3d 295, 303 (CA5 2005); Miah v. Mukasey, 519 F. 3d 784, 789, n. 1 (CA8 2008); Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 371 F. 3d 520, 528-529 (CA9 2004); Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F. 3d 1359, 1361-1362 (CA10 2004).
Ali involved a decision, made discretionary by regulation, denying an alien’s request for a continuance.
As earlier noted, see supra, at 240-241, n. 6, the Seventh Circuit stated that the regulation specifying the Board’s discretion over motions to reopen, 8 CFR § 1003.2(a), “drawls] [its] force from provisions in the Act.” 533 F. 3d, at 536 (citing 8 U. S. C. § 1229a(c)(7)). It is hard to see how the regulation could draw force from § 1229a(c)(7), for the regulation was already in force when that statutory provision was enacted. The regulation, 8 CFR § 1003.2(a), was published April 29, 1996, 61 Fed. Reg. 18900, 18904; 8 U. S. C. §1229a(c)(7) was enacted September 30, 1996, §304, 110 Stat. 3009-593.
The only statutory reference to discretion respecting motions to reopen appears in § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III), which gives the Attorney General “discretion” to waive one of the statute’s time limitations in extraordinary circumstances.
Amicus urges that “the statutory language governing motions to reopen anticipates an exercise of Attorney General discretion when it states, ‘[t]he motion to reopen shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted’ ” Brief for Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below 19, n. 8 (quoting § 1229a(c)(7)(B)). One can demur to the argument that Congress anticipated that decisions on reopening motions would be discretionary. Even so, the statutory proscription Congress enacted, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), speaks of authority “specified” — not merely assumed or contemplated — to be in the Attorney General’s discretion. “Specified” is not synonymous with “implied” or “anticipated.” See Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1116 (1974) (“specify” means “to name or state explicitly or in detail”). See also Soltane v. U. S. Dept. of Justice, 381 F. 3d 143, 147 (CA3 2004) (Alito, J.) (“[W]e do not think... that the use of marginally ambiguous statutory language, without more, is adequate to ‘speciffy]’ that a particular action is within the Attorney General’s discretion for the purposes of §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).”).
Defining “under,” as used in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), to mean “pursuant to,” or “subordinate to,” and not “in” or “by,” the Attorney General observes, would give rise to “a fatal anomaly”: “Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) would apply only to regulations promulgated “under the authority of’ the relevant sub-chapter, and not to specifications of discretion in the subchapter itself.” Reply Brief for Respondent 6.
In an appendix to her brief, amicus lists hundreds of statutory provisions in which regulations are described as being issued “under” a statute. See App. A to Brief for Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below. In every one
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Applicant was sentenced to death in November 1973 for the murder of the manager of a restaurant he had robbed. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court and this Court denied certiorari. Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1974), cert. denied, 428 U. S. 911 (1976). After exhausting state postconviction remedies, Sullivan v. State, 372 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 1979), applicant filed his first habeas petition in 1979. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the writ. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and this Court denied certiorari. Sullivan v. Wainwright, 695 F. 2d 1306 (CA11 1983), cert. denied, post, p. 922. In October 1983, applicant filed his second petition for postconviction relief in state court. The denial of that relief was affirmed on appeal, Sullivan v. State, 441 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1983), and applicant filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus in the federal court. Following a hearing, the District Court declined to issue the writ, and refused to issue a stay of execution or a certificate of probable cause to appeal. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, with one judge dissenting in part. That court issued a temporary stay in order to allow a vote on applicant’s suggestion for rehearing en banc. That stay was lifted when the suggestion was denied.
This application for a stay pending completion of the rehearing vote was presented to Justice Powell as Circuit Justice on November 28, 1983. Counsel requested that the papers be treated as an application for a stay pending filing of a writ of certiorari under 28 U. S. C. § 2101(f), and Justice Powell referred the application to the Court.
Applicant raises essentially five claims: (i) that he was denied the right to counsel; (ii) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (iii) that the jury that convicted him was biased in favor of the prosecution; (iv) that he was denied proportionality review; and (v) that the Florida death penalty statute has been applied discriminatorily against blacks.
The first three of these claims have been presented several times previously in both state and federal courts and have been found to be meritless. Applicant’s claim that he was entitled to proportionality review was addressed and found meritless by the Florida Supreme Court. Id., at 613-614. His case was one of the earliest to be decided under Florida’s current death penalty statute. The State Supreme Court has used it as a reference point, comparing all subsequent capital cases to applicant’s case to ensure proportionality. It therefore cannot be alleged that the State has failed to compare this sentence with others decided under this statute to ensure proportionality. Whatever our decision in Pulley v. Harris, No. 82-1095 (cert. granted, 460 U. S. 1036 (1983)), may be, it will not disturb the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling.
Applicant apparently first raised the issue of discriminatory application of the statute in a supplement to his most recent state habeas corpus petition, which was filed on November 15, 1983. Counsel for applicant, who is white, present voluminous statistics that they say support the claim of discriminatory application of the death sentence. Although some of the statistics are relatively new, many of the studies were conducted years ago and were available to applicant long before he filed his most recent state and federal habeas petitions. The Florida Supreme Court and both the Federal District Court and the Eleventh Circuit have considered these data and determined in written opinions that they are insufficient to show that the Florida system is unconstitutionally discriminatory. On the basis of the record before this Court, we find there is no basis for disagreeing in this case with their decisions.
This case has been in litigation for a full decade, with repetitive and careful reviews by both state and federal courts, and by this Court. There must come an end to the process of consideration and reconsideration. We recognize, of course, as do state and other federal courts, that the death sentence is qualitatively different from all other sentences, and therefore special care is exercised in judicial review.
The application for a stay of execution is denied.
It is so ordered.
Justice White and Justice Stevens concur in the denial of a stay.
In addition, applicant was a plaintiff in an action attacking the Florida executive-clemency procedure. See Sullivan v. Askew, 348 So. 2d 312 (Fla.), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 878 (1977).
Applicant’s case has been considered by at least 10 state and federal courts other than this one, and twice before by this Court.
Judge Anderson dissented in the court below on the ground that the statistics presented in this case were equal in quality to those presented with respect to Georgia’s death penalty statute in Spencer v. Zant, 715 F. 2d 1562, 1578-1583 (CA11 1983). In that case and the companion case of Ross v. Hopper, 716 F. 2d 1528, 1539 (CA11 1983), the Eleventh Circuit remanded the statistical claim to the District Court for a hearing. This case is different from those because in this case both of the lower courts, as well as this Court, have had the opportunity to consider the statistics. In Spencer, the Eleventh Circuit found it “unlikely that the district court could have adequately analyzed the [statistical] evidence insofar as it was not then available except by live testimony.” 715 F. 2d, at 1582. The court therefore remanded to the District Court to consider the evidence. Ross was treated identically because it had been consolidated with Spencer in the District Court. Ross, supra, at 1539.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a state prisoner may obtain a federal writ of habeas corpus by showing that his retained defense counsel represented potentially conflicting interests.
I
Respondent John Sullivan was indicted with Gregory Carchidi and Anthony DiPasquale for the first-degree murders of John Gorey and Rita Janda. The victims, a labor official and his companion, were shot to death in Gorey’s second-story office at the Philadelphia headquarters of Teamsters’ Local 107. Francis McGrath, a janitor, saw the three defendants in the building just before the shooting. They appeared to be awaiting someone, and they encouraged McGrath to do his work on another day. McGrath ignored their suggestions. Shortly afterward, Gorey arrived and went to his office. McGrath then heard what sounded like firecrackers exploding in rapid succession. Carchidi, who was in the room where McGrath was working, abruptly directed McGrath to leave the building and to say nothing. McGrath hastily complied. When he returned to the building about 15 minutes later, the defendants were gone. The victims’ bodies were discovered the next morning.
Two privately retained lawyers, G. Fred DiBona and A. Charles Peruto, represented all three defendants throughout the state proceedings that followed the indictment. Sullivan had different counsel at the medical examiner’s inquest, but he thereafter accepted representation from the two lawyers retained by his codefendants because he could not afford to pay his own lawyer. At no time did Sullivan or his lawyers object to the multiple representation. Sullivan was the first defendant to come to trial. The evidence against him was entirely circumstantial, consisting primarily of McGrath’s testimony. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, the defense rested without presenting any evidence. The jury found Sullivan guilty and fixed his penalty at life imprisonment. Sullivan’s post-trial motions failed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed his conviction by an equally divided vote. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 446 Pa. 419, 286 A. 2d 898 (1971). Sullivan’s codefendants, Carchidi and DiPasquale, were acquitted at separate trials.
Sullivan then petitioned for collateral relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 19, § 1180-1 et seg. (Purdon Supp. 1979-1980). He alleged, among other claims, that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel because his defense lawyers represented conflicting interests. In five days of hearings, the Court of Common Pleas heard evidence from Sullivan, Carchidi, Sullivan’s lawyers, and the judge who presided at Sullivan’s trial.
DiBona and Peruto had different recollections of their roles at the trials of the three defendants. DiBona testified that he and Peruto had been “associate counsel” at each trial. App. 32a. Peruto recalled that he had been chief counsel for Carchidi and DePasquale, but that he merely had assisted DiBona in Sullivan’s trial. DiBona and Peruto also gave conflicting accounts of the decision to rest Sullivan’s defense. DiBona said he had encouraged Sullivan to testify even though the Commonwealth had presented a very weak case. Peruto remembered that he had not “want[ed] the defense to go on because I thought we would only be exposing the [defense] witnesses for the other two trials that were coming up.” Id., at 57a. Sullivan testified that he had deferred to his lawyers’ decision not to present evidence for the defense. But other testimony suggested that Sullivan preferred not to take the stand because cross-examination might have disclosed an extramarital affair. Finally, Car-chidi claimed he would have appeared at Sullivan’s trial to rebut McGrath’s testimony about Carchidi’s statement at the time of the murders.
The Court of Common Pleas held that Sullivan could take a second direct appeal because counsel had not assisted him adequately in his first appeal. App. to Pet. for Cert. 5F. The court did not pass directly on the claim that defense counsel had a conflict of interest, but it found that counsel fully advised Sullivan about his decision not to testify. Id., at 7F. All other claims for collateral relief were rejected or reserved for consideration in the new appeal.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed both Sullivan’s original conviction and the denial of collateral relief. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 472 Pa. 129, 371 A. 2d 468 (1977). The court saw no basis for Sullivan’s claim that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. It found that Peruto merely assisted DiBona in the Sullivan trial and that DiBona merely assisted Peruto in the trials of the other two defendants. Thus, the court concluded, there was “no dual representation in the true sense of the term.” Id., at 161, 371 A. 2d, at 483. The court also found that resting the defense was a reasonable tactic which had not denied Sullivan the effective assistance of counsel. Id., at 162, 371 A. 2d, at 483-484.
Having exhausted his state remedies, Sullivan sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The petition was referred to a Magistrate, who found that Sullivan’s defense counsel had represented conflicting interests. The District Court, however, accepted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s conclusion that there had been no multiple representation. The court also found that, assuming there had been multiple representation, the evidence adduced in the state postconviction proceeding revealed no conflict of interest. App. to Pet. for Cert. 5C-8C.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. United States ex rel. Sullivan v. Cuyler, 593 F. 2d 512 (1979). It first held that the participation by DiBona and Peruto in the trials of Sullivan and his codefendants established, as a matter of law, that both lawyers had represented all three defendants. The court recognized that multiple representation “ ‘is not tantamount to the denial of effective assistance of counsel. . . .' ” But it held that a criminal defendant is entitled to reversal of his conviction whenever he makes “ ‘some showing of a possible conflict of interest or prejudice, however remote. . . .’ ” Id., at 519, quoting Walker v. United States, 422 F. 2d 374, 375 (CA3) (per curiam), cert. denied, 399 U. S. 915 (1970). See also United States ex rel. Hart v. Davenport, 478 F. 2d 203, 210 (CA3 1973). The court acknowledged that resting at the close of the prosecutor's case “would have been a legitimate tactical decision if made by independent counsel.” Nevertheless, the court thought that action alone raised a possibility of conflict sufficient to prove a violation of Sullivan's Sixth Amendment rights. The court found support for its conclusion in Peruto's admission that concern for Sullivan’s codefendants had affected his judgment that Sullivan should not present a defense. To give weight to DiBona’s contrary testimony, the court held, “would be to . . . require a showing of actual prejudice.” 593 F. 2d, at 522.
We granted certiorari, 444 U. S. 823 (1979), to consider recurring issues left unresolved by Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U. S. 475 (1978). We now vacate and remand.
II
At the outset, we must consider whether the Court of Appeals exceeded the proper scope of review when it rejected the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s conclusion that DiBona and Peruto had not undertaken multiple representation. Petitioners claim that this determination by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was a factfinding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (d).
Section 2254 (d) provides that “a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction . . . [and] evidenced by a written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia, shall be presumed to be correct” unless the applicant for a federal writ of habeas corpus can establish one of the enumerated causes for exception. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding does not fall within this statute because it is a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact.
In Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 (1963), the Court examined the distinction between law and fact as it applies on collateral review of a state conviction. The Townsend opinion, the precursor of § 2254 (d), noted that the phrase “issues of fact” refers “to what are termed basic, primary, or historical facts: facts 'in the sense of a recital of external events and the credibility of their narrators. . . ” 372 U. S., at 309, n. 6, quoting Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 506 (1953) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.). Findings about the roles DiBona and Peruto played in the defenses of Sullivan and his codefendants are facts in this sense. But the holding that the lawyers who played those roles did not engage in multiple representation is a mixed determination of law and fact that requires the application of legal principles to the historical facts of this case. Cf. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 403-404 (1977); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188, 193, n. 3 (1972). That holding is open to review on collateral attack in a federal court.
The Court of Appeals carefully recited the facts from which it concluded that DiBona and Peruto represented both Sullivan and his codefendants. The court noted that both lawyers prepared the defense in consultation with all three defendants, that both advised Sullivan on whether he should rest his defense, and that both played important roles at all three trials. 593 F. 2d, at 518-519. In fact, the transcript of Sullivan’s trial shows that Peruto rather than DiBona rested the defense. App. 265a. We agree with the Court of Appeals that these facts establish the existence of multiple representation.
Ill
We turn next to the claim that the alleged failings of Sullivan’s retained counsel cannot provide the basis for a writ of habeas corpus because the conduct of retained counsel does not involve state action. A state prisoner can win a federal writ of habeas corpus only upon a showing that the State participated in the denial of a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is a fundamental right. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 29-33 (1972). In this case, Sullivan retained his own lawyers, but he now claims that a conflict of interest hampered their advocacy. He does not allege that state officials knew or should have known that his lawyers had a conflict of interest. Thus, we must decide whether the failure of retained counsel to provide adequate representation can render a trial so fundamentally unfair as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
This Court’s decisions establish that a state criminal trial, a proceeding initiated and conducted by the State itself, is an action of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 236-237 (1941); Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86, 90-91 (1923). The Court recognized as much in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), when it held that a defendant who must face felony charges in state court without the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment has been denied due process of law. Unless a defendant charged with a serious offense has counsel able to invoke the procedural and substantive safeguards that distinguish our system of justice, a serious risk of injustice infects the trial itself. Id., at 344; see Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 467-468 (1938). When a State obtains a criminal conviction through such a trial, it is the State that unconstitutionally deprives the defendant of his liberty. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra, at 29-33.
Our decisions make clear that inadequate assistance does not satisfy the Sixth Amendment right to counsel made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. A guilty plea is open to attack on the ground that counsel did not provide the defendant with “reasonably competent advice.” McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 770-771 (1970); see Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258, 267 (1973). Furthermore, court procedures that restrict a lawyer’s tactical decision to put the defendant on the stand unconstitutionally abridge the right to counsel. Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U. S. 605, 612-613 (1972) (requiring defendant to be first defense witness); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U. S. 570, 593-596 (1961) (prohibiting direct examination of defendant). See also Geders v. United States, 425 U. S. 80 (1976); Herring v. New York, 422 U. S. 853 (1975). Thus, the Sixth Amendment does more than require the States to appoint counsel for indigent defendants. The right to counsel prevents the States from conducting trials at which persons who face incarceration must defend themselves without adequate legal assistance.
A proper respect for the Sixth Amendment disarms petitioner’s contention that defendants who retain their own lawyers are entitled to less protection than defendants for whom the State appoints counsel. We may assume with confidence that most counsel, whether retained or appointed, will protect the rights of an accused. But experience teaches that, in some cases, retained counsel will not provide adequate representation. The vital guarantee of the Sixth Amendment would stand for little if the often uninformed decision to retain a particular lawyer could reduce or forfeit the defendant’s entitlement to constitutional protection. Since the State’s conduct of a criminal trial itself implicates the State in the defendant’s conviction, we see no basis for drawing a distinction between retained and appointed counsel that would deny equal justice to defendants who must choose their own lawyers.
IV
We come at last to Sullivan’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment because his lawyers had a conflict of interest. The claim raises two issues expressly reserved in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U. S., at 483-484. The first is whether a state trial judge must inquire into the propriety of multiple representation even though no party lodges an objection. The second is whether the mere possibility of a conflict of interest warrants the conclusion that the defendant was deprived of his right to counsel.
A
In Holloway, a single public defender represented three defendants at the same trial. The trial court refused to consider the appointment of separate counsel despite the defense lawyer’s timely and repeated assertions that the interests of his clients conflicted. This Court recognized that a lawyer forced to represent codefendants whose interests conflict cannot provide the adequate legal assistance required by the Sixth Amendment. Id., at 481-482. Given the trial court’s failure to respond to timely objections, however, the Court did not consider whether the alleged conflict actually existed. It simply held that the trial court’s error unconstitutionally endangered the right to counsel. Id., at 483-487.
Holloway requires state trial courts to investigate timely objections to multiple representation. But nothing in our precedents suggests that the Sixth Amendment requires state courts themselves to initiate inquiries into the propriety of multiple representation in every case. Defense counsel have an ethical obligation to avoid conflicting representations and to advise the court promptly when a conflict of interest arises during the course of trial. Absent special circumstances, therefore, trial courts may assume either that multiple representation entails no conflict or that the lawyer and his clients knowingly accept such risk of conflict as may exist. Indeed, as the Court noted in Holloway, supra, at 485-486, trial courts necessarily rely in large measure upon the good faith and good judgment of defense counsel. “An ‘attorney representing two defendants in a criminal matter is in the best position professionally and ethically to determine when a conflict of interest exists or will probably develop in the course of a trial.’ ” 435 U. S., at 485, quoting State v. Davis, 110 Ariz. 29, 31, 514 P. 2d 1025, 1027 (1973). Unless the trial court knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists, the court need not initiate an inquiry.
Nothing in the circumstances of this case indicates that the trial court had a duty to inquire whether there was a conflict of interest. The provision of separate trials for Sullivan and his codefendants significantly reduced the potential for a divergence in their interests. No participant in Sullivan’s trial ever objected to the multiple representation. DiBona’s opening argument for Sullivan outlined a defense compatible with the view that none of the defendants was connected with the murders. See Brief for Respondent 7. The opening argument also suggested that counsel was not afraid to call witnesses whose testimony might be needed at the trials of Sullivan’s codefendants. See id., at 8-9. Finally, as the Court of Appeals noted, counsel’s critical decision to rest Sullivan’s defense was on its face a reasonable tactical response to the weakness of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecutor. 593 F. 2d, at 521, and n. 10. On these facts, we conclude that the Sixth Amendment imposed upon the trial court no affirmative duty to inquire into the propriety of multiple representation.
B
Holloway reaffirmed that multiple representation does not violate the Sixth Amendment unless it gives rise to a conflict of interest. See 435 U. S., at 482. Since a possible conflict inheres in almost every instance of multiple representation, a defendant who objects to multiple representation must have the opportunity to show that potential conflicts impermissibly imperil his right to a fair trial. But unless the trial court fails to afford such an opportunity, a reviewing court cannot presume that the possibility for conflict has resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. Such a presumption would preclude multiple representation even in cases where “ '[a] common defense . . . gives strength against a common attack.’ ” Id., at 482-483, quoting Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 92 (1942) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
In order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. In Glasser v. United States, for example, the record showed that defense counsel failed to cross-examine a prosecution witness whose testimony linked Glasser with the crime and failed to resist the presentation of arguably inadmissible evidence. Id., at 72-75. The Court found that both omissions resulted from counsel’s desire to diminish the jury’s perception of a codefendant’s guilt. Indeed, the evidence of counsel’s “struggle to serve two masters [could not] seriously be doubted.” Id., at 75. Since this actual conflict of interest impaired Glasser’s defense, the Court reversed his conviction.
Dukes v. Warden, 406 U. S. 250 (1972), presented a contrasting situation. Dukes pleaded guilty on the advice of two lawyers, one of whom also represented Dukes’ codefendants on an unrelated charge. Dukes later learned that this lawyer had sought leniency for the codefendants by arguing that their cooperation with the police induced Dukes to plead guilty. Dukes argued in this Court that his lawyer’s conflict of interest had infected his plea. We found “ ‘nothing in the record . . . which would indicate that the alleged conflict resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel and did in fact render the plea in question involuntary and unintelligent.’ ” Id., at 256, quoting Dukes v. Warden, 161 Conn. 337, 344, 288 A. 2d 58, 62 (1971). Since Dukes did not identify an actual lapse in representation, we affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
Glasser established that unconstitutional multiple representation is never harmless error. Once the Court concluded that Glasser’s lawyer had an actual conflict of interest, it refused “to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice” attributable to the conflict. The conflict itself demonstrated a denial of the “right to have the effective assistance of counsel.” 315 U. S., at 76. Thus, a defendant who shows that a conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of his representation need not demonstrate prejudice in order to obtain relief. See Holloway, supra, at 487-491. But until a defendant shows that his counsel actively-represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance. See Glasser, supra, at 72-75.
C
The Court of Appeals granted Sullivan relief because he had shown that the multiple representation in this case involved a possible conflict of interest. We hold that the possibility of conflict is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction. In order to demonstrate a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. Sullivan believes he should prevail even under this standard. He emphasizes Peruto’s admission that the decision to rest Sullivan’s defense reflected a reluctance to expose witnesses who later might have testified for the other defendants. The petitioner, on the other hand, points to DiBona’s contrary testimony and to evidence that Sullivan himself wished to avoid taking the stand. Since the Court of Appeals did not weigh these conflicting contentions under the proper legal standard, its judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
DiBona and Peruto were paid in part with funds raised by friends of the three defendants. The record does not disclose the source of the balance of their fee, but no part of the money came from either Sullivan or his family. See United States ex rel. Sullivan v. Cuyler, 593 F. 2d 512, 518, and n. 7 (CA3 1979).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied two petitions for reargument. See Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 472 Pa. 129, 180, 371 A. 2d 468, 492 (1977) (Pomeroy, J., concurring and dissenting). Meanwhile, Sullivan’s pro se petitions for federal habeas corpus relief were dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. See United States ex rel. Sullivan v. Cuyler, supra, at 515, and n. 4.
Indeed, the Court of Appeals noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court at first divided evenly on whether the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. 593 F. 2d, at 521, n. 10.
Judge Garth, with whom Judges Adams and Rosenn joined, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of a petition for rehearing en banc. Id,., at 524.
Petitioners must rely solely on the State Supreme Court’s holding because the state court that heard evidence on Sullivan’s petition for collateral relief did not decide whether defense counsel had represented conflicting interests. See supra, at 339. The State Supreme Court resolved that issue on the second direct appeal without the benefit of a trial court finding. Since we conclude that a determination of whether counsel undertook multiple representation is not a finding of fact, we need not decide whether the statements of an appellate court can be “determination[s] after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2254 (d). Compare Velleca v. Superintendent, 523 F. 2d 1040, 1041-1042 (CA1 1975) {per curiam), with Hill v. Nelson, 466 F. 2d 1346, 1348 (CA9 1972) {per curiam).
Although the petitioners did not present this state action argument to the Court of Appeals, both parties have briefed and argued it in this Court. Since resolution of this question of law is a “predicate to an intelligent resolution” of the question on which we granted certiorari, see Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252, 258-259, n. 5 (1980), we must address it. See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foun dation, 402 U. S. 313, 320, n. 6 (1971). See generally R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice §6.27, pp. 458-461 (5th ed. 1978).
See generally Fitzgerald v. Estelle, 505 F. 2d 1334, 1345-1346 (CA5 1974) (en banc) (Godbold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. denied, 422 U. S. 1011 (1975); West v. Louisiana, 478 F. 2d 1026, 1032-1034 (CA5 1973), vacated and remanded, 510 F. 2d 363 (1975) (en banc).
See Polur, Retained Counsel, Assigned Counsel: Why the Dichotomy?, 65 A. B. A. J. 254,255 (1969).
As the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said in United States ex rel. Hart v. Davenport, 478 F. 2d 203, 211 (1973):
“A rule which would apply one fourteenth amendment test to assigned counsel and another to retained counsel would produce the anomaly that the nonindigent, who must retain an attorney if he can afford one, would be entitled to less protection. . . . The effect upon the defendant— confinement as a result of an unfair state trial — is the same whether the inadequate attorney was assigned or retained.”
In certain cases, proposed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44 (c) provides that the federal district courts “shall promptly inquire with respect to . . . joint representation and shall personally advise each defendant of his right to the effective assistance of counsel, including separate representation.” See also ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Function of the Trial Judge §3.4 (b) (App. Draft 1972).
Several Courts of Appeals already invoke their supervisory power to require similar inquiries. See United States v. Waldman, 579 F. 2d 649, 651-652 (CA1 1978); United States v. DeBerry, 487 F. 2d 448, 452-454 (CA2 1973); United States v. Cox, 580 F. 2d 317, 321 (CA8 1978), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 1075 (1979); United States v. Lawriw, 568 F. 2d 98 (CA8 1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 969 (1978); cf. Ford v. United States, 126 U. S. App. D. C. 346, 348-349, 379 F. 2d 123, 125-126 (1967). As our promulgation of Rule 44 (c) suggests, we view such an exercise of the supervisory power as a desirable practice. See generally Schwarzer, Dealing with Incompetent Counsel — The Trial Judge’s Role, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 633, 653-654 (1980).
Although some Circuits have said explicitly that the Sixth Amendment does not require an inquiry into the possibility of conflicts, United States v. Steele, 576 F. 2d 111 (CA6) ( per curiam), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 928 (1978); United States v. Mavrick, 601 F. 2d 921, 929 (CA7 1979), a recent opinion in the Second Circuit held otherwise, Colon v. Fogg, 603 F. 2d 403, 407 (1979).
ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 5-105, EC 5-15 (1976); ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Defense Function § 3.5 (b) (App. Draft 1971).
Seventy percent of the public defender offices responding to a recent survey reported a strong policy against undertaking multiple representation in criminal cases. Forty-nine percent of the offices responding never undertake such representation. Lowenthal, Joint Representation in Criminal Cases: A Critical Appraisal, 64 Va. L. Rev. 939, 950, and n. 40 (1978). The private bar may be less alert to the importance of avoiding multiple representation in criminal cases. See Geer, Representation of Multiple Criminal Defendants: Conflicts of Interest and the Professional Responsibilities of the Defense Attorney, 62 Minn. L. Rev. 119, 152-157 (1978); Lowenthal, supra, at 961-963.
See United States v. Kidding, 560 F. 2d 1303, 1310 (CA7), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 872 (1977); United States v. Mandell, 525 F. 2d 671, 675-677 (CA7 1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1049 (1976); Geer, supra n. 11, at 145-146.
Cf. United States v. Medel, 592 F. 2d 1305, 1312-1313 (CA5 1979); Foxworth v. Wainwright, 516 F. 2d 1072, 1076-1077 (CA5 1975).
A substantial majority of the Courts of Appeals require defendants who contend that multiple representation violated their Sixth Amendment rights to identify an actual conflict of interest. See United States v. Lovano, 420 F. 2d 769, 773 (CA2), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 1071 (1970); United States v. Atkinson, 565 F. 2d 1283, 1284-1285 (CA4 1977), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 944 (1978); Foxworth v. Wainwright, supra, at 1077; Thacker v. Bordenkircher, 590 F. 2d 640, 642 (CA6), cert. denied, 442 U. S. 912 (1979); United States v. Mandell, supra, at 677-678; United States v. Cox, 580 F. 2d, at 321-323; United States v. Kutas, 542 F. 2d 527, 529 (CA9 1976), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1073 (1977); cf. United States v. Carrigan, 543 F. 2d 1053, 1056 (CA2 1976) (burden of proof shifts when trial court fails to inquire into possibility of conflict).
See Comment, Conflict of Interests in Multiple Representation of Criminal Co-Defendants, 68 J. Crim. L. & C. 226, 231-232 (1977),
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1341, reaches false statements made in an application for a state license. Section 1341 proscribes use of the mails in furtherance of “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” Petitioner Carl W. Cleveland and others were prosecuted under this federal measure for making false statements in applying to the Louisiana State Police for permission to operate video poker machines. We conclude that permits or licenses of this order do not qualify as “property” within § 1341’s compass. It does not suffice, we clarify, that the object of the fraud may become property in the recipient’s hands; for purposes of the mail fraud statute, the thing obtained must be property in the hands of the victim. State and municipal licenses in general, and Louisiana’s video poker licenses in particular, we hold, do not rank as “property,” for purposes of §1341, in the hands of the official licensor.
I
Louisiana law allows certain businesses to operate video poker machines. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§27:301 to 27:324 (West Supp. 2000). The State itself, however, does not run such machinery. The law requires prospective owners of video poker machines to apply for a license from the State. §27:306. The licenses are not transferable, §27:311(G), and must be renewed annually, La. Admin. Code, tit. 42, § 2405(B)(3) (2000). To qualify for a license, an applicant must meet suitability requirements designed to ensure that licensees have good character and fiscal integrity. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §27:310 (West Supp. 2000).
In 1992, Fred Goodson and his family formed a limited partnership, Truck Stop Gaming, Ltd. (TSG), in order to participate in the video poker business at their truck stop in Slidell, Louisiana. Cleveland, a New Orleans lawyer, assisted Goodson in preparing TSG’s application for a video poker license. The 'application required TSG to identify its partners and to submit personal financial statements for all partners. It also required TSG to affirm that the listed partners were the sole beneficial owners of the business and that no partner held an interest in the partnership merely as an agent or nominee, or intended to transfer the interest in the future.
TSG’s application identified Goodson’s adult children, Alex and Maria, as the sole beneficial owners of the partnership; It also showed that Goodson and Cleveland’s law firm had loaned Alex and Maria all initial capital for the partnership and that Goodson was TSG’s general manager. In May 1992, the State approved the application and issued a license. TSG successfully renewed the license in 1993,1994, and 1995 pursuant to La. Admin. Code, tit. 42, § 2405(B)(3) (2000). Each renewal application identified no ownership interests other than those of Alex and Maria.
In 1996, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) discovered evidence that Cleveland and Goodson had participated in a scheme to bribe state legislators to vote in a manner favorable to the video poker industry. The Government charged Cleveland and Goodson with multiple counts of money laundering under 18 U. S. C. § 1957, as well as racketeering and conspiracy under § 1962. Among the predicate acts supporting these charges were four counts of mail fraud under § 1341. The indictment alleged that Cleveland and Goodson had violated § 1341 by fraudulently concealing that they were the true owners of TSG in the initial license application and three renewal applications mailed to the State. They concealed their ownership interests, according to the Government, because they had tax and financial problems that could have undermined their suitability to receive a video poker license. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 27:310(B)(1) (West Supp. 2000) (suitability requirements).
Before trial, Cleveland moved to dismiss the mail fraud counts on the ground that the alleged fraud did not deprive the State of “property” under § 1341. The District Court denied the motion, concluding that “licenses constitute property even before they are issued.” 951 F. Supp. 1249, 1261 (ED La. 1997). A jury found Cleveland guilty on two counts of mail fraud (based on the 1994 and 1995 license renewals) and on money laundering, racketeering, and conspiracy counts predicated on the mail fraud. The District Court sentenced Cleveland to 121 months in prison.
On appeal, Cleveland again argued that Louisiana had no property interest in video poker licenses, relying on several Court of Appeals decisions holding that the government does relinquish “property” for purposes of § 1341 when it isa permit or license. See United States v. Shotts, 145 3d 1289, 1296 (CA11 1998) (license to operate a bail bonds business); United States v. Schwartz, 924 F. 2d 410, 418 (CA2 (arms export license); United States v. Granberry, 908 2d 278, 280 (CA8 1990) (school bus operator’s permit); Toulabi v. United States, 875 F. 2d 122, 125 (CA7 1989) (chauffeur’s license); United States v. Dadanian, 856 F. 2d 1392 (CA9 1988) (gambling license); United States v. Murphy, 836 F. 2d 248, 254 (CA6 1988) (license to conduct charitable bingo games).
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit nevertheless affirmed Cleveland’s conviction and sentence, United States v. Bankston, 182 F. 3d 296, 309 (1999), considering itself bound by its holding in United States v. Salvatore, 110 F. 3d 1131, 1138 (1997), that Louisiana video poker licenses constitute “property” in the hands of the State. Two other Circuits have concluded that the issuing authority has a property interest in unissued licenses under §1341. United States v. Bucuvalas, 970 F. 2d 937, 945 (CA1 1992) (entertainment and liquor license); United States v. Martinez, 905 F. 2d 709, 715 (CA3 1990) (medical license).
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals, 529 U.S. 1017 (2000), and now reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judgment.
II
In McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350, 360 (1987), this Court held that the federal mail fraud statute is “limited in scope to the protection of property rights.” McNally reversed the mail fraud convictions of two individuals charged with participating in “a self-dealing patronage scheme” that defrauded Kentucky citizens of “the right to have the Commonwealth’s affairs conducted honestly.” Id., at 352. At the time McNally was decided, federal prosecutors had been using § 1341 to attack various forms of corruption that deprived victims of “intangible rights” unrelated to money or property. Reviewing the history of §1341, we concluded that “the original impetus behind the mail fraud statute was to protect the people from schemes to deprive them of their money or property.” Id., at 356.
As first enacted in 1872, § 1341 proscribed use of the mails to further “'any scheme or artifice to defraud.’” Ibid. In 1896, this Court held in Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 313, that the statute covered fraud not only by “representations as to the past or present,” but also by “suggestions and promises as to the future.” In 1909, Congress amended § 1341 to add after “any scheme or artifice to defraud” the phrase “or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” McNally, 483 U.S., at 357. We explained in McNally that the 1909 amendment “codified the holding of Durland,” ibid., and “simply made it unmistakable that the statute reached false promises and misrepresentations as to the future as well as other frauds involving money or property,” ibid. Rejecting the argument that “the money-or-property requirement of the latter phrase does not limit schemes to defraud to those aimed at causing deprivation of money or property,” id., at 358, we concluded that the 1909 amendment signaled no intent by Congress to “depar[t] from [the] common understanding” that “the words 'to defraud’ commonly refer ‘to wronging one in his property rights,’” id., at 358-359 (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U. S. 182, 188 (1924)).
Soon after McNally, in Carpenter v. United States, 484 U. S. 19, 25 (1987), we again stated that § 1341 protects property rights only. Carpenter upheld convictions under § 1341 and the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, of defendants who had defrauded the Wall Street Journal of confidential business information. Citing decisions of this Court as well as a corporate law treatise, we observed that “Confidential business information has long been recognized as property.” 484 U.S., at 26.
The following year, Congress amended the law specifically to cover one of the “intangible rights” that lower courts had protected under § 1341 prior to McNally: “the .intangible right of honest services.” Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, § 7603(a), 18 U.S.C. § 1346. Significantly, Congress covered only the intangible right of honest services even though federal courts, relying on McNally, had dismissed, for want of monetary loss to any victim, prosecutions under § 1341 for diverse forms of public corruption, including licensing fraud.
I — 1 1 — <
In this case, there is no assertion that Louisiana s video poker licensing scheme implicates the intangible right of honest services. The question presented is whether, for purposes of the federal mail fraud statute, a government regulator parts with “property” when it issues a license. For the reasons we now set out, we hold that §1341 does not reach fraud in obtaining a state or municipal license of the kind here involved, for such a license is not “property” in the government regulator’s hands. Again, as we said in Mc-Nally, “[i]f Congress desires to go further, it must speak more clearly than it has.” 483 U.S., at 360.
To begin with, we think it beyond genuine dispute that whatever interests Louisiana might be said to have in its video poker licenses, the State’s core concern is regulatory. Louisiana recognizes the importance of “public confidence and trust that gaming activities . . . are conducted honestly and are free from criminal and corruptive elements.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 27:306(A)(1) (West Supp. 2000). The video poker licensing statute accordingly asserts the State’s “legitimate interest in providing strict regulation of all persons, practices, associations, and activities related to the operation of... establishments licensed to offer video draw poker devices.” Ibid. The statute assigns the Office of State Police, a part of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the responsibility to promulgate rules and regulations concerning the licensing process. § 27:308(A). It also authorizes the State Police to deny, condition, suspend, or revoke licenses, to levy fines of up to $1,000 per violation of any rule, and to inspect all premises where video poker devices are offered for play. §§ 27:308(B), (E)(1). In addition, the statute defines criminal penalties for unauthorized use of video poker devices, §27:309, and prescribes detailed suitability requirements for licensees, §27:310.
In short, the statute establishes a typical regulatory program. It licenses, subject to certain conditions, engagement in pursuits that private actors may not undertake without official authorization. In this regard, it resembles other licensing schemes long characterized by this Court as exercises of state police powers. E. g., Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves, 308 U.S. 132, 138 (1939) (license to transport alcoholic beverages); Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539, 558 (1917) (license to sell corporate stock); Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524, 534 (1854) (ferry license); License Cases, 5 How. 504, 589 (1847) (license to sell liquor) (opinion of McLean, J.), overruled on other grounds, Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890).
Acknowledging Louisiana’s regulatory interests, the Government offers two reasons why the State also has a property interest in its video poker licenses. First, the State receives a substantial sum of money in exchange for each license and continues to receive payments from the licensee as long as the license remains in effect. Second, the State has significant control over the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of licenses.
Without doubt, Louisiana has a substantial economic stake in the video poker industry. The State collects an upfront “processing fee” for each new license application, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 27:311(H)(2) (West Supp. 2000) ($10,000 for truck stops), a separate “processing fee” for each renewal application, §27:311(H)(4) ($1,000 for truck stops), an “annual fee” from each device owner, §27:811(A)(4) ($2,000), an additional “device operation” fee, §27:311(A)(5)(c) ($1,000 for truck stops), and, most importantly, a fixed percentage of net revenue from each video poker device, § 27:311(D)(1)(b) (32.5% for truck stops). It is hardly evident, however, why these tolls should make video poker licenses “property” in the hands of the State. The State receives the lion’s share of its expected revenue not while the licenses remain in its own hands, but only after they have been issued to licensees. Licenses pre-issuance do not generate an ongoing stream of revenue. At most, they entitle the State to collect a processing fee from applicants for new licenses. Were an entitlement of this order sufficient to establish a state property right, one could scarcely avoid the conclusion that States have property rights in any license or permit requiring an upfront fee, including drivers’ licenses, medical licenses, and fishing and hunting licenses. Such licenses, as the Government itself concedes, are “purely regulatory.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 24-25.
Tellingly, as to the character of Louisiana’s stake in its video poker licenses, the Government nowhere alleges that Cleveland defrauded the State of any money to which the State was entitled by law. Indeed, there is no dispute that TSG paid the State of Louisiana its proper share of revenue, which totaled more than $1.2 million, between 1993 and 1995. If Cleveland defrauded the State of “property,” the nature of that property cannot be economic.
Addressing this concern, the Government argues that Cleveland frustrated the State’s right to control the issuance, renewal, and revocation of video poker licenses under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§27:306, 27:308 (West Supp. 2000). The Fifth Circuit has characterized the protected interest as “Louisiana’s right to choose the persons to whom it issues video poker licenses.” Salvatore, 110 F. 3d, at 1140. But far from composing an interest that “has long been recognized as property,” Carpenter, 484 U. S., at 26, these intangible rights of allocation, exclusion, and control amount to no more and no less than Louisiana’s sovereign power to regulate. Notably, the Government overlooks the fact that these rights include the distinctively sovereign authority to impose criminal penalties for violations of the licensing scheme, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §27:309 (West Supp. 2000), including making false statements in a license application, §27:309(A). Even when tied to an expected stream of revenue, the State’s right of control does not create a property interest any more than a law licensing liquor sales in a State that levies a sales tax on liquor. Such regulations are paradigmatic exercises of the States’ traditional police powers.
The Government compares the State’s interest in video poker licenses to a patent holder’s interest in a patent that she has not yet licensed. Although it is true that both involve the right to exclude, we think the congruence ends there. Louisiana does not conduct gaming operations itself, it does not hold video poker licenses to reserve that prerogative, and it does not “sell” video poker licenses in the ordinary commercial sense. Furthermore, while a patent holder may sell her patent, see 35 U. S. C. §261 (“patents shall have the attributes of personal property”), the State may not sell its licensing authority. Instead of a patent holder’s interest in an unlicensed patent, the better analogy is to the Federal Government’s interest in an unissued patent. That interest, like the State’s interest in licensing video poker operations, surely implicates the Government’s role as sovereign, not as property holder. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8.
The Government also compares the State’s licensing power to a franchisor’s right to select its franchisees. On this view, Louisiana’s video poker licensing scheme represents the State’s venture into the video poker business. Although the State could have chosen to run the business itself, the Government says, it decided to franchise private entities to carry out the operations instead. However, a franchisor’s right to select its franchisees typically derives from its ownership of a trademark, brand name, business strategy, or other product that it may trade or sell in the open market. Louisiana’s authority to select video poker licensees rests on no similar asset. It rests instead upon the State’s sovereign right to exclude applicants deemed unsuitable to run video poker operations. A right to exclude in that governing capacity is not one appropriately labeled “property.” See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25. Moreover, unlike an entrepreneur or business partner who shares both losses and gains arising from a business venture, Louisiana cannot be said to have put its labor or capital at risk through its fee-laden licensing scheme. In short, the State did not decide to venture into the video poker business; it decided typically to permit, regulate, and tax private operators of the games.
We reject the Government’s theories of property rights not simply because they stray from traditional concepts of property. We resist the Government’s reading of § 1341 as well because it invites us to approve a sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction in the absence of a clear statement by Congress. Equating issuance of licenses or permits with deprivation of property would subject to federal mail fraud prosecution a wide range of conduct traditionally regulated by state and local authorities. We note in this regard that Louisiana’s video poker statute typically and unambiguously imposes criminal penalties for making false statements on license applications. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §27:309(A) (West Supp. 2000). As we reiterated last Term, “‘unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance’ in the prosecution of crimes.” Jones v. United States, 529 U. S. 848, 858 (2000) (quoting United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 349 (1971)).
Moreover, to the extent that the word “property” is ambiguous as placed in § 1341, we have instructed that “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.” Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 812 (1971). This interpretive guide is especially appropriate in construing § 1341 because, as this case demonstrates, mail fraud is a predicate offense under RICO, 18 U. S. C. § 1961(1) (1994 ed., Supp. IV), and the money laundering statute, § 1956(c)(7)(A). In deciding what is “property” under § 1341, we think “it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite.” United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218, 222 (1952).
Finally, in an argument not raised below but urged as an alternate ground for affirmance, the Government contends that § 1341, as amended in 1909, defines two independent offenses: (1) “any scheme or artifice to defraud” and (2) “any scheme or artifice ... for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” Because a video poker license is property in the hands of the licensee, the Government says, Cleveland “obtained] . . . property” and thereby committed the second offense even if the license is not property in the hands of the State.
Although we do not here question that video poker licensees may have property interests in their licenses, we nevertheless disagree with the Government’s reading of §1341. In McNally, we recognized that “[bjecause the two phrases identifying the proscribed schemes appear in the disjunctive; it is arguable that they are to be construed independently.” 483 U. S., at 358. But we rejected that construction of the statute, instead concluding that the second phrase simply modifies the first by “ma[king] it unmistakable that the statute reached false promises and misrepresentations as to the future as well as other frauds involving money or property.” Id., at 359. Indeed, directly contradicting the Government’s view, we said that “the mail fraud statute ... had its origin in the desire to protect individual property rights, and any benefit which the Government derives from the statute must be limited to the Government’s interests as -property holder.” Id., at 359, n. 8 (emphasis added). We reaffirm our reading of § 1341 in McNally. See Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Comm’n, 502 U. S. 197, 205 (1991) (“stare decisis is most compelling” where “a pure question of statutory construction” is involved). Were the Government correct that the second phrase of §1341 defines a separate offense, the statute would appear to arm federal prosecutors with power to police false statements in an enormous range of submissions to state and local authorities. For reasons already stated, see supra, at 24-25, we decline to attribute to § 1341 a purpose so encompassing where Congress has not made such a design clear.
IV
We conclude that § 1341 requires the object of the fraud to be “property” in the victim’s hands and that a Louisiana video poker license in the State’s hands is not “property” under § 1341. Absent clear statement by Congress, we will not read the mail fraud statute to place under federal superintendence a vast array of conduct traditionally policed by the States. Our holding means that Cleveland’s § 1341 conviction must be vacated. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341 provides in relevant part: “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, [uses the mails or causes them to be used], shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) prohibits participation and conspiracy to participate in a pattern of “racketeering activity,” 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), (d), and defines “racketeering activity” to include “any act which is indictable under... section 1341,” § 1961(1). The money laundering statute prohibits various activities designed to conceal or promote “specified unlawful activity,” § 1956, and defines “specified unlawful activity” to include (with an exception not relevant here) “any act or activity constituting an offense listed in section 1961(1) of this title,” § 1956(c)(7)(A).
E. g., United States v. Clapps, 732 F. 2d 1148, 1153 (CA3 1984) (electoral body’s right to fair elections); United States v. Bronston, 658 F. 2d 920, 927 (CA2 1981) (client’s right to attorney’s loyalty); United States v. Bohonus, 628 F. 2d 1167, 1172 (CA9 1980) (right to honest services of an agent or employee); United States v. Isaacs, 493 F. 2d 1124, 1150 (CA7 1974) (right to honest services of public official).
For example, in United States v. Murphy, 836 F. 2d 248, 254 (CA6 1988), the court overturned the mail fraud conviction of a state official charged with using false information to help a charitable organization obtain a state bingo license. Acknowledging “the McNally limitations” on § 1341, the court said that the issue “distills to a consideration of whether Tennessee’s ‘right to control or object’ with respect to the issuance of a bingo permit to a charitable organization constitutes ‘pi’operty.’ ” Id., at 253. It then held that “the certificate of registration or the bingo license may well be ‘property’ once issued, insofar as the charitable organization is concerned, but certainly an unissued certificate of registration is not property of the State of Tennessee and once issued, it is not the property of the State of Tennessee.” Id., at 253-254.
Notwithstanding the State’s declaration that “[a]ny license issued or renewed... is not property or a protected interest under the constitutions of either the United States or the state of Louisiana,” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §27:301(D) (West Supp. 2000), “[t]he question whether a state-law right constitutes 'property’ or ‘rights to property’ is a matter of federal law,” Drye v. United, States, 528 U. S. 49, 58 (1999) (citing United States v. National Bank of Commerce, 472 U. S. 713, 727 (1985)). In some contexts, we have held that individuals have constitutionally protected property interests in state-issued licenses essential to pursuing an occupation or livelihood. See, e. g., Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 539 (1971) (driver’s license).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brings this suit under § 4 of the Sherman Act to enjoin United States Steel Corporation and its subsidiaries from purchasing the assets of the largest independent steel fabricator on the West Coast on the ground that such acquisition would violate §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The complaint, filed on February 24,1947, charged that if the contract of sale between United States Steel and Consolidated Steel Corporation were carried out, competition in the sale of rolled steel products and in fabricated steel products would be restrained, and that the contract indicated an effort on the part of United States Steel to attempt to monopolize the market in fabricated steel products. After a trial before a single judge in the district court, judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, and the government brought the case here by direct appeal. 32 Stat. 823, 15 U. S. C. § 29.
The underlying facts in the case are set forth in the findings of the trial court, and with a few exceptions those findings are not disputed by the government. We rely chiefly on the findings to indicate the nature of the commerce here in question and the extent to which competition would be affected by the challenged contract.
The steel production involved in this case may be spoken of as being divided into two stages: the production of rolled steel products and their fabrication into finished steel products. Rolled steel products consist of steel plates, shapes, sheets, bars, and other unfinished steel products and are in turn made from ingots by means of rolling mills. The steel fabrication involved herein may also be divided into structural fabrication and plate fabrication. Fabricated structural steel products consist of building framework, bridges, transmission towers, and similar permanent structures, and are made primarily from rolled steel shapes, although plates and other rolled steel products may also be employed. Fabricated plate products, on the other hand, consist of pressure vessels, tanks, welded pipe, and similar products made principally from rolled steel plates, although shapes and bars are also occasionally used. Both plate and structural fabricated products are made to specifications for a particular purpose; fabricated products do not include standard products made by repetitive processes in the manufacture of general steel merchandise such as wire, nails, bolts, and window frames. The manufacture of such standardized finished products is not involved in this case. The facilities required for structural fabrication are quite different from those required for plate fabrication; the former require equipment for shearing, punching, drilling, assembling, and riveting or welding structural shapes whereas the latter require equipment for bending, rolling, cutting, and forming the plates which go into the finished product.
The complaint lists four defendants: Columbia Steel Company, Consolidated Steel Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, and United States Steel Corporation of Delaware. United States Steel and its subsidiaries engage in the business of producing rolled steel products and in structural fabrication, but do no plate fabrication work. Consolidated Steel, the sale of whose assets the government seeks to enjoin, is engaged only in structural fabrication and plate fabrication. United States Steel with its subsidiaries is the largest producer of rolled steel products in the United States, with a total investment of more than a billion and a half dollars. During the ten-year period 1937-1946 United States Steel produced almost exactly a third of all rolled steel products produced in the United States, and average sales for that period were nearly a billion and a half dollars. In the five-year period 1937-1941, average sales were a little over a billion dollars. Consolidated, -by contrast, had plants whose depreciated value was less than ten million dollars. During the five-year period 1937-1941, Consolidated had average sales of only twenty million dollars, and the United States Steel committee which negotiated the terms of the purchase of Consolidated estimated that Consolidated’s sales in the future would run to twenty-two million dollars annually and agreed with Consolidated on a purchase price of slightly in excess of eight million dollars. During the war Consolidated produced over a billion and a half dollars worth of ships with government-furnished facilities. Consolidated no longer possesses any facilities for building ships.
Columbia Steel, a wholly-owned subsidiary of United States Steel, has been the largest rolled steel producer in the Pacific Coast area since 1930, with plants in Utah and California, and has also served as selling agent for other rolled steel subsidiaries of United States Steel, and for two subsidiaries of that company engaged in structural fabrication, the American Bridge Company at Pittsburgh and the Virginia Bridge Company at Roanoke, Virginia, though neither it nor any other subsidiary of United States Steel in the Consolidated market area was a fabricator of any kind. National Tube Company, another United States Steel subsidiary, sells pipe and tubing. Consolidated has structural fabricating plants near Los Angeles and at Orange, Texas, and plate fabricating facilities in California and Arizona. Consolidated has sold its products during the past ten years in eleven states, referred to hereafter as the Consolidated market: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington. It is that market which the government views as significant in determining the extent of competition between United States Steel and Consolidated. It is not the usual Pacific and Mountain states groups employed by the Census. United States Steel Corporation of Delaware is a subsidiary of United States Steel which renders technical assistance to other subsidiaries engaged in steel production.
Rolled steel products have traditionally been sold on a basing point system. Prior to World War II rolled steel was sold oh the West Coast at a price computed on the basis of eastern basing points, even though both United States Steel and Bethlehem Steel produced rolled steel products in California. Fabricators such as Consolidated thus did not get the full benefit of their proximity to the western market. The competitive disadvantages under which western fabricators worked is illustrated by the fact that United States Steel has been the largest seller of fabricated structural steel in the Consolidated market, even though it has no fabricating plants in the area. During the ten-year period ending in 1946, 100 different concerns bid successfully in competition with United States Steel for the sale of fabricated structural products in the Consolidated market; 50 of those concerns are located outside the area. United States Steel’s principal competitor as measured on a national basis, Bethlehem Steel, does have fabricating facilities in California, however, and prior to World War II United States Steel had prepared plans for the erection of fabricating facilities in California. The war made it necessary to postpone the plans. This use of eastern basing points makes past figures on rolled steel product sales from producers in the Consolidated market unreliable in determining effective competition for the future sales of rolled steel in that market. United States Steel now uses Geneva as a basing point.
The urgent wartime demand for steel prompted the government to construct new rolled steel plants in the West. The largest of these plants was erected at Geneva, Utah, at a cost of nearly $200,000,000, and was designed, constructed, and operated by United States Steel for the account of the government. The plant had an annual capacity of more than 1,200,000 tons of ingots, which in turn could be employed to make 700,000 tons of plates and 250,000 tons of shapes. Another large plant was erected by the government at Fontana, California. This is now operated through arrangements of private parties with the government. In January 1945 United States Steel considered the acquisition of the Geneva plant, but because of the speculative nature of the venture and attacks by people within and without the government, United States Steel decided not to submit a bid and notified the Defense Plant Corporation to that effect on August 8, 1945. Shortly thereafter the Surplus Property Administrator wrote to Benjamin F. Fairless, President of United States Steel, advising him that a bid by United States Steel would be welcomed. On May 1,1946, United States Steel submitted a bid for the Geneva plant of $47,500,000. The terms of the bid provided that United States Steel would spend not less than $18,000,000 of its own funds to erect additional facilities at Geneva, and $25,000,000 to erect a cold-reduction mill at Pittsburg, California, to consume 386,000 tons of hot rolled coils produced at Geneva. The bid estimated that a sufficient market could be found to absorb an annual production ranging from 456,000 to 600,000 tons. The bid stipulated that Geneva products would be sold with Geneva as a basing point. This would offer possibilities for a reduction in the price of rolled steel products to West Coast purchasers and their customers. The variation between 456,000 and 600,000 tons depended on the consumption of rolled steel products by users other than United States Steel’s new Pittsburg plant. The bid noted that additional steel consuming manufacturing plants might be located in the West which would provide a market for additional rolled steel products. Apart from the cold-reduction mill to be erected at Pitts-burg, the bid was silent as to the acquisition of fabricating facilities by United States Steel to provide a market for Geneva products.
On May 23, 1946, the War Assets Administration announced that the bid of United States Steel was accepted. An accompanying memorandum discussed in detail the six bids which had been received, and concluded that United States Steel’s bid was the most advantageous. The other bids were found unacceptable for a number of reasons; either the bidder could offer no assurance of his financial responsibility or his ability to operate the plant, or the price offered was too low, or the bidder requested the government to lend the bidder large sums for the erection of additional facilities or to erect such facilities at government expense. The memorandum noted that the successful bid would “foster the development in the West of new independent enterprise” by encouraging the location of steel-consuming manufacturing plants in the western states.
On June 17, 1946, the Attorney General advised the War Assets Administration that the proposed sale did not in his opinion constitute a violation of the antitrust laws, and the sale was consummated two days thereafter. The opinion of the Attorney General was requested in accordance with § 20 of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 765, 775, which requires such procedure when government plants costing more than $1,000,000 are being sold. That section provides that nothing in the Surplus Property Act “shall impair, amend, or modify the antitrust laws or limit and prevent their application to persons” who buy property under the Act. The Attorney General noted that the ingot capacity of United States Steel had declined from 35.3% of the total national capacity in 1939 to 31.4% in 1946, and that if the Geneva plant were acquired, the percentage would be increased to 32.7%. Considering only the Pacific Coast and Mountain states, the acquisition of Geneva, the Attorney General said, would increase United States Steel’s percentage of capacity in that area from 17.3% to 39%. United States Steel, however, estimated that on acquisition of Geneva it would have 51% of ingot capacity in the Pacific Coast area. On the basis of these figures construed in the light of United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416, and American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781, the Attorney General concluded that the proposed sale, as such, would not violate the antitrust laws. The letter added that no opinion was expressed as to the legality of any acts or practices in which United States Steel might have engaged or in which it might engage in the future. See for a comparable situation United States v. United States Steel Corp., 251 U. S. 417, 446.
Prior to the sale of the Geneva plant, Alden G. Roach, President of Consolidated, approached Fairless of United States Steel and indicated that he would like to sell the business of Consolidated. Roach also had conversations with representatives of Bethlehem and Kaiser with regard to the same end. Roach mentioned the subject again to Fair less in February or March of 1946, and Fairless replied that United States Steel was restudying its decision not to bid on the Geneva plant, and did not want to discuss the purchase of Consolidated until the Geneva issue was decided. After the sale of Geneva was effected in June, Fairless spoke again with Roach and arranged to have a committee from United States Steel make an investigation of the Consolidated plants in August. The committee reported that it would cost $14,000,000 and take three years to construct plants equivalent to those owned by Consolidated, and that the Consolidated properties had a depreciated value of $9,800,000. After further negotiations the parties agreed on a price of approximately $8,250,000, and a purchase agreement was executed on December 14 according to which Columbia agreed to buy the physical assets of Consolidated and four subsidiaries. Fairless testified on the witness stand that United States Steel’s purpose in purchasing Consolidated was to assure a market for plates and shapes produced at Geneva, and Roach testified that Consolidated’s purpose was to withdraw the stockholders’ equity from the fabrication business with its cyclical fluctuations at a time when a favorable price could be realized.
I.
The theory of the United States in bringing this suit is that the acquisition of Consolidated constitutes an illegal restraint of interstate commerce because all manufacturers except United States Steel will be excluded from the business of supplying Consolidated’s requirements of rolled steel products, and because competition now existing between Consolidated and United States Steel in the sale of structural fabricated products and pipe will be eliminated. In addition, the government alleges that the acquisition of Consolidated, viewed in the light of the previous series of acquisitions by United States Steel, constitutes an attempt to monopolize the production and sale of fabricated steel products in the Consolidated market. The appellees contend that the amount of competition which will be eliminated is so insignificant that the restraint effected is a reasonable restraint not an attempt to monopolize and not prohibited by the Sherman Act. On the record before us and in agreement with the trial court we conclude that the government has failed to prove its contention that the acquisition of Consolidated would unreasonably lessen competition in the three respects charged, and therefore the proposed contract is not forbidden by § 1 of the Sherman Act. We further hold that the government has failed to prove an attempt to monopolize in violation of § 2.
We turn first to the charge that the proposed purchase will lessen competition by excluding producers of rolled steel products other than United States Steel from supplying the requirements of Consolidated. Over the ten-year period from 1937 to 1946 Consolidated purchased over two million tons of rolled steel products, including the abnormally high wartime requirements. Whatever amount of rolled steel products Consolidated uses in the future will be supplied insofar as possible from other subsidiaries of United States Steel, and other producers of rolled steel products will lose Consolidated as a prospective customer.
The parties are in sharp dispute as to the size and nature of the market for rolled steel products with which Consolidated's consumption is to be compared. The appel-lees argue that rolled steel products are sold on a national scale, and that for the major producers the entire United States should be regarded as the market. Viewed from this standpoint, Consolidated’s requirements are an insignificant fraction of the total market, less than y2 of 1%. The government argues that the market must be more narrowly drawn, and that the relevant market to be considered is the eleven-state area in which Consolidated sells its products, and further that in that area by considering only the consumption of structural and plate fabricators a violation of the Sherman Act has been established. If all sales of rolled steel products in the Consolidated market are considered, Consolidated’s purchases of two million tons represent a little more than 3% of the total of 60 million tons. The figure is not appreciably different if the five-year period 1937-41 or 1946 alone is used as the measuring period. If the comparable market is construed even more narrowly, and is restricted to the consumption of plates and shapes in the Consolidated market, figures for 1937 indicate that Consolidated’s consumption of plates and shapes was 13% of the total. Data are offered by the government for 1946 which are too uncertain to furnish a reliable guide.
The government realizes the force of appellees’ argument that rolled steel products are sold on a national scale, and attempts to demonstrate that during the non-war years 80% of Consolidated’s requirements were produced on the West Coast; Consolidated resorts to data not in the record to demonstrate that in fact only 26% of Consolidated’s rolled steel purchases were produced in plants located in the Consolidated market area. Whether we accept the government’s or Consolidated’s figures, however, they are of little value in determining the extent to which West Coast fabricators will purchase rolled steel products in the eastern market in the future, since the construction of new plants at Geneva and Fontana and the creation of new basing points on the West Coast will presumably give West Coast rolled steel producers a far larger share of the West Coast fabricating market than before the war.
Another difficulty is that the record furnishes little indication as to the propriety of considering plates and shapes as a market distinct from other rolled steel products. If rolled steel producers can make other products as easily as plates and shapes, then the effect of the removal of Consolidated’s demand for plates and shapes must be measured not against the market for plates and shapes alone, but for all comparable rolled products. The record suggests, but does not conclusively indicate, that rolled steel producers can make other products interchangeably with shapes and plates, and that therefore we should not measure the potential injury to competition by considering the total demand for shapes and plates alone, but rather compare Consolidated’s demand for rolled steel products with the demand for all comparable rolled steel products in the Consolidated marketing area.
We read the record as showing that the trial court did not accept the theory that the comparable market was restricted to the demand for plates and shapes in the Consolidated area, but did accept the government’s theory that the market was to be restricted to the total demand for rolled steel products in the eleven-state area. On that basis the trial court found that the steel requirements of Consolidated represented “a small part” of the consumption in the Consolidated area, that Consolidated was not a “substantial market” for rolled steel producers selling in competition with United States Steel, and that the acquisition of Consolidated would not injure any competitor of United States Steel engaged in the production and sale of rolled steel products in the Consolidated market or elsewhere. We recognize the difficulty of laying down a rule as to what areas or products are competitive, one with another. In this case and on this record we have circumstances that strongly indicate to us that rolled steel production and consumption in the Consolidated marketing area is the competitive area and product for consideration.
In analyzing the injury to competition resulting from the withdrawal of Consolidated as a purchaser of rolled steel products, we have been considering the acquisition of Consolidated as a step in the vertical integration of United States Steel. Regarded as a seller of fabricated steel products rather than as a purchaser of rolled steel products, however, the acquisition of Consolidated may be regarded as a step in horizontal integration as well, since United States Steel will broaden its facilities for steel fabrication through the purchase of Consolidated. In determining the extent of competition between Consolidated and the two structural fabrication subsidiaries of United States Steel in the sale of fabricated steel products, we must again determine the size of the market in which the two companies may be said to compete. The parties agree that United States Steel does no plate fabrication, and that competition is restricted to fabricating structural steel products and pipe. Consolidated makes pipe by bending and welding plates, whereas National Tube, a United States Steel subsidiary, makes seamless pipe through a process which the parties agree does not fall under the heading of steel fabrication.
We turn first to the field of fabricated structural steel products. As in the case of rolled steel, the appellees claim that structural fabricators sell on a national scale, and that Consolidated’s production must be measured-against all structural fabricators. An index of the position of Consolidated as a structural fabricator is shown by its bookings for the period 1937-1942, as reported by the American Institute of Steel Construction. During that period total bookings in the entire country were nearly 10,000,000 tons, of which Consolidated’s share was only 84,533 tons. The government argues that competition is to be measured with reference to the eleven-state area in which Consolidated sells its products. Viewed on that basis, total bookings for the limited area for the six-year period were 1,665,698, of which United States Steel’s share was 17% and Consolidated’s 5%. The government claims that Consolidated has become a more important factor since that period, and alleges that bookings for 1946 in the Consolidated market were divided among 90 fabricators, of which United States Steel had 13% and Consolidated and Bethlehem Steel each had 11%. The next largest structural fabricators had 9%, 6% and 3% of the total. Although the appellees challenge the accuracy of the government’s 1946 figures, and the district court made no reference to them in the findings, we accept them as sufficiently reliable for our present purpose. The figures on which the government relies demonstrate that at least in the past competition in structural steel products has been conducted on a national scale. Five out of the ten structural fabricators having the largest sales in the Consolidated market perform their fabrication operations outside the area, including United States Steel and Bethlehem Steel. Purchasers of fabricated structural products have been able to secure bids from fabricators throughout the country, and therefore statistics showing the share of United States Steel and Consolidated in the total consumption of fabricated structural products in any prescribed area are of little probative value in ascertaining the extent to which consumers of these products would be injured through elimination of competition between the two companies.
As in the case of rolled steel products, however, wartime developments have made prewar statistics of little relevance. The appellees urge three reasons why eastern fabricators will be at a competitive disadvantage with western fabricators for the western market: the availability of rolled steel products from the Geneva plant and other West Coast plants at a lower price, the increase in commercial freight rates on fabricated products, and the abolition of land grant rates. The increase in freight rates has made it less profitable for eastern fabricators to sell in the West, and the elimination of land grant rates on government shipments has made it less profitable for eastern fabricators to sell to government agencies in the West. Whatever competition may have existed in the past between Consolidated and the two bridge company subsidiaries of United States Steel, the appellees urge, will exist to a much lesser extent in the future. Consequently, even though the government may be correct in claiming that the eleven-state area is the proper market for measuring competition with Consolidated, the government may not at the same time claim that prewar statistics as to United States Steel’s share of that market are of major significance.
Apart from the question of the geographical size of the market, the appellees urge that the bookings for fabricated structural steel products are of little significance because Consolidated and United States Steel make different types of structural steel products. In view of the fact that structural steel jobs are fabricated on an individual basis, it is difficult to compare the output of United States Steel with that of Consolidated, but the appellees argue that in general Consolidated does only light and medium fabrication, whereas United States Steel does heavy fabrication. The appellees support their argument with an elaborate statistical analysis of bids by the two companies. Those figures show that Consolidated and United States Steel submitted bids for the same project in a very small number of instances. Such figures are not conclusive of lack of competition; the government suggests that knowledge that one party has submitted a bid may discourage others from bidding. The government has introduced very little evidence, however, to show that in fact the types of structural steel products sold by Consolidated are similar to those sold by United States Steel. The appellees further urge that only a small proportion of Consolidated’s business fell in the category of structural steel products, and that as to plate fabrication and miscellaneous work there was no competition with United States Steel whatsoever. The trial court found on this issue that 16% of Consolidated’s business was in structural steel products and 70% in plate fabrication. On the basis of the statistics here summarized, the trial court found that competition between the two companies in the manufacture and sale of fabricated structural steel products was not substantial.
The government also argues that competition will be eliminated between Consolidated and National Tube in the sale of pipe. In this field we have no difficulty in determining the geographical scope of the market to be considered in determining the extent of competition, since the government claims that Consolidated and National Tube compete on a nation-wide scale in the field of large diameter pipe for oil and gas pipelines. Other types of pipe made by the two concerns are apparently not competitive as the government does not contest this assertion of the appellees. Consolidated in the past has specialized in comparatively light walled pipe for low pressure purposes, such as irrigation and water transmission, whereas National Tube has made a heavy walled pipe for high pressure purposes which is used chiefly in the oil and gas industry. National Tube pipe is substantially cheaper to produce. The record does show, however, that in the last few years Consolidated has supplied large diameter pipe for oil and gas pipelines on at least four occasions in three of which National Tube also supplied part of the pipe requirements. Although the record does not show the extent of Consolidated’s business in this field, one of the witnesses estimated that Consolidated’s contract to furnish 90% of the pipe for the Trans-Arabian pipeline would run to almost $30,000,000. The appellees seek to minimize the importance of competition in this field by pointing out that the pipe to be used for the Trans-Arabian pipeline is 30 and 31 inches in diameter, which is too large a size to be made by the seamless process employed by National Tube. The record is barren on the comparative production between Consolidated and its competitors, other than United States Steel, in the manufacture of large pipe. The record does show that other major companies, not connected with any of the parties to this proceeding, do manufacture welded and seamless pipe. The appellees further claim that under normal circumstances Consolidated and National Tube would not compete in this field because Consolidated pipe sells for $30 a ton more than National Tube pipe, and that Consolidated is able to sell its pipe only because of the inability of National Tube and other concerns to take on additional orders. The government argues in reply that Consolidated may be able to reduce its costs of production if a sufficiently large volume of orders is obtained, but no evidence is adduced to support such a conclusion.
The opinion of the trial court summarized the facts outlined above, and concluded that there was no substantial competition between National Tube and Consolidated in the sale of pipe; one of the findings went even further, stating that the two companies “do not compete” in the sale of their pipe products.
The trial court also concluded that the government had failed to prove that United States Steel had attempted to monopolize the business of fabricating steel products in the Consolidated market in violation of § 2. The trial judge apparently was of the opinion that since the purchase of Consolidated did not constitute a violation of § 1, it could not constitute a violation of § 2, since every attempt to monopolize must also constitute an illegal restraint. In his findings the trial judge concluded that the purchase agreement was entered into “for sound business reasons” and with no intent to monopolize the production and sale of fabricated steel products.
I — i
In support of its position that the proposed contract violates § 1 of the Sherman Act, the government urges that all the legal conclusions of the district court were erroneous. It is argued that, without regard to the percentages of consumption of rolled steel products by Consolidated just considered, the acquisition by United States Steel of Consolidated violates the Sherman Act. Such an arrangement, it is claimed, excludes other producers of rolled steel products from the Consolidated market and constitutes an illegal restraint per se to which the rule of reason is inapplicable. Or, phrasing the argument differently, the government’s contention seems to be that the acquisition of facilities which provide a controlled market for the output of the Geneva plant is a process of vertical integration and invalid per se under the Sherman Act. The acquisition of Consolidated, it is pointed out, would also eliminate competition between Consolidated and the subsidiaries of United States Steel in the sale of structural steel products and pipe products, and would eliminate potential competition from Consolidated in the sale of other steel products. We also note that the acquisition of Consolidated will bring United States Steel for the first time into the field of plate fabrication.
A. We first lay to one side a possible objection to measuring the injury to competition by reference to a market which is less than nation-wide in area. The Sherman Act is not limited to eliminating restraints whose effects cover the entire United States; we have consistently held that where the relevant competitive market covers only a small area the Sherman Act may be invoked to prevent unreasonable restraints within that area. In United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U. S. 218, we sustained the validity of a complaint which alleged that the defendants had monopolized the cab operating business in four large cities. It is the volume in the area which the alleged restraints affect that is important. In United States v. Griffith, 334 U. S. 100, we found restraint of trade by a chain of motion picture exhibitors covering a small area. Although our previous discussion has indicated the difficulties in accepting the eleven-state area in which Consolidated sells its products as the relevant competitive market, we accept for the purposes of decision the government’s argument that this area is the one to be considered in measuring the effect on competition of the withdrawal of' Consolidated as a market for other rolled steel- producers and of the bringing together under common control of Consolidated and the fabricating subsidiaries of United States Steel.
B. The government relies heavily on United States v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, to support its argument that the withdrawal of Consolidated as a possible consumer for the goods of other rolled steel producers constitutes an illegal restraint. The complaint in the Yellow Cab case charged that there was a plan, an intent, to monopolize the cab business, from manufacture through operation in the four large cities, by acquiring cab operating companies or interests therein; tying those companies into a cab manufacturing company and requiring the operating companies to purchase their cabs from the manufacturer at a price above the prevailing market. There was no allegation that the volume of cab production which was thus excluded as a market for rival cab manufacturers was a substantial proportion of the total volume of cabs produced, and the government concludes that the case stands for the proposition that it is illegal per se for a manufacturer to preempt any market for his goods through vertical integration provided that an “appreciable” amount of interstate commerce is involved.
We do not construe our holding in the Yellow Cab case to make illegal the acquisition by United States Steel of this outlet for its rolled steel without consideration of its effect on the opportunities of other competitor producers to market their rolled steel. In discussing the charge in the Yellow Cab case, we said that the fact that the conspirators were integrated did not insulate them from the act, not that corporate integration violated the act. In the complaint the government charged that the defendants had combined and conspired to effect the restraints in question with the intent and purpose of monopolizing the cab business in certain cities, and on motion to dismiss that allegation was accepted as true. Where a complaint charges such an unreasonable restraint as the facts of the Yellow Cab case show, the amount of interstate trade affected is immaterial in determining whether a violation of the Sherman Act has been charged. A restraint may be unreasonable either because a restraint otherwise reasonable is accompanied with a specific intent to accomplish a forbidden restraint or because it falls within the class of restraints that are illegal per se. For example, where a complaint charges that the defendants have engaged in price fixing, or have concertedly refused to deal with non-members of an association, or have licensed a patented device on condition that unpatented materials be employed in conjunction with the patented device, then the amount of commerce involved is immaterial because such restraints are illegal per se. Nothing in the Yellow Cab case supports the theory that all exclusive dealing arrangements are illegal per se.
A subsidiary will in all probability deal only with its parent for goods the parent can furnish. That fact, however, does not make the acquisition invalid. When other elements of Sherman Act violations are present, the fact of corporate relationship is material and can be considered in the determination of whether restraint or attempt to restrain exists. That this is the teaching of the Yellow Cab case is indicated by the following quotation:
“And so in this case, the common ownership and control of the various corporate appellees are impotent to liberate the alleged combination and conspiracy from the impact of the Act. The complaint charges that the restraint of interstate trade was not only effected by the combination of the appellees but was the primary object of the combination. The theory of the complaint, to borrow language from United States v. Reading Co., 253 U. S. 26, 57, is that 'dominating power’ over the cab operating companies ‘was not obtained by normal expansion to meet the demands of a business growing as a result of superior and enterprising management, but by deliberate, calculated purchase for control.’ If that theory is borne out in this case by the evidence, coupled with proof of an undue restraint of interstate trade, a plain violation of the Act has occurred.” 332 U. S. at 227-28.
That view is in accord with previous decisions of the Court.
The legality of the acquisition by United States Steel of a market outlet for its rolled steel through the purchase of the manufacturing facilities of Consolidated depends not merely upon the fact of that acquired control but also upon many other factors. Exclusive dealings for rolled steel between Consolidated and United States Steel, brought about by vertical integration or otherwise, are not illegal, at any rate until the effect of such control is to unreasonably restrict the opportunities of competitors to market their product.
In United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U. S. 131, we were presented with a situation in which the government charged that vertical integration was illegal under the Sherman Act. We held that control by the major producer-distributors over nearly three-quarters of the first-run theaters in cities with population over 100,000 was not of itself illegal, and we remanded the case to the district court for further findings. In outlining the factors which we considered to be significant in determining the legality of vertical integration, we emphasized the importance of characterizing the nature of the market to be served, and the leverage on the market which the particular vertical integration creates or makes possible. A second test which we considered important in the Paramount case was the purpose or intent with which the combination was conceived. When a combination through its actual operation results in an unreasonable restraint, intent or purpose may be inferred; even though no unreasonable restraint may be achieved, nevertheless a finding of specific intent to accomplish such an unreasonable restraint may render the^actor liable under the Sherman Act. Compare United States v. Griffith. U. S. 100, 105.
It seems clear to us that vertical integration, as such without more, cannot be held violative of the Sherman Act. It is an indefinite term without explicit meaning. Even in the iron industry, where could a line be drawn — at the end of mining the ore, the production of the pig-iron or steel ingots, when the rolling mill operation is completed, fabrication on order or at some stage of manufacture into standard merchandise? No answer would be possible and therefore the extent of permissible integration must be governed, as other factors in Sherman Act violations, by the other circumstances of individual cases. Technological advances may easily require a basic industry plant to expand its processes into semi-finished or finished goods so as to produce desired articles in greater volume and with less expense.
It is not for courts to determine the course of the Nation’s economic development. Economists may recommend, the legislative and executive branches may chart legal courses by which the competitive forces of business can seek to reduce costs and increase production so that a higher standard of living may be available to all. The evils and dangers of monopoly and attempts to monopolize that grow out of size and efforts to eliminate others from markets, large or small, have caused Congress and the Executive to regulate commerce and trade in many respects. But no direction
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma -pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of New York 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.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
California imposes two insurance taxes on insurance companies doing business in the State. A premiums tax, set at a fixed percentage of premiums paid on insurance policies issued in the State, is imposed on both foreign and domestic insurance companies and a “retaliatory” tax, set in response to the insurance tax laws of the insurer’s home State, is imposed on some foreign insurance companies. This case presents the question of the constitutionality of retaliatory taxes assessed by the State of California against appellant Western & Southern Life Insurance Co., an Ohio corporation, and paid under protest for the years 1965 through 1971.
I
Section 685 of the California Insurance Code imposes a retaliatory tax on out-of-state insurers doing business in California, when the insurer’s State of incorporation imposes higher taxes on California insurers doing business in that State than California would otherwise impose on that State’s insurers doing business in California. In computing the retaliatory tax owed by a given out-of-state insurer, California subtracts the California taxes otherwise due from the total taxes that would be imposed on a hypothetical similar California company doing business in the out-of-state insurer’s State of incorporation. If the other State’s taxes on the hypothetical California insurer would be greater than California’s taxes on the other State’s insurer, a retaliatory tax in the amount of the difference is imposed. If the other State’s taxes on the hypothetical California insurer would be less than or equal to California’s taxes, however, California exacts no retaliatory tax from the other State’s insurer.
Western & Southern, an Ohio corporation headquartered in Ohio, has engaged in the business of insurance in California since 1955. During the years in question, the company paid a total of $977,853.57 to the State in retaliatory taxes. After unsuccessfully filing claims for refunds with appellee Board of Equalization, Western & Southern initiated this refund suit in Superior Court, arguing that California’s retaliatory tax violates the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.
The Superior Court tried the case on stipulated facts without a jury, and ruled that the retaliatory tax is unconstitutional. It ordered a full refund of retaliatory taxes paid, plus interest and costs. App. 78-79. The California Court of Appeal reversed, upholding the retaliatory tax. 99 Cal. App. 3d 410, 159 Cal. Rptr. 539. The California Supreme Court denied Western & Southern’s petition for hearing. App. 89. Western & Southern filed a notice of appeal in this Court, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 449 U. S. 817 (1980). We affirm.
II
The Commerce Clause provides that “The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce... among the several States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. In terms, the Clause is a grant of authority to Congress, not an explicit limitation on the power of the States. In a long line of cases stretching back to the early days of the Republic, however, this Court has recognized that the Commerce Clause contains an implied limitation on the power of the States to interfere with or impose burdens on' interstate commerce. Even in the absence of congressional action, the courts may decide whether state regulations challenged under the Commerce Clause impermissibly burden interstate commerce. See, e. g., Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U. S. 456 (1981); Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617 (1978).
Our decisions do not, however, limit the authority of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States as it sees fit. In the exercise of this plenary authority, Congress may “confe [r] upon the States an ability to restrict the flow.of interstate commerce that they would not otherwise enjoy.” Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U. S. 27, 44 (1980); see H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 542-543 (1949). If Congress ordains that the States may freely regulate an aspect of interstate commerce, any action taken by a State within the scope of the congressional authorization is rendered invulnerable to Commerce Clause challenge.
Congress removed all Commerce Clause limitations on the authority of the States to regulate and tax the business of insurance when it passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 59 Stat. 33, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq., as this Court acknowledged in State Board of Insurance v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 370 U. S. 451, 452 (1962). See also Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U. S. 205, 219, n. 18 (1979); Wilburn Boat Co. v. Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U. S. 310, 319 (1955). Nevertheless, Western & Southern, joined by the Solicitor General as amicus curiae, argues that the McCarran-Fergu-son Act does not permit “anti-competitive state taxation that discriminates against out-of-state insurers.” Brief for Appellant 28; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16. We find no such limitation in the language or history of the Act.
Section 1 of the Act, 59 Stat. 33, 15 U. S. C. § 1011, contains a declaration of policy:
“Congress declares that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States.”
Section 2 (a), 59 Stat. 33, 15 U. S. C. § 1012 (a), declares: “The business of insurance... shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” The unequivocal language of the Act suggests no exceptions.
The McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed in the wake of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533 (1944), which held that insurance is “commerce” within the meaning of the Commerce Clause. Prior to South-East ern Underwriters, insurance was not considered to be commerce within the meaning of the Commerce Clause, New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deer Lodge County, 231 U. S. 495 (1913); Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168 (1869), and thus “negative implication from the commerce clause was held not to place any limitation upon state power over the [insurance] business.” Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408, 414 (1946) (emphasis added). Believing that the business of insurance is “a local matter, to be subject to and regulated by the laws of the several States,” H. R. Rep. No. 143, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1945), Congress explicitly intended the McCarran-Ferguson Act to restore state taxing and regulatory powers over the insurance business to their pre-South-Eastern Underwriters scope. H. R. Rep. No. 143, supra, at 3; see SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U. S. 453, 459 (1969); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U. S. 409, 412-413 (1954).
The Court has squarely rejected the argument that discriminatory state insurance taxes may be challenged under the Commerce Clause despite the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, supra; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Hobbs, 328 U. S. 822 (1946) (per curiam). In Benjamin, the Court considered a South Carolina insurance premiums tax imposed solely on foreign insurance companies. The Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the tax “would be valid in the dormancy of Congress’ power,” 328 U. S., at 427, or whether the tax “would be discriminatory in the sense of an exaction forbidden by the commerce clause,” id., at 428. Expressly assuming that the tax would be discriminatory, id., at 429, the Court held that enactment of the McCarran-Ferguson Act “put the full weight of [Congress’] power behind existing and future state legislation to sustain it from any attack under the commerce clause to whatever extent this may be done with the force of that power behind it, subject only to the exceptions expressly provided for.” Id., at 431. In Hobbs, this Court sustained against a Commerce Clause challenge a Kansas retaliatory insurance tax indistinguishable from California’s. The Kansas Supreme Court, upholding the retaliatory tax, had held that the McCarran-Ferguson Act “left the matter of regulation and taxation of insurance companies to the states.” In re Insurance Tax Cases, 160 Kan. 300, 313, 161 P. 2d 726, 735 (1945). This Court summarily affirmed, citing Benjamin and its companion case, Robertson v. California, 328 U. S. 440 (1946). Prudential Ins. Co. v. Hobbs, supra, at 822.
We must therefore reject Western & Southern’s Commerce Clause challenge to the California retaliatory tax: the Mc-Carran-Ferguson Act removes entirely any Commerce Clause restriction upon California’s power to tax the insurance business.
Ill
Ordinarily, there are three provisions of the Constitution under which a taxpayer may challenge an allegedly discriminatory state tax: the Commerce Clause, see, e. g., Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274 (1977); the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, see, e. g., Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385 (1948); and the Equal Protection Clause, see, e. g., Wheeling Steel Corp. v. dander, 337 U. S. 562 (1949). This case assumes an unusual posture, however, because the Commerce Clause is inapplicable to the business of insurance, see Part II, supra, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause is inapplicable to corporations, see Hemphill v. Orloff, 277 U. S. 537, 548-550 (1928). Only the Equal Protection Clause remains as a possible ground for invalidation of the California tax.
The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the States to “deny to any person within [their] jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws/’ but does not prevent the States from making reasonable classifications among such persons. See Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356, 359-360 (1973); Allied Stores of Ohio v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522, 526-527 (1959). Thus, California’s retaliatory insurance tax should be sustained if we find that its classification is rationally related to achievement of a legitimate state purpose.
But as appellee points out, state tax provisions directed against out-of-state parties have not always been subjected to such scrutiny. Rather, a line of Supreme Court cases most recently exemplified by Lincoln National Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 325 U. S. 673 (1945), holds that a State may impose a tax on out-of-state corporations for the “privilege” of doing business in the State, without any requirement of a rational basis. Since the California courts have defined the retaliatory tax as a “privilege” tax, Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 4 Cal. App. 3d 21, 35, 84 Cal. Rptr. 88, 97-98 (1970), application of the reasoning of these cases would require us to sustain the tax without further inquiry into its rational basis. We must therefore decide first whether California’s retaliatory tax is subject to such further inquiry.
Some past decisions of this Court have held that a State may exclude a foreign corporation from doing business or acquiring or holding property within its borders. E. g., Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 326 U. S. 207, 211 (1945); Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 588-589, 592 (1839). From this principle has arisen the theory that a State may attach such conditions as it chooses upon the grant of the privilege to do business within the State. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall., at 181. While this theory would suggest that a State may exact any condition, no matter how onerous or otherwise unconstitutional, from a foreign corporation desiring to do business within it, this Court has also held that a State may not impose unconstitutional conditions on the grant of a privilege. E. g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 404 (1963); Wiernan v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 192 (1962); Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 271 U. S. 583, 592-593 (1926).
These two principles are in obvious tension. If a State cannot impose unconstitutional conditions on the grant of a privilege, then its right to withhold the privilege is less than absolute. But if the State’s right to withhold the privilege is absolute, then no one has the right to challenge the terms under which the State chooses to exercise that right. In view of this tension, it is not surprising that the Court’s attempt to accommodate both principles has produced results that seem inconsistent or illogical. Compare Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 535 (1877), with Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445 (1874); and compare Lincoln National Life Ins. Co. v. Read, supra, with Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U. S. 494 (1926).
The doctrine that a State may impose taxes and conditions at its unfettered discretion on foreign corporations, in return for granting the “privilege” of doing business within the State, originated in Paul v. Virginia, supra, a case decided only 15 months after the effective date of the Fourteenth Amendment. A Virginia statute required foreign insurance companies to purchase and file a specified amount of bonds as security for the protection of persons insured. No such requirement was imposed on domestic insurers. Several New York insurance companies refused to comply, and their agent was accordingly denied a license to engage in the insurance business in Virginia. The agent was prosecuted for selling insurance without a license; he defended on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, and the Commerce Clause.
This Court sustained the Virginia statute. Viewing corporations as recipients of “special privileges,” 8 Wall., at 181, and believing that “it might be of the highest public interest that the number of corporations in the State should be limited,” id., at 182, the Court held that a State’s assent to the creation of a domestic corporation or the entry of a foreign corporation “may be granted upon such terms and conditions as those States may think proper to impose.” Id., at 181. Under this view, there was no need for the Court to consider whether the statute was arbitrary, irrational, or discriminatory.
“[The States] may exclude the foreign corporation entirely; they may restrict its business to particular localities, or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as in their judgment will best promote the public interest. The whole matter rests in their discretion.” Ibid.
In two important respects, the legal underpinnings of Paul v. Virginia were soon eroded. First, the advent of laws of general incorporation, which swept the country in the late 19th century, see Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U. S. 517, 557-564 (1933) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), altered the very nature of the corporation. Such laws, stimulated largely by “the desire for equality and the dread of special privilege [s],” id., at 549, n. 4, permitted persons to form corporations freely, subject only to generally applicable requirements and limitations. Incorporation lost its status as a special privilege. See Henderson 68. Second, the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, introduced the constitutional requirement of equal protection, prohibiting the States from acting arbitrarily or treating similarly situated persons differently, even with respect to privileges formerly dispensed at the State’s discretion. The combination of general incorporation laws and equal protection necessarily undermined the doctrine of Paul v. Virginia. If the right to incorporate or to do business within a State ceases to be a privilege to be dispensed by the State as it sees fit, and becomes a right generally available to all on equal terms, then the argument for special ex-actions as “privilege taxes” is destroyed.
The Court was slow to recognize the consequences of these developments. In Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110 (1886), the first relevant decision governed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court unhesitatingly applied the doctrine of Paul v. Virginia to sustain a New York retaliatory insurance tax against an equal protection challenge. The Court held that a corporation is not a “person within [the State’s] jurisdiction,” 119 U. S., at 116, for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause unless it is in compliance with the conditions placed upon its entry into the State, and that a corporation assents to all state laws in effect at the time of its entry. Id., at 119.
“The State, having the power to exclude entirely, has the power to change the conditions of admission at anytime, for the future, and to impose as a condition the payment of a new tax, or a further tax, as a license fee. If it imposes such license fee as a prerequisite for the future, the foreign corporation, until it pays such license fee, is not admitted within the State or within its jurisdiction. It is outside, at the threshold, seeking admission, with consent not yet given.... By going into the State of New York in 1872, [the Philadelphia Fire Association] assented to such prerequisite as a condition of its admission within the jurisdiction of New York.” Id., at 119-120.
Justice Harlan dissented. Acknowledging that a State may prescribe certain conditions upon the entry of a foreign corporation, he insisted “that it is the settled doctrine of this court, that the terms and conditions so prescribed must not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, or inconsistent with any right granted or secured by that instrument.” Id., at 125. “Can it be,” he asked, “that a corporation is estopped to claim the benefit of the constitutional provision securing to it the equal protection of the laws simply because it voluntarily entered and remained in a State which has enacted a statute denying such protection to it and to like corporations from the same State?” Id., at 127.
Although dicta in several cases supported Justice Harlan’s view that a State may not impose conditions repugnant to the Constitution upon the grant of a privilege, see, e. g., Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410, 415 (1871); Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S., at 540, the Court continued to reject constitutional claims by corporations challenging conditions to entry. E. g., New York v. Roberts, 171 U. S. 658, 665-666 (1898); Horn Silver Mining Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305, 312-315 (1892); Pembina Consol. Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 184-185 (1888). Nonetheless, the first quarter of this century saw “an almost complete disintegration” of the doctrine of Paul v. Virginia. Henderson 111. The change became evident in the October Term 1909, when the Court decided four cases in conflict with the principle that the States possess unlimited power to condition the entry of foreign corporations. The most significant of these decisions for our purposes is Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400 (1910), which expressly rejected the contention “that the imposition of special taxes upon foreign corporations for the privilege of doing business within the State is sufficient to justify such different taxation.” Id., at 417.
The plaintiff, Southern Railway, had been admitted to do business in Alabama and had invested in permanent facilities in the State. At that time, franchise taxes imposed on domestic corporations were equal to privilege taxes imposed on foreign corporations. Later, Alabama imposed an additional privilege tax on foreign corporations, which Southern Railway challenged on equal protection grounds. The Court held that classifications among corporations for purposes of taxation are constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause only if they bear a “reasonable and just relation” to the purpose for which they are imposed. Ibid. Noting that there were domestic corporations in Alabama whose business was indistinguishable from that of Southern Railway, the Court stated that “[i]t would be a fanciful distinction to say that there is any real difference in the burden imposed because the one is taxed for the privilege of a foreign corporation to do business in the State and [the] other for the right to be a corporation.” Id., at 417-418. The Court held that “to tax the foreign corporation for carrying on business under the circumstances shown, by a different and much more onerous rule than is used in taxing domestic corporations for the same privilege, is a denial of the equal protection of the laws.” Id., at 418.
In Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U. S. 494 (1926), the Court extended the protections of Southern Railway against discriminatory taxation to corporations holding short-term licenses, and to those without substantial permanent property in the State. 272 U. S., at 508, 509, 514-515. With respect to the general tax burden on business, “the foreign corporation stands equal, and is to be classified with domestic corporations of the same kind.” Id., at 511.
After Hanover Fire Ins. Co., little was left of the doctrine of Paul v. Virginia and Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110 (1886). It was replaced by a new doctrine:
“It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose. But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited; and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the “United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.” Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 271 U. S., at 593-594.
See also Power Manufacturing Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490, 497 (1927).
The decision in Lincoln National Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 325 U. S. 673 (1945), thus stands as a surprising throwback to the doctrine of Paul v. Virginia and Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York. There, the Court seemed to adopt precisely the argument that was rejected in Hanover Fire Ins. Co.: “that a State may discriminate against foreign corporations by admitting them under more onerous conditions than it exacts from domestic companies... 325 U. S., at 677; cf. 272 U. S., at 507. The Court stated that the argument that a State may not impose unconstitutional conditions to entry “proves too much.” 325 U. S., at 677. “If it were adopted,” the Court said, “then the long-established rule that a State may discriminate against foreign corporations by admitting them under more onerous conditions than it exacts from dome,stic companies would go into the discard.” Ibid. So long as a tax is “levied upon the privilege of entering the State and engaging in business there,” it may not be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, even though it may impose a burden greater and more discriminatory than was imposed at the date of the corporation’s entry into the State. Id., at 678.
The holding in Lincoln National has been implicitly rejected in at least three subsequent cases. In Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U. S. 562 (1949), the Court struck down a provision of Ohio’s ad valorem tax law that subjected certain intangible property of non-Ohio corporations to a tax not applied to identical property of Ohio corporations. The Court concluded that the provision violated the Equal Protection Clause on the ground that the inequality of treatment was “not because of the slightest difference in Ohio’s relation to the decisive transaction, but solely because of the different residence of the owner.” Id., at 572. The decision in Wheeling Steel was not directly in conflict with that in Lincoln National, because the Ohio courts had held the tax in Wheeling Steel an “ad valorem property tax,... and in no sense a franchise, privilege, occupation, or income tax.” 337 U. S., at 572. However, the Wheeling Steel decision rejected the principle of Lincoln National: the opinion declared that a State’s power to exclude out-of-state corporations is limited by the Constitution; the State may not “exac[t] surrender of rights derived from the Constitution of the United States.” 337 U. S., at 571 (citing Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, supra, at 507).
In Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522 (1959), this Court sustained an Ohio statute exempting nonresidents from an ad valorem tax on certain property held in a storage warehouse, but not exempting Ohio residents from the tax. Without alluding to any possibility that legislative classifications based on State of incorporation should be subject to a different standard from other classifications, the Court held that state tax laws “must proceed upon a rational basis and may not resort to a classification that is palpably arbitrary.” Id., at 527.
Finally, in WHYY, Inc. v. Glassboro, 393 U. S. 117 (1968), this Court struck down a New Jersey statute exempting nonprofit corporations incorporated in New Jersey from tax, but denying a similar exemption to nonprofit corporations incorporated in other States. Disregarding Lincoln National, the Court stated the applicable principle of law as follows:
“This Court has consistently held that while a State may impose conditions on the entry of foreign corporations to do business in the State, once it has permitted them to enter, 'the adopted corporations are entitled to equal protection with the state’s own corporate progeny, at least to the extent that their property is entitled to an equally favorable ad valorem tax basis.’ Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U. S. 662, 571-572. See Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Bowers, 380 U. S. 258; Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U. S. 494; Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400.” 393 U. S., at 119-120.
In view of the decisions of this Court both before and after Lincoln National, it is difficult to view that decision as other than an anachronism. We consider it now established that, whatever the extent of a State’s authority to exclude foreign corporations from doing business within its boundaries, that authority does not justify imposition of more onerous taxes or other burdens on foreign corporations than those imposed on domestic corporations, unless the discrimination between foreign and domestic corporations bears a rational relation to a legitimate state purpose. As we held in Power Manufacturing Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S., at 493-494:
“No doubt there are... subjects as to which foreign corporations may be classified separately from both individuals and domestic corporations and dealt with differently. But there are other subjects as to which such a course is not admissible, the distinguishing principle being that classification must rest on differences pertinent to the subject in respect of which the classification is made.”
IV
In determining whether a challenged classification is rationally related to achievement of a legitimate state purpose, we must answer two questions: (1) Does the challenged legislation have a legitimate purpose? and (2) Was it reasonable for the lawmakers to believe that use of the challenged classification would promote that purpose? See Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U. S., at 461-463; Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93, 97-98 (1979).
The legislative purpose of California’s retaliatory tax is not difficult to discern, for such taxes have been a common feature of insurance taxation for over a century. Although variously expressed, the principal purpose of retaliatory tax laws is to promote the interstate business of domestic insurers by deterring other States from enacting discriminatory or excessive taxes. A survey of state retaliatory tax laws summarized:
“[WJhatever their character, it is obvious... that their ultimate object is not to punish foreign corporations doing business in the state, or retort the action of the foreign state in placing upon corporations of the enacting state doing business therein burdens heavier than those imposed upon corporations of such foreign state doing business in the enacting state, but to induce such foreign state to show the same consideration to corporations of the enacting state doing business therein as is shown to corporations of such foreign state doing business in the enacting state.” Annot., 91 A. L. R. 795 (1934).
Accord, Bankers Life Co. v. Richardson, 192 Cal. 113, 124-125, 218 P. 586, 591 (1923); State ex rel. Crittenberger v. Continental Ins. Co., 67 Ind. App. 536, 542, 116 N. E. 929, 936 (1917); Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Welch, 29 Kan. 672, 674-675 (1883); Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 233 Ky. 350, 351-352, 25 S. W. 2d 748, 749-750 (1930); State v. Ins. Co. of North America, 71 Neb. 320, 324, 99 N. W. 36, 38 (1904); Massachusetts Mut. Ins. Co. v. Knowlton, 94 N. H. 409, 412, 54 A. 2d 163, 165 (1947); Commonwealth v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 369 Pa. 560, 565-566, 87 A. 2d 255, 258 (1952); Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. State, 161 Wash. 135, 137-138, 296 P. 813, 814-815 (1931).
California’s retaliatory tax is based upon a model statute drafted by the insurance industry, and is virtually identical to that enacted by many other States. 4 California Assembly Interim Committee on Revenue and Taxation, The Insurance Tax, No. 15, pp. 64, 66 (1964) (hereafter Insurance Tax). Since the amount of revenue raised by the retaliatory tax is relatively modest, id., at 65, and the impetus for passage of the tax comes from the nationwide insurance industry, it is clear that the purpose is not to generate revenue at the expense of out-of-state insurers, but to apply pressure on other States to maintain low taxes on California insurers. As a committee of the California Assembly has said: “The actual rationale for the provision is that the application of the retaliatory laws acts as a deterrent to state taxation on the insurance industry.” Id., at 66.
Decisions by the California courts lend weight to this analysis. The Court of Appeal in the instant case held that the purpose of the retaliatory tax “is to put pressure on the several states to impose the same tax burden on all insurance companies, foreign or domestic, and thereby encourage the doing of interstate business.” 99 Cal. App. 3d, at 413, 159 Cal. Rptr., at 541. Accord, Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 4 Cal. App. 3d, at 34, 84 Cal. Rptr., at 96; Atlantic Ins. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 255 Cal. App. 2d 1, 4, 62 Cal. Rptr. 784, 786 (1967), cert. denied and appeal dism’d, 390 U. S. 529 (1968).
Many may doubt the wisdom of California’s retaliatory tax; indeed, the retaliatory tax has often been criticized as a distortion of the tax system and an impediment to the raising of revenue from the taxation of insurance. See, e. g., Council of State Governments, State Retaliatory Taxation of the Insurance Industry 12-13 (1977); Task Force Renort, Statement of Policy on Insurance Premium Taxation, 1 Proc. Nat. Assn, of Ins. Comm’rs 71 (1971); Report of New Jersey Tax Policy Comm., Pt. Y, pp. 47-48 (1972); Strickler, The Mess in State Premium Taxation of Insurance Companies, 69 Best’s Rev. 34, 38 (1969). But the courts are not empowered to second-guess the wisdom of state policies. Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 729 (1963). Our review is confined to the legitimacy of the purpose.
There can be no doubt that promotion of domestic industry by deterring barriers to interstate business is a legitimate state purpose. This Court has recognized the legitimacy of state efforts to maintain the profit level of a domestic industry, Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341, 363-367 (1943), and of efforts to “protect and enhance the reputation” of a domestic industry so that it might compete more effectively in the interstate market, Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 143 (1970). California’s effort on behalf of its domestic insurance industry is no less legitimate.
The mere fact that California seeks to promote its insurance industry by influencing the policies of other States does not render the purpose illegitimate. As we said in United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U. S. 452, 478 (1978):
“Any time a State adopts a fiscal or administrative policy that affects the programs of a sister State, pressure to modify those programs may result. Unless that pressure transgresses the bounds of the Commerce Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IY, § 2, see, e. g., Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U. S. 656 (1975), it is not clear how our federal structure is implicated.”
Having established that the purpose of California’s lawmakers in enacting the retaliatory tax was legitimate, we turn to the second element in our analysis: whether it was reasonable for California’s lawmakers to believe that use of the challenged classification would promote that purpose. We acknowledge at the outset that many persons believe that retaliatory taxes are not an effective means for accomplishment of the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mb. Justice: Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the issue whether the timely filing of a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), pursuant to § 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 259, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5, tolls the running of the period of limitation applicable to an action, based on the same facts, instituted under 42 U. S. C. § 1981.
I
Petitioner, Willie Johnson, Jr., is a Negro. He started to work for respondent Railway Express Agency, Inc., now, by change of name, REA Express, Inc. (REA), in Memphis, Tenn., in the spring of 1964 as an express handler. On May 31,1967, while still employed by REA, but now as a driver rather than as a handler, petitioner, with others, timely filed with the EEOC a charge that REA was discriminating against its Negro employees with respect to seniority rules and job assignments. He also charged the respondent unions, Brotherhood of Railway Clerks Tri-State Local and Brotherhood of Railway Clerks Lily of the Valley Local, with maintaining racially segregated memberships (white and Negro respectively). Three weeks later, on June 20, REA terminated petitioner’s employment. Petitioner then amended his charge to include an allegation that he had been discharged because of his race.
The EEOC issued its “Final Investigation Report” on December 22, 1967. App. 14a. The report generally supported petitioner’s claims of racial discrimination. It was not until more than two years later, however, on March 31, 1970, that the Commission rendered its decision finding reasonable cause to believe petitioner’s charges. And 9% more months went by before the EEOC, on January 15, 1971, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (e), as it then read, gave petitioner notice of his right to institute a Title VII civil action against the respondents within 30 days.
After receiving this notice, petitioner encountered some difficulty in obtaining counsel. The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, on February 12, 1971, permitted petitioner to file the right-to-sue letter with the court’s clerk as a complaint, in satisfaction of the 30-day requirement. The court also granted petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and it appointed counsel to represent him. On March 18, counsel filed a “Supplemental Complaint” against REA and the two unions, alleging racial discrimination on the part of the defendants, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Act and of 42 U. S. C. § 1981. The unions and REA respectively moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for dismissal of all claims.
The District Court dismissed the § 1981 claims as barred by Tennessee’s one-year statute of limitations. Tenn. Code Ann. §28-304 (Supp. 1974). Petitioner’s remaining claims were dismissed on other grounds.
In his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, petitioner, with respect to his § 1981 claims, argued that the running of the one-year period of limitation was suspended during the pendency of his timely filed administrative complaint with the EEOC under Title VII. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. 489 F. 2d 525 (1973). See also Jenkins v. General Motors Corp., 354 F. Supp. 1040, 1045-1046 (Del. 1973). Because of an apparent conflict between that ruling, and language and holdings in cases from other Circuits, we granted certiorari restricted to the limitation issue. We invited the Solicitor General to file a brief as amicus curiae expressing the views of the United States. 417 U. S. 929 (1974).
II
A. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted “to assure equality of employment opportunities by eliminating those practices and devices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 44 (1974). It creates statutory rights against invidious discrimination in employment and establishes a comprehensive scheme for the vindication of those rights.
Anyone aggrieved by employment discrimination may lodge a charge with the EEOC. That Commission is vested with the “authority to investigate individual charges of discrimination, to promote voluntary compliance with the requirements of Title VII, and to institute civil actions against employers or unions named in a discrimination charge.” 415 U. S., at 44. Thus, the Commission itself may institute a civil action. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. III). If, however, the EEOC is not successful in obtaining “voluntary compliance” and, for one reason or another, chooses not to sue on the claimant’s behalf, the claimant, after the passage of 180 days, may demand a right-to-sue letter and institute the Title VII action himself without waiting for the completion of the conciliation procedures. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1) (1970 ed., Supp. III). See H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 12 (1971); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973).
In the claimant’s suit, the federal district court is empowered to appoint counsel for him, to authorize the commencement of the action without the payment of fees, costs, or security, and even to allow an attorney’s fee. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. Ill) and 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (k). Where intentional engagement in unlawful discrimination is proved, the court may award backpay and order “such affirmative action as may be appropriate.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (g) (1970 ed., Supp. III). The backpay, however, may not be for more than the two-year period prior to the filing of the charge with the Commission. Ibid. Some District Courts have ruled that neither compensatory nor punitive damages may be awarded in the Title VII suit.
Despite Title VII’s range and its design as a comprehensive solution for the problem of invidious discrimination in employment, the aggrieved individual clearly is not deprived of other remedies he possesses and is not limited to Title VII in his search for relief. “[T]he legislative history of Title VII manifests a congressional intent to allow an individual to pursue independently his rights under both Title VII and other applicable state and federal statutes.” Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S., at 48. In particular, Congress noted "that the remedies available to the individual under Title VII are co-extensive with the indiv[i] dual’s right to sue under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, and that the two procedures augment each other and are not mutually exclusive.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 19 (1971). See also S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 24 (1971). Later, in considering the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have deprived a claimant of any right to sue under § 1981. 118 Cong. Rec. 3371-3373 (1972).
B. Title 42 U. S. C. § 1981, being the present codification of § 16 of the century-old Civil Rights Act of 1870, 16 Stat. 144, on the other hand, on its face relates primarily to racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. Although this Court has not specifically so held, it is well settled among the Federal Courts of Appeals — and we now join them — that § 1981 affords a federal remedy against discrimination in private employment on the basis of race. An individual who establishes a cause of action under § 1981 is entitled to both equitable and legal relief, including compensatory and, under certain circumstances, punitive damages. See, e. g., Caperci v. Huntoon, 397 F. 2d 799 (CA1), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 940 (1968); Mansell v. Saunders, 372 F. 2d 673 (CA5 1967). And a backpay award under § 1981 is not restricted to the two years specified for backpay recovery under Title VII.
Section 1981 is not coextensive in its coverage with Title VII. The latter is made inapplicable to certain employers. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e (b) (1970 ed., Supp. III). Also, Title VII offers assistance in investigation, conciliation, counsel, waiver of court costs, and attorneys’ fees, items that are unavailable at least under the specific terms of § 1981.
Ill
Petitioner, and the United States as amicus curiae, concede, as they must, the independence of the avenues of relief respectively available under Title VII and the older § 1981. See Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 416-417, n. 20 (1968). Further, it has been noted that the filing of a Title VII charge and resort to Title VIPs administrative machinery are not prerequisites for the institution of a § 1981 action. Long v. Ford Motor Co., 496 F. 2d 500, 503-504 (CA6 1974); Caldwell v. National Brewing Co., 443 F. 2d 1044, 1046 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 916 (1972); Young v. In ternational Tel. & Tel. Co., 438 F. 2d 757, 761-763 (CA3 1971). Cf. Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works, 427 F. 2d 476, 487 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. International Harvester Co. v. Waters, 400 U. S. 911 (1970).
We are satisfied, also, that Congress did not expect that a § 1981 court action usually would be resorted to only upon completion of Title VII procedures and the Commission’s efforts to obtain voluntary compliance. Conciliation and persuasion through the administrative process, to be sure, often constitute a desirable approach to settlement of disputes based on sensitive and emotional charges of invidious employment discrimination. We recognize, too, that the filing of a lawsuit might tend to deter efforts at conciliation, that lack of success in the legal action could weaken the Commission’s efforts to induce voluntary compliance, and that a suit is privately oriented and narrow, rather than broad, in application, as successful conciliation tends to be. But these are the natural effects of the choice Congress has made available to the claimant by its conferring upon him independent Administrative and judicial remedies. The choice is a valuable one. Under some circumstances, the administrative route may be highly preferred over the litigatory; under others, the reverse may be true. We are disinclined, in the face of congressional emphasis upon the existence and independence of the two remedies, to infer any positive preference for one over the other, without a more definite expression in the legislation Congress has enacted, as, for example, a proscription of a § 1981 action while an EEOC claim is pending.
We generally conclude, therefore, that the remedies available under Title VII and under § 1981, although related, and although directed to most of the same ends, are separate, distinct, and independent. With this base established, we turn to the limitation issue.
IV
A. Since there is no specifically stated or otherwise relevant federal statute of limitations for a cause of action under § 1981, the controlling period would ordinarily be the most appropriate one provided by state law. See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U. S. 318 (1914) (Civil Rights Act of 1871); Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp., 383 U. S. 696, 701-704 (1966) (Labor Management Relations Act); Cope v. Anderson, 331 U. S. 461 (1947) (National Bank Act); Chattanooga Foundry v. Atlanta, 203 U. S. 390 (1906) (Sherman Act); Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 610 (1895) (Patent Act). For purposes of this case, the one-year limitation period in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-304 (Supp. 1974) clearly and specifically has application. See Warren v. Norman Realty Co., 513 F. 2d 730 (CA8 1975). The cause of action asserted by petitioner accrued, if at all, not later than June 20, 1967, the date of his discharge. Therefore, in the absence of some circumstance that suspended the running of the limitation period, petitioner’s cause of action under § 1981 was time barred after June 20, 1968, over 2% years before petitioner filed his complaint.
B. Respondents argue that the only circumstances that would suspend or toll the running of the limitation period under § 28-304 are those expressly provided under state law. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 28-106 to 28-115 (1955 and Supp. 1974) and 28-301 (1955). Petitioner concedes, at least implicitly, that no tolling circumstance described in the State’s statutes was present to toll the period' for his § 1981 claim. He argues, however, that state law should not be given so broad a reach. He claims that, although the duration of the limitation period is bottomed on state law, it is federal law that governs other limitations aspects, such as tolling, of a § 1981 cause of action. Without launching into an exegesis on the nice distinctions that have been drawn in applying state and federal law in this area, we think it suffices to say that petitioner has overstated his case. Indeed, we may assume that he would argue vigorously in favor of applying state law if any of the Tennessee tolling provisions could be said to assist his cause.
Any period of limitation, including the one-year period specified by § 28-304, is understood fully only in the context of the various circumstances that suspend it from running against a particular cause of action. Although any statute of limitations is necessarily arbitrary, the length of ■ the period allowed for instituting suit inevitably reflects a value judgment concerning the point at which the interests in favor of protecting valid claims are outweighed by the interests in prohibiting the prosecution of stale ones. In virtually all statutes of limitations the chronological length of the limitation period is interrelated with provisions regarding tolling, revival, and questions of application. In borrowing a state period of limitation for application to a federal cause of action, a federal court is relying on the State’s wisdom in setting a limit, and exceptions thereto, on the prosecution of a closely analogous claim.
There is nothing anomalous or novel about this. State law has been followed in a variety of cases that raised questions concerning the overtones and details of application of the state limitation period to the federal cause of action. Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp., 383 U. S., at 706 (characterization of the cause of action); Cope v. Anderson, 331 U. S., at 465-467 (place where cause of action arose); Barney v. Oelrichs, 138 U. S. 529 (1891) (absence from State as a tolling circumstance). Nor is there anything peculiar to a federal civil rights action that would justify special reluctance in applying state law. Indeed, the express terms of 42 U. S. C. § 1988 suggest that the contrary is true.
C. Although state law is our primary guide in this area, it is not, to be sure, our exclusive guide. As the Court noted in Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp., 383 U. S., at 706-707, considerations of state law may be displaced where their application would be inconsistent with the federal policy underlying the cause of action under consideration.
■ Petitioner argues that a failure to toll the limitation period in this case will conflict seriously with the broad remedial and humane purposes of Title VII. Specifically, he urges that Title VII embodies a strong federal policy in support of conciliation and voluntary compliance as a means of achieving the statutory mandate of equal employment opportunity. He suggests that failure to toll the statute on a § 1981 claim during the pendency of an administrative complaint in the EEOC would force a plaintiff into premature and expensive litigation that would destroy all chances for administrative conciliation and voluntary compliance.
We have noted this possibility above and, indeed, it is conceivable, and perhaps almost to be expected, that failure to toll will have the effect of pressing a civil rights complainant who values his § 1981 claim into court before the EEOC has completed its administrative proceeding. One answer to this, although perhaps not a highly satisfactory one, is that the plaintiff in his § 1981 suit may ask the court to stay proceedings until the administrative efforts at conciliation and voluntary compliance have been completed. But the fundamental answer to petitioner’s argument lies in the fact — presumably a happy one for the civil rights claimant — that Congress clearly has retained § 1981 as a remedy against private employment discrimination separate from and independent of the more elaborate and time-consuming procedures of Title VII. Petitioner freely concedes that he could have filed his § 1981 action at any time after his cause of action accrued; in fact, we understand him to claim an unfettered right so to do. Thus, in a very real sense, petitioner has slept on his § 1981 rights. The fact that his slumber may have been induced by faith in the adequacy of his Title VII remedy is of little relevance inasmuch as the two remedies are truly independent. Moreover, since petitioner’s Title VII court action now also appears to be time barred because of the peculiar procedural history of this case, petitioner, in effect, would have us extend the § 1981 cause of action well beyond the life of even his Title VII cause of action. We find no policy reason that excuses petitioner’s failure to take the minimal steps necessary to preserve each claim independently.
V
Petitioner cites American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U. S. 538 (1974), and Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U. S. 424 (1965), in support of his position. Neither case is helpful. The respective periods of limitation in those cases were derived directly from federal statutes rather than by reference to state law. Moreover, in each case there was a substantial body of relevant federal procedural law to guide the decision to toll the limitation period, and significant underlying federal policy that would have conflicted with a decision not to suspend the running of the statute. In the present case there is no relevant body of federal procedural law to guide our decision, and there is no conflicting federal policy to protect. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the tolling effect given to the timely prior filings in American Pipe and in Burnett depended heavily on the fact that those filings involved exactly the same cause of action subsequently asserted. This factor was more than a mere abstract or theoretical consideration because the prior filing in each case necessarily operated to avoid the evil against which the statute of limitations was designed to protect.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The applicable statute later was amended to allow a period of 90 days, after issuance of the notice, in which to bring the Title VII action. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1) (1970 ed., Supp. Ill), as amended by Pub. L. 92-261, §4 (a), 86 Stat. 106.
“28-304. Personal tort actions — Malpractice of attorneys— Civil rights actions — Statutory penalties. — Actions for libel, for injuries to the person, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, criminal conversation, seduction, breach of marriage promise, actions and suits against attorneys for malpractice whether said actions are grounded or based in contract or tort, civil actions for compensatory or punitive damages, or both, brought under the federal civil rights statutes, and actions for statutory penalties shall be commenced within one (1) year after cause of action accrued.”
The District Court also based its dismissal of petitioner’s § 1981 claim against REA on the alternative ground that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Railway Labor Act, 44 Stat. 577, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. App. 102a. The Court of Appeals did not address the exhaustion argument. Inasmuch as we limited our grant of certiorari to the limitation issue, 417 U. S. 929 (1974), we have no occasion here to express a view as to whether a § 1981 claim of employment discrimination is ever subject to a requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted.
The claims against the unions were dismissed on res judicata grounds. App. 101a. The Court of Appeals agreed with that disposition. 489 F. 2d 525, 530 n. 1 (CA6 1973). This issue, also, was not included in our grant of certiorari.
See, e. g., Boudreaux v. Baton Rouge Marine Contracting Co., 437 F. 2d 1011, 1017 n. 16 (CA5 1971); Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., 156 U. S. App. D. C. 69, 84-86, n. 30, 478 F. 2d 979, 994-996, n. 30 (1973).
Loo v. Gerarge, 374 F. Supp. 1338, 1341-1342 (Haw. 1974); Howard v. Lockheed-Georgia Co., 372 F. Supp. 854, 855-856 (ND Ga. 1974); Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 368 F. Supp. 829, 835-838 (ND Cal. 1973). Cf. Humphrey v. Southwestern Portland Cement Co., 369 F. Supp. 832, 842-843 (WD Tex. 1973), rev’d on other grounds, 488 F. 2d 691 (CA5 1974).
Young v. International Tel. & Tel. Co., 438 F. 2d 757 (CA3 1971); Brown v. Gaston County Dyeing Machine Co., 457 F. 2d 1377 (CA4), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 982 (1972); Caldwell v. Na tional Brewing Co., 443 F. 2d 1044 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 916 (1972); Long v. Ford Motor Co., 496 F. 2d 500 (CA6 1974); Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works, 427 F. 2d 476 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. International Harvester Co. v. Waters, 400 U. S. 911 (1970); Brady v. Bristol-Meyers, Inc., 459 F. 2d 621 (CA8 1972); Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., supra.
In the petition for certiorari ■ it was argued that § 28-304 was inapplicable to petitioner’s claim because that statute is limited to claims for damages, whereas petitioner sought injunctive relief as well as backpay. Our limited grant of certiorari foreclosed our considering whether some other Tennessee statute, such as Tenn. Code Ann. §28-309 (1955) (six years fbr an action on,a contract) or § 28-310 (1955) (10 years on an action not otherwise provided for), might be the appropriate one. We also have no occasion to consider whether Tennessee’s express application of the one-year limitation period to federal civil rights actions is an impermissible discrimination against the federal cause of action, see Republic Pictures Corp. v. Kappler, 151 F. 2d 543, 546-547 (CA8 1945), aff’d, 327 U. S. 757 (1946), or whether the enactment of the limitation period after the cause of action accrued, Tenn. Pub. Acts 1969, c. 28, did not touch the pre-existing federal claim.
See generally Hill, State Procedural Law in Federal Nondiversity Litigation, 69 Harv. L. Rev. 66 (1955).
At oral argument petitioner advanced just such a proposition with respect to the applicability of Tennessee’s saving statute, Tenn. Code Ann. §28-106 (1955). Tr. of Oral Arg. 14. See also Pet. for Cert. 21 n. 27.
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1988 provides:
“The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of this chapter and Title 18, for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposit-ion of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction •of punishment on the party found guilty.”
We are not unmindful of the significant delays that have attended administrative proceedings in the EEOC. See, e. g., Chromcraft Corp. v. EEOC, 465 F. 2d 745 (CA5 1972); EEOC v. E. I. duPont deNemours & Co., 373 F. Supp. 1321, 1329 (Del. 1974).
In Burnett, the Court considered the effect of a prior filing of an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act in state court on the applicable three-year FELA period of limitation. The action had been dismissed because under state law the venue was improper. In view of the express federal policy liberally allowing transfer of improper-venue cases, see 28 U. S. C. § 1406 (a), and the desirability of uniformity in the enforcement of FELA claims, the Court concluded that the prior filing tolled the statute. In American Pipe we considered the effect that a timely filed civil antitrust purported class action should have on the applicable four-year federal period of limitation. The District Court found the suit an inappropriate one for class action status. In the light of the history of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 and the purposes of litigatory efficiency served by class actions, we concluded that the prior filing had a tolling effect.
We note expressly how little is at stake here. We are not really concerned with the- broad question whether these respondents can be compelled to conform their practices to the nationally mandated policy of equal employment opportunity. If the respondents, or any of them, presently are actually engaged in such conduct, there necessarily will be claimants who are in a position now either to file a charge under Title VII or to sue under § 1981. The question in this case is only whether this particular petitioner has waited so long that he has forfeited his right to assert his § 1981 claim in federal court.'
Petitioner argues that the timely filing of a charge with the EEOC has the effect of placing the charged employer on notice that a claim of discrimination is being asserted. Thus, petitioner argues, the employer, has the opportunity to protect itself against the loss- of evidence', the -disappearance and fading- memories of witnesses, and the unfair surprise that could result from a sudden revival of a claim that long has-been allowed'to slumber. See Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 321 U. S. 342, 348-349 (1944).
Even if we were to ignore the substantial span of time that could result from. tacking the § 1981 limitation period to the frequently protracted period of EEOC consideration) we are not at all certain that a Title VII charge affords the charged party the protection that petitioner suggests. -See, e. g., Tipler v. E. I. duPont deNemours & Co., 443 F. 2d 125, 131 (CA6 1971). Only'where there is complete identity of the causes of action will the protections suggested by petitioner necessarily exist and will the courts, have an opportunity to assess the influence of the policy of repose inherent in a limitation period. See generally Developments in the Law— Statutes of Limitation, 63 Harv. L. Rev. .1177, 1185-1186 (1950).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are called upon in this case to determine which state statute of limitations period should be borrowed and applied to an employee's action against his employer under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a), and Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554 (1976).
I
Petitioner United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), employed respondent Mitchell (respondent), as a car washer at its facility on Staten Island, N. Y. On January 13, 1977, respondent was discharged for dishonest acts, including falsifying his timecards and claiming payment for hours which he did not work. Respondent denied the charges against him and requested his union, Department Store and Wholesale Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 177 (the Union), to file a grievance on his behalf contesting the discharge. UPS and the Union were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement which provided a grievance and arbitration procedure for the resolution of disputes covered by the agreement. App. 57-67. Pursuant to the agreement respondent's grievance was submitted to a panel of the Atlantic Area Parcel Grievance Committee, composed of three union and three company representatives (the Joint Panel). Cf. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., supra, at 557, n. 2. The Joint Panel conducted a hearing, at which respondent was represented by the Union, and on February 16, 1977, it announced its decision that the discharge be upheld. App. 103-104. Under the collective-bargaining agreement this decision was “binding on all parties.'' Id., at 66; see id., at 103.
Seventeen months later, on July 20, 1978, respondent filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Union and UPS under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a). See Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., supra. He alleged that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation and that UPS discharged him not for the stated reasons, which it knew to be false, but to achieve savings by replacing full-time employees with part-time employees. App. 7-13. Both UPS and the Union moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred by New York’s 90-day statute of limitations for actions to vacate arbitration awards. Section 7511 (a) of the N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law (McKinney 1963) provides that “[a]n application to vacate or modify an [arbitration] award may be made by a party within ninety days after its delivery to him.”
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS and the Union, ruling that respondent’s action was properly characterized as one to vacate the arbitration award entered against him. The court reasoned: “The relief sought was expressly denied in an arbitration award issued as a result of a full-scale arbitration proceeding. The effect of any grant of the relief sought . . . would be to vacate the determination of the arbitrators.” App. 129. Respondent appealed and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. 624 F. 2d 394 (1980). That court held that the District Court should have applied New York’s 6-year limitations period for actions alleging breach of contract, N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law § 213 (2) (McKinney 1972). It reasoned that respondent’s action was analogous to a breach-of-contract action because the issues were whether the collective-bargaining agreement had been breached and whether the Union contributed to that breach by failure to discharge its duty of fair representation. The court further reasoned that a 6-year limitations period “provides for relatively rapid disposition of labor disputes without undermining an employee’s ability to vindicate his rights through § 301 actions.” 624 F. 2d, at 397-398.
We granted UPS’ petition for certiorari. 449 U. S. 898 (1980).
II
Congress has not enacted a statute of limitations governing actions brought pursuant to § 301 of the LMR.A. As this Court pointed out in Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S. 696, 704-705 (1966), “the timeliness of a §301 suit ... is to be determined, as a matter of federal law, by reference to the appropriate state statute of limitations.” Our present task is to determine which limitations period is “the most appropriate one provided by state law.” Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 462 (1975). This depends upon an examination of the nature of the federal claim and the federal policies involved. See Hoosier Cardinal, supra, at 706-707.
Although respondent did not style his suit as one to vacate the award of the Joint Panel, if he is successful the suit will have that direct effect. Respondent raises in his § 301 action the same claim that was raised before the Joint Panel— that he was discharged in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement. He seeks the same relief he sought before the Joint Panel — reinstatement with full backpay. In sum, “it is clear that [he] was dissatisfied with and simply seeks to upset the arbitrator’s decision that the company did not wrongfully discharge him.” Liotta v. National Forge Co., 629 F. 2d 903, 905-906 (CA3 1980), cert. pending, No. 80-890.
The Court of Appeals purported to rely on this Court’s decision in Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., but that decision strongly supports borrowing the limitations period for actions to vacate arbitration awards. As Hines makes clear, an employee may go behind a final and binding award under a collective-bargaining agreement and seek relief against his employer and union only when he demonstrates that his union’s breach of its duty “seriously undermine [d] the integrity of the arbitral process.” 424 U. S., at 567. Hines rejected the suggestion that “erroneous arbitration decisions must stand” in the face of the union’s breach of its duty, id., at 571, suggesting that the suits it sanctioned are aptly characterized as ones to vacate such arbitration decisions. Indeed the present writer, though in dissent on the merits in Hines, characterized the action as one to “vacate an . . . arbitration award.” Id., at 575. See also Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 336 (1964) (issue characterized as whether to enjoin implementation of decision of joint panel).
It is true that respondent’s underlying claim against his employer is based on the collective-bargaining agreement, a contract. It is not enough, however, for an employee such as respondent to prove that he was discharged in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement. “To prevail against either the company or-the Union, petitioners must not only show that their discharge was contrary to the contract but must also carry the burden of demonstrating breach of duty by the Union. . . . The grievance processes cannot be expected to be error-free.” Hines, 424 U. S., at 570-571. Thus respondent's characterization of his action against the employer as one for “breach of contract” ignores the significance of the fact that it was brought in the District Court pursuant to § 301 (a) of the LMRA and that the indispensable predicate for such an action is not a showing under traditional contract law that the discharge was a breach of the collective-bargaining agreement, but instead a demonstration that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Since the conclusion of the Joint Panel was, under the collective-bargaining agreement, “binding on all parties,” respondent was required in some way to show that the Union’s duty to represent him fairly at the arbitration had been breached before he was entitled to reach the merits of his contract claim. This, in our view, makes the suit more analogous to an action to vacate an arbitration award than to a straight contract action.
We think that the unfair representation claim made by an employee against his union, even though his employer may ultimately be called upon to respond in damages for it if he is successful, is more a creature of “labor law” as it has developed since the enactment of § 301 than it is of general contract law. We said in Hoosier Cardinal that one of the leading federal policies in this area is the “relatively rapid disposition of labor disputes.” 383 U. S., at 707. Cf. 29 U. S. C. § 160 (b) (6-month period under NLRA). This policy was one of the reasons the Court in Hoosier Cardinal chose the generally shorter period for actions based on an oral contract rather than that for actions upon a written contract, 383 U. S., at 707, and similar analysis supports our adoption of the shorter period for actions to vacate an arbitration award in this case.
It is important to bear in mind the observations made in the Steelworkers Trilogy that “the grievance machinery under a collective bargaining agreement is at the very heart of the system of industrial self-government. . . . The processing . .. machinery is actually a vehicle by which meaning and content are given to the collective bargaining agreement.” Steelworkers v. Warrior & Culf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574, 581 (1960). Although the present case involves a fairly mundane and discrete wrongful-discharge complaint, the grievance and arbitration procedure often processes disputes involving interpretation of critical terms in the collective-bargaining agreement affecting the entire relationship between company and union. See, e. g., Humphrey v. Moore, supra (seniority rights of all employees). This system, with its heavy emphasis on grievance, arbitration, and the “law of the shop,” could easily become unworkable if a decision which has given “meaning and content” to the terms of an agreement, and even affected subsequent modifications of the agreement, could suddenly be called into question as much as six years later.
Obviously, if New York had adopted a specific 6-year statute of limitations for employee challenges to awards of a joint panel or similar body, we would be bound to apply that statute under the reasoning of Hoosier Cardinal. But in cases such as this, where generally state limitations periods were enacted prior to the enactment of § 301 by Congress in 1947, we are necessarily committed by prior decisional law to choosing among statutes of limitations none of which fit hand in glove with an action under § 301 (a) of the LMRA. Given the choices present here, and the undesirability of the results of the grievance and arbitral process being suspended in limbo for long periods, we think the District Court was correct when it chose the 90-day period imposed by New York for the bringing of an action to vacate an arbitration award.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
A direct conflict in the Circuits developed when the Third Circuit, confronted with the present question, borrowed the 3-month period contained in Pennsylvania's arbitration statute, reversing a District Court decision borrowing the State’s 6-year period for actions upon a contract. Liotta v. National Forge Co., 629 F. 2d 903 (1980), cert. pending, No. 80-890.
Amicus the American Federation of Labor and Congress of'Industrial Organizations has filed a brief arguing that, in cases such as the present, courts should apply the 6-month limitations period found in § 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (b). The AFL-CIO distinguishes the above-quoted language from Hoosier Cardinal on the ground that Hoosier Cardinal involved a § 301 action by a union against an employer, while actions brought by employees against both their union and employer pursuant to our decisions in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171 (1967), and Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554 (1976), are hybrid § 301 breach-of-duty actions, the union’s duty being implied from the NLRA. We decline to consider this argument since it was not raised by either of the parties here or below. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 532, n. 13 (1979); Knetsch v. United States, 364 U. S. 361, 370 (1960). Our grant of certiorari was to consider which state limitations period should be borrowed, not whether such borrowing was appropriate. See Pet. for Cert. i. The parties have considered the question as being limited to which state limitations period to borrow. See, e. g., Brief for Petitioner 8; Brief for Respondent 11. Since respondent filed his complaint beyond the 6-month period, the same result would obtain in this case were we to adopt the AFL-CIO’s position.
The Court of Appeals declined to borrow the limitations period for actions to vacate an arbitration award in part because of its view that discharged employees could not institute such actions under New York law, see In re Soto, 7 N. Y. 2d 397, 165 N. E. 2d 855 (1960). 624 F. 2d 394, 398 (1980). The fact that an employee could not bring a direct suit to vacate an arbitration award, however, does not mean that his § 301 claim, which if successful would have the same effect, is not “closely analogous” to such an action. See Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 464 (1975).
Respondent suggests Hines actions might also be characterized as actions upon a statute, personal injury actions, or malpractice actions, all governed by a 3-year limitations period in New York, N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law §§214(2), 214(5), 214(6) (McKinney 1972). All of these characterizations suffer from the same flaw as the effort to characterize the action as one for breach of contract: they overlook the fact that an arbitration award stands between the employee and any relief which may be awarded against the company.
New York is typical in providing a relatively short limitations period for actions to vacate arbitration awards. Cf. 42 States with specific limitations periods for such actions, 28 have a period of 90 days, 9 have shorter periods, 2 longer, and 3 States have periods based on the term of court. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A18-A19. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 12, provides a limitations period of three months.
The particular choice made in Hoosier Cardinal to borrow the limitations period for oral contracts is not binding in this case, not only because the issue in Hoosier Cardinal was between a 6-year period for oral contracts and a 20-year period for written contracts, but also because the claim in Hoosier Cardinal was not one to overturn an arbitration award.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Goldberg join.
Under a Kansas statute authorizing the seizure of allegedly obscene books before an adversary determination of their obscenity and, after that determination, their destruction by burning or otherwise, the Attorney General of Kansas obtained an order from the District Court of Geary County directing the sheriff of the county to seize and impound, pending hearing, copies of certain paperback novels at the place of business of P-K News Service, Junction City, Kansas. After hearing, the court entered a second order directing the sheriff to destroy the 1,715 copies of 31 novels which had been seized. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the procedures met constitutional requirements and affirmed the District Court’s order. 191 Kan. 13, 379 P. 2d 254. Probable jurisdiction was noted, 375 U. S. 919. We conclude that the procedures followed in issuing the warrant for the seizure of the books, and authorizing their impounding pending hearing, were constitutionally insufficient because they did not adequately safeguard against the suppression of nonobscene books. For this reason we think the judgment must be reversed. Therefore we do not reach, and intimate no view upon, the appellants’ contention that the Kansas courts erred in holding that the novels are obscene.
Section 4 of the Kansas statute requires the filing of a verified Information stating only that “upon information and belief . . . there is [an] . . . obscene book . . . located within his county.” The State Attorney General went further, however, and filed an Information identifying by title 59 novels, and stating that “each of said books [has] been published as 'This is an original Nightstand Book.’ ” He also filed with the Information copies of seven novels published under that caption, six of which were named by title in the Information; particular passages in the seven novels were marked with penciled notations or slips of paper. Although also not expressly required by the statute, the district judge, on application of the Attorney General, conducted a 45-min-ute ex parte inquiry during which he “scrutinized” the seven books; at the conclusion of this examination, he stated for the record that they “appear to be obscene literature as defined” under the Kansas statute “and give this Court reasonable grounds to believe that any paper-backed publication carrying the following: 'This is an original Night Stand book’ would fall within the same category . . . He issued a warrant which authorized the sheriff to seize only the particular novels identified by title in the Information. When the warrant was executed on the date it was issued, only 31 of the titles were found on P-K’s premises. All copies of such titles, however, 1,715 books in all, were seized and impounded. At the hearing held 10 days later pursuant to a notice included in the warrant, P-K made a motion to quash the Information and the warrant on the ground, among others, that the procedure preceding the seizure was constitutionally deficient. The claim was that by failing first to afford P-K a hearing on the question whether the books were obscene, the procedure “operates as a prior restraint on the circulation and dissemination of books” in violation of the constitutional restrictions against abridgment of freedom of speech and press. The motion was denied, and following a final hearing held about seven weeks after the seizure (the hearing date was continued on motion of P-K), the court held that all 31 novels were obscene and ordered the sheriff to stand ready to destroy the 1,715 copies on further order.
The steps taken beyond the express requirements of the statute were thought by the Attorney General to be necessary under our decision in Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717, decided a few weeks before the Information was filed. Marcus involved a proceeding under a strikingly similar Missouri search and seizure statute and implementing rule of court. See 367 U. S. 719, at notes 2, 3. In Marcus the warrant gave the police virtually unlimited authority to seize any publications which they considered to be obscene, and was issued on a verified complaint lacking any specific description of the publications to be seized, and without prior submission of any publications whatever to the judge issuing the warrant. We reversed a judgment directing the destruction of the copies of 100 publications held to be obscene, holding that, even assuming that they were obscene, the procedures leading to their condemnation were constitutionally deficient for lack of safeguards to prevent suppression of nonobscene publications protected by the Constitution.
It is our view that since the warrant here authorized the sheriff to seize all copies of the specified titles, and since P-K was not afforded a hearing on the question of the obscenity even of' the seven novels before the warrant issued, the procedure was likewise constitutionally deficient. This is the teaching of Kingsley Books, Inc., v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436. See Marcus, at pp. 734-738. The New York injunctive procedure there sustained does not afford ex parte relief but postpones all injunctive relief until “both sides have had an opportunity to be heard.” Tenney v. Liberty News Distributors, 13 App. Div. 2d 770, 215 N. Y. S. 2d 663, 664. In Marcus we explicitly said that Kingsley Books “does not support the proposition that the State may impose the extensive restraints imposed here on the distribution of these publications prior to an adversary proceeding on the issue of obscenity, irrespective of whether or not the material is legally obscene.” 367 U. S., at 735-736. A seizure of all copies of the named titles is indeed more repressive than an injunction preventing further sale of the books. State regulation of obscenity must “conform to procedures that will ensure against the curtailment of constitutionally protected expression, which is often separated from obscenity only by a dim and uncertain line.” Bantam Books, Inc., v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 66; the Constitution requires a procedure “designed to focus searchingly on the question of obscenity,” Marcus, p. 732. We therefore conclude that in not first affording P-K an adversary hearing, the procedure leading to the seizure order was constitutionally deficient. What we said of the Missouri procedure, id., at 736-737, also fits the Kansas procedure employed to remove these books from circulation:
“. . . there is no doubt that an effective restraint— indeed the most effective restraint possible — was imposed prior to hearing on the circulation of the publications in this case, because all copies on which the [sheriff] could lay [his] hands were physically removed . . . from the premises of the wholesale distributor. An opportunity ... to circulate the [books] . . . and then raise the claim of nonob-scenity by way of defense to a prosecution for doing so was never afforded these appellants because the copies they possessed were taken away. Their ability to circulate their publications was left to the chance of securing other copies, themselves subject to mass seizure under other such warrants. The public’s opportunity to obtain the publications was thus determined by the distributor’s readiness and ability to outwit the police by obtaining and selling other copies before they in turn could be seized. In addition to its unseemliness, we do not believe that this kind of enforced competition affords a reasonable likelihood that nonobscene publications, entitled to constitutional protection, will reach the public. A distributor may have every reason to believe that a publication is constitutionally protected and will be so held after judicial hearing, but his belief is unavailing as against the contrary [ex parte] judgment [pursuant to which the sheriff] . . . seizes it from him.”
It is no answer to say that obscene books are contraband, and that consequently the standards governing searches and seizures of allegedly obscene books should not differ from those applied with respect to narcotics, gambling paraphernalia and other contraband. We rejected that proposition in Marcus. We said, 367 U. S., at 730-731:
“The Missouri Supreme Court’s assimilation of obscene literature to gambling paraphernalia or other contraband for purposes of search and seizure does not therefore answer the appellants’ constitutional claim, but merely restates the issue whether obscenity may be treated in the same way. The authority to the police officers under the warrants issued in this case, broadly to seize ‘obscene . . . publications,’ poses problems not raised by the warrants to seize ‘gambling implements’ and ‘all intoxicating liquors’ involved in the cases cited by the Missouri Supreme Court. 334 S. W. 2d, at 125. For the use of these warrants implicates questions whether the procedures leading to their issuance and surrounding their execution were adequate to avoid suppression of constitutionally protected publications. ‘. . . [T]he line between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may legitimately be regulated, suppressed, or punished is finely drawn. . . . The separation of legitimate from illegitimate speech calls for . . . sensitive tools . . . .’ Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 525. It follows that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a State is not free to adopt whatever procedures it pleases for dealing with obscenity as here involved without regard to the possible consequences for constitutionally protected speech.”
See also Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 152-153.
Nor is the order under review saved because, after all 1,715 copies were seized and removed from circulation, P-K News Service was afforded a full hearing on the question of the obscenity of the novels. For if seizure of books precedes an adversary, determination of their obscenity, there is danger of abridgment of the right of the public in a free society to unobstructed circulation of non-obscene books. Bantam Books v. Sullivan, supra; Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476; Marcus v. Search Warrant, supra; Smith v. California, supra. Here, as in Marcus, “since a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment infected the proceedings, in order to vindicate appellants’ constitutional rights” 367 U. S., at 738, the judgment resting on a finding of obscenity must be reversed.
Reversed.
Opinion of
Mr. Justice Black,
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins.
The Kansas State Court judgment here under review orders that 1,715 copies of 31 novels be burned or otherwise destroyed. This book-burning judgment was based upon findings by the trial judge that “the core [of the books] would seem to be that of sex, with the plot, if any, being subservient thereto,” that the “dominant purpose [of the books] was calculated to effectively incite sexual desires” and that “they would have this effect on the average person residing in this community . . . .” Relying on these findings and this Court’s holding in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, the trial court held that the books “are not entitled to the . . . protection” of the First- Amendment to the Constitution. The State Supreme Court affirmed on the same grounds.
This Court now reverses. I concur in the judgment of reversal but do not find it necessary to consider the procedural questions. Compare Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717, 738 (concurring opinion). The Kansas courts may have been right to rely upon the Court’s Roth holding in ordering these books burned or otherwise destroyed. For reasons stated in the Roth case in a dissent by Mr. Justice Douglas, 354 U. S., at 508, in which I joined, I think the Roth case was wrongly decided. It is my belief, as stated in that dissent by Mr. Justice Douglas, in my concurring opinions in Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 155, and Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U. S. 684, 690, and in my dissent in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 267, which Mr. Justice Douglas joined, that the Kansas statute ordering the burning of these books is in plain violation of the unequivocal prohibition of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, against “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Because of my belief that both Roth and Beau-harnais draw blueprints showing how to avoid the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedoms of speech and press, I would overrule both those cases as well as reverse the judgment here.
The statute is Kan. Gen. Stat. §21-1102 et seq. (Supp. 1961). Section 1 of Kan. Laws 1961, c. 186 (§ 21-1102), constitutes the selling or distribution of obscene materials (obscenity is defined in § 1 (b)) a criminal misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Section 4 (§ 21 — 1102c) provides for the search and seizure procedure here involved:
“Whenever any district, county, common pleas, or city court judge or justice of the peace shall receive an information or complaint, signed and verified upon information and belief by the county attorney or the attorney general, stating there is any prohibited lewd, lascivious or obscene book, magazine, newspaper, writing, pamphlet, ballad, printed paper, print, picture, motion pictures, drawing, photograph, publication or other thing, as set out in section 1 [21-1102] (a) of this act, located within his county, it shall be the duty of such judge to forthwith issue his search warrant directed to the sheriff or any other duly constituted peace officer to seize and bring before said judge or justice such a prohibited item or items. Any peace officer seizing such item or items as hereinbefore described shall leave a copy of such warrant with any manager, servant, employee or other person appearing or acting in the capacity of exercising any control over the premises where such item or items are found or, if no person is there found, such warrant may be posted by said peace officer in a conspicuous place upon the premises where found and said warrant shall serve as notice to all interested persons of a hearing to be had at a time not less than ten (10) days after such seizure. At such hearing, the judge or justice issuing the warrant shall determine whether or not the item or items so seized and brought before him pursuant to said warrant were kept upon the premises where found in violation of any of the provisions of this act. If he shall so find, he shall order such item or items to be destroyed by the sheriff or any duly constituted peace officer by burning or otherwise, at such time as such judge shall order, and satisfactory return thereof made to him: Provided, however, Such item or items shall not be destroyed so long as they may be needed as evidence in any criminal prosecution.”
P-K News Service also asserts that its constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. The result here makes it unnecessary to pass upon this 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: | 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.
This ease calls for determinations parallel in some respects to those discussed in today’s opinion in Harrington v. Richter, ante, p. 86. Here, as in Richter, the Court reviews a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting federal habeas corpus relief in a challenge to a state criminal conviction. Here, too, the case turns on the proper implementation of one of the stated premises for issuance of federal habeas corpus contained in 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d), the instruction that federal habeas corpus relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state court has adjudicated on the merits unless, among other exceptions, the state court’s decision denying relief involves “an unreasonable application” of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” And, as in Richter, the relevant clearly established law derives from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), which provides the standard for inadequate assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Richter involves a California conviction and addresses the adequacy of representation when counsel did not consult or use certain experts in pretrial preparation and at trial. The instant case involves an unrelated Oregon conviction and concerns the adequacy of representation in providing an assessment of a plea bargain without first seeking suppression of a confession assumed to have been improperly obtained.
I
On December 7, 1995, respondent Randy Moore and two confederates attacked Kenneth Rogers at his home and bloodied him before tying him with duct tape and throwing him in the trunk of a car. They drove into the Oregon countryside, where Moore shot Rogers in the temple, killing him.
Afterwards, Moore and one of his accomplices told two people — Moore’s brother and the accomplice’s girlfriend— about the crimes. According to Moore’s brother, Moore and his accomplice admitted:
“[T]o make an example and put some scare into Mr. Rogers . . . , they had blind-folded him [and] duct taped him and put him in the trunk of the car and took him out to a place that’s a little remote .... [T]heir intent was to leave him there and make him walk home ....
“[Moore] had taken the revolver from Lonnie and at the time he had taken it, Mr. Rogers had slipped backwards on the mud and the gun discharged.” App. 157-158.
Moore and his accomplice repeated this account to the police. On the advice of counsel Moore agreed to plead no contest to felony murder in exchange for a sentence of 300 months, the minimum sentence allowed by law for the offense.
Moore later filed for postconviction relief in an Oregon state court, alleging that he had been denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. He complained that his lawyer had not filed a motion to suppress his confession to police in advance of the lawyer’s advice that Moore considered before accepting the plea offer. After an evidentiary hearing, the Oregon court concluded a “motion to suppress would have been fruitless” in light of the other admissible confession by Moore, to which two witnesses could testify. Id., at 140. As the court noted, Moore’s trial counsel explained why he did not move to exclude Moore’s confession to police:
“Mr. Moore and I discussed the possibility of filing a Motion to Suppress and concluded that it would be unavailing, because... he had previously made a full confession to his brother and to [his accomplice’s girlfriend], either one of whom could have been called as a witness at any time to repeat his confession in full detail.” Jordan Affidavit (Feb. 26,1999), App. to Pet. for Cert. 70, ¶4.
Counsel added that he had made Moore aware of the possibility of being charged with aggravated murder, which carried a potential death sentence, as well as the possibility of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. See Ore. Rev. Stat. § 163.105(l)(a) (1995). The intense and serious abuse to the victim before the shooting might well have led the State to insist on a strong response. In light of these facts the Oregon court concluded Moore had not established ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland.
Moore filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, renewing his ineffective-assistance claim. The District Court denied the petition, finding sufficient evidence to support the Oregon court’s conclusion that suppression would not have made a difference.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Moore v. Czerniak, 574 F. 3d 1092 (2009). In its view the state court’s conclusion that counsel’s action did not constitute ineffective assistance was an unreasonable application of clearly established law in light of Strickland and was contrary to Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991). Six judges dissented from denial of rehearing en banc. 574 F. 3d, at 1162.
We granted certiorari sub nom. Belleque v. Moore, 559 U. S. 1004 (2010).
II
The statutory authority of federal courts to issue habeas corpus relief for persons in state custody is defined by 28 U. S. C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The text of § 2254(d) states:
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
“(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
AEDPA prohibits federal habeas relief for any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court, unless one of the exceptions listed in § 2254(d) obtains. Relevant here is § 2254(d)(l)’s exception “permitting relitigation where the earlier state decision resulted from an 'unreasonable application of’ clearly established federal law.” Richter, ante, at 100. The applicable federal law consists of the rules for determining when a criminal defendant has received inadequate representation as defined in Strickland.
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel “a defendant must show both deficient performance by counsel and prejudice.” Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U. S. 111, 122 (2009). In addressing this standard and its relationship to AEDPA, the Court today in Richter, ante, at 104-105, gives the following explanation:
“To establish deficient performance, a person challenging a conviction must show that ‘counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’ [Strickland,] 466 U. S., at 688. A court considering a claim of ineffective assistance must apply a 'strong presumption’ that counsel's representation was within the ‘wide range’ of reasonable professional assistance. Id., at 689. The challenger’s burden is to show ‘that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.’ Id., at 687.
“With respect to prejudice, a challenger must demonstrate ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’. . .
“ ‘Surmounting Strickland’s high bar is never an easy task.’ Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356, 371 (2010). An ineffective-assistance claim can function as a way to escape rules of waiver and forfeiture and raise issues not presented at trial [or in pretrial proceedings], and so the Strickland standard must be applied with scrupulous care, lest ‘intrusive post-trial inquiry’ threaten the integrity of the very adversary process the right to counsel is meant to serve. Strickland, 466 U. S., at 689-690. Even under de novo review, the standard for judging counsel’s representation is a most deferential one. Unlike a later reviewing court, the attorney observed the relevant proceedings, knew of materials outside the record, and interacted with the client, with opposing counsel, and with the judge. It is ‘all too tempting’ to ‘second-guess counsel's assistance after conviction or adverse sentence.’ Id., at 689; see also Bell v. Cone, 535 U. S. 685, 702 (2002); Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U. S. 364, 372 (1993). The question is whether an attorney’s representation amounted to incompetence under ‘prevailing professional norms,’ not whether it deviated from best practices or most common custom. Strickland, 466 U. S., at 690.
“Establishing that a state court’s application of Strickland was unreasonable under § 2254(d) is all the more difficult. The standards created by Strickland and § 2254(d) are both ‘highly deferential,’ id., at 689; Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, 333, n. 7 (1997), and when the two apply in tandem, review is ‘doubly’ so, Knowles, 556 U. S., at 123. The Strickland standard is a general one, so the range of reasonable applications is substantial. 556 U. S., at 123. Federal habeas courts must guard against the danger of equating unreasonableness under Strickland with unreasonableness under § 2254(d). When § 2254(d) applies, the question is not whether counsers actions were reasonable. The question is whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.”
Ill
The question becomes whether Moore’s counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to seek suppression of Moore’s confession to police before advising Moore regarding the plea. Finding that any “motion to suppress would have been fruitless,” the state postconviction court concluded that Moore had not received ineffective assistance of counsel. App. 140. The state court did not specify whether this was because there was no deficient performance under Strickland or because Moore suffered no Strickland prejudice, or both. To overcome the limitation imposed by § 2254(d), the Court of Appeals had to conclude that both findings would have involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Richter, ante, at 109-110. In finding that this standard was met, the Court of Appeals erred, for the state-court decision was not an unreasonable application of either part of the Strickland rule.
A
The Court of Appeals was wrong to accord scant deference to counsel’s judgment, and doubly wrong to conclude it would have been unreasonable to find that the defense attorney qualified as counsel for Sixth Amendment purposes. Knowles, supra, at 123; Strickland, supra, at 687. Counsel gave this explanation for his decision to discuss the plea bargain without first challenging Moore’s confession to the police: that suppression would serve little purpose in light of Moore’s other full and admissible confession, to which both his brother and his accomplice’s girlfriend could testify. The state court would not have been unreasonable to accept this explanation.
Counsel also justified his decision by asserting that any motion to suppress was likely to fail. Reviewing the reasonableness of that justification is complicated by the possibility that petitioner forfeited one argument that would have supported its position: The Court of Appeals assumed that a motion would have succeeded because the warden did not argue otherwise. Of course that is not the same as a concession that no competent attorney would think a motion to suppress would have failed, which is the relevant question under Strickland. See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U. S. 365, 382 (1986); Richter, ante, at 109-110. It is unnecessary to consider whether counsel’s second justification was reasonable, however, since the first and independent explanation— that suppression would have been futile — confirms that his representation was adequate under Strickland, or at least that it would have been reasonable for the state court to reach that conclusion.
Acknowledging guilt and accepting responsibility by an early plea respond to certain basic premises in the law and its fimetion. Those principles are eroded if a guilty plea is too easily set aside based on facts and circumstances not apparent to a competent attorney when actions and advice leading to the plea took place. Plea bargains are the result of complex negotiations suffused with uncertainty, and defense attorneys must make careful strategic choices in balancing opportunities and risks. The opportunities, of course, include pleading to a lesser charge and obtaining a lesser sentence, as compared with what might be the outcome not only at trial but also from a later plea offer if the case grows stronger and prosecutors find stiffened resolve. A risk, in addition to the obvious one of losing the chance for a defense verdict, is that an early plea bargain might come before the prosecution finds its case is getting weaker, not stronger. The State’s case can begin to fall apart as stories change, witnesses become unavailable, and new suspects are identified.
These considerations make strict adherence to the Strickland standard all the more essential when reviewing the choices an attorney made at the plea bargain stage. Failure to respect the latitude Strickland requires can create at least two problems in the plea context. First, the potential for the distortions and imbalance that can inhere in a hindsight perspective may become all too real. The art of negotiation is at least as nuaneed as the art of trial advocacy, and it presents questions further removed from immediate judicial supervision. There are, moreover, special difficulties in evaluating the basis for counsel’s judgment: An attorney often has insights borne of past dealings with the same prosecutor or court, and the record at the pretrial stage is never as full as it is after a trial. In determining how searching and exacting their review must be, habeas courts must respect their limited role in determining whether there was manifest deficiency in light of information then available to counsel. Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U. S. 364, 372 (1993). AEDPA compounds the imperative of judicial caution.
Second, ineffective-assistance claims that lack necessary foundation may bring instability to the very process the inquiry seeks to protect. Strickland allows a defendant “to escape rules of waiver and forfeiture,” Richter, ante, at 105. Prosecutors must have assurance that a plea will not be undone years later because of infidelity to the requirements of AEDPA and the teachings of Strickland. The prospect that a plea deal will afterwards be unraveled when a court second-guesses counsel’s decisions while failing to accord the latitude Strickland mandates or disregarding the structure dictated by AEDPA could lead prosecutors to forgo plea bargains that would benefit defendants, a result favorable to no one.
Whether before, during, or after trial, when the Sixth Amendment applies, the formulation of the standard is the same: reasonable competence in representing the accused. Strickland, 466 U. S., at 688. In applying and defining this standard substantial deference must be accorded to counsel’s judgment. Id., at 689. But at different stages of the case that deference may be measured in different ways.
In the case of an early plea, neither the prosecution nor the defense may know with much certainty what course the case may take. It follows that each side, of necessity, risks consequences that may arise from contingencies or circumstances yet unperceived. The absence of a developed or an extensive record and the circumstance that neither the prosecution nor the defense case has been well defined create a particular risk that an after-the-fact assessment will run counter to the deference that must be accorded counsel’s judgment and perspective when the plea was negotiated, offered, and entered.
Prosecutors in the present case faced the cost of litigation and the risk of trying their case without Moore’s confession to the police. Moore’s counsel could reasonably believe that a swift plea bargain would allow Moore to take advantage of the State’s aversion to these hazards. And whenever cases involve multiple defendants, there is a chance that prosecutors might convince one defendant to testify against another in exchange for a better deal. Moore’s plea eliminated that possibility and ended an ongoing investigation. Delaying the plea for further proceedings would have given the State time to uncover additional incriminating evidence that could have formed the basis of a capital prosecution. It must be remembered, after all, that Moore’s claim that it was an accident when he shot the victim through the temple might be disbelieved.
It is not clear how the successful exclusion of the confession would have affected counsel’s strategic calculus. The prosecution had at its disposal two witnesses able to relate another confession. True, Moore’s brother and the girlfriend of his accomplice might have changed their accounts in a manner favorable to Moore. But the record before the state cpurt reveals no reason to believe that either witness would violate the legal obligation to convey the content of Moore’s confession. And to the extent that his accomplice’s girlfriend had an ongoing interest in the matter, she might have been tempted to put more blame, not less, on Moore. Then, too, the accomplices themselves might have decided to implicate Moore to a greater extent than his own confession did, say by indicating that Moore shot the victim deliberately, not accidentally. All these possibilities are speculative. What counsel knew at the time was that the existence of the two witnesses to an additional confession posed a serious strategic concern.
Moore’s prospects at trial were thus anything but certain. Even now, he does not deny any involvement in the kidnaping and killing. In these circumstances, and with a potential capital charge lurking, Moore’s counsel made a reasonable choice to opt for a quick plea bargain. At the very least, the state court would not have been unreasonable to so conclude. Cf. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U. S. 652, 664 (2004) (explaining that state courts enjoy “more leeway” under AEDPA in applying general standards).
The Court of Appeals’ contrary holding rests on a case that did not involve ineffective assistance of counsel: Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279. To reach that result, it transposed that case into a novel context; and novelty alone — at least insofar as it renders the relevant rule less than “clearly established” — provides a reason to reject it under AEDPA. See Yarborough, supra, at 666 (“Section 2254(d)(1) would be undermined if habeas courts introduced rules not clearly established under the guise of extensions to existing law .. . [, although cjertain principles are fundamental enough that when new factual permutations arise, the necessity to apply the earlier rule will be beyond doubt”). And the transposition is improper even on its own terms. According to the Court of Appeals, “Fulminante stands for the proposition that the admission of an additional confession ordinarily reinforces and corroborates the others and is therefore prejudicial.” 574 F. 3d, at 1111. Based on that reading, the Court of Appeals held that the state court’s decision “was contrary to Fulminante.” Id., at 1102. But Fulminante may not be so incorporated into the Strickland performance inquiry.
A state-court adjudication of the performance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment cannot be “contrary to” Fulminante, for Fulminante — which involved the admission of an involuntary confession in violation of the Fifth Amendment — says nothing about the Strickland standard of effectiveness. See Bell v. Cone, 535 U. S. 685, 694 (2002) (“A federal habeas court may issue the writ under the ‘contrary to’ clause if the state court applies a rule different from the governing law set forth in our cases, or if it decides a case differently than we have done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts”). The Fulminante prejudice inquiry presumes a constitutional violation, whereas Strickland seeks to define one. The state court accepted counsel’s view that seeking to suppress Moore’s second confession would have been “fruitless.” It would not have been unreasonable to conclude that counsel could incorporate that view into his assessment of a plea offer, a subject with which Fulminante is in no way concerned.
A finding of constitutionally adequate performance under Strickland cannot be contrary to Fulminante. The state court likely reached the correct result under Strickland. And under § 2254(d), that it reached a reasonable one is sufficient. See Richter, ante, at 109.
B
The Court of Appeals further concluded that it would have been unreasonable for the state postconviction court to have found no prejudice in counsel’s failure to suppress Moore’s confession to police. To prevail on prejudice before the state court Moore had to demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52, 59 (1985).
Deference to the state court’s prejudice determination is all the more significant in light of the uncertainty inherent in plea negotiations described above: The stakes for defendants are high, and many elect to limit risk by forgoing the right to assert their innocence. A defendant who accepts a plea bargain on counsel’s advice does not necessarily suffer prejudice when his counsel fails to seek suppression of evidence, even if it would be reversible error for the court to admit that evidence.
The state court here reasonably could have determined that Moore would have accepted the plea agreement even if his second confession had been ruled inadmissible. By the time the plea agreement cut short investigation of Moore’s crimes, the State’s case was already formidable and included two witnesses to an admissible confession. Had the prosecution continued to investigate, its case might well have become stronger. At the same time, Moore faced grave punishments. His decision to plead no contest allowed him to avoid a possible sentence of life without parole or death. The bargain counsel struck was thus a favorable one — the statutory minimum for the charged offense — and the decision to forgo a challenge to the confession may have been essential to securing that agreement.
Once again the Court of Appeals reached a contrary conclusion by pointing to Fulminante: “The state court’s finding that a motion to suppress a recorded confession to the police would have been ‘fruitless’... was without question contrary to clearly established federal law as set forth in Fulminante.” 574 F. 3d, at 1112. And again there is no sense in which the state court’s finding could be contrary to Fulminante, for Fulminante says nothing about prejudice for Strickland purposes, nor does it contemplate prejudice in the plea bargain context.
The Court of Appeals appears to have treated Fulminante as a per se rule of prejudice, or something close to it, in all cases involving suppressible confessions. It is not. In Fulminante five Justices made the uncontroversial observation that many confessions are powerful evidence. See, e. g., 499 U. S., at 296. Fulminante’s prejudice analysis arose on direct review following an acknowledged constitutional error at trial. The State therefore had the burden of showing that it was “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1, 18 (1999) (paraphrasing Fulminante, supra). That standard cannot apply to determinations whether inadequate assistance of counsel prejudiced a defendant who entered into a plea agreement. Many defendants reasonably enter plea agreements even though there is a significant probability — much more than a reasonable doubt — that they would be acquitted if they proceeded to trial. Thus, the question in the present case is not whether Moore was sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he would still be convicted if the extra confession were suppressed. It is whether Moore established the reasonable probability that he would not have entered his plea but for his counsel’s deficiency, Hill, supra, at 59, and more to the point, whether a state court’s decision to the contrary would be unreasonable.
To the extent Fulminante’s application of the harmless-error standard sheds any light on the present case, it suggests that the state court’s prejudice determination was reasonable. Fulminante found that an improperly admitted confession was not harmless under Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), because the remaining evidence against the defendant was weak. The additional evidence consisted primarily of a second confession that Fulminante had made to the informant’s fiance. But many of its details were not corroborated, the fiance had not reported the confession for a long period of time, the State had indicated that both confessions were essential to its case, and the fiance potentially “had a motive to lie.” 499 U. S., at 300. Moore’s plea agreement, by contrast, ended the government’s investigation well before trial, yet the evidence against Moore was strong. The accounts of Moore’s second confession to his brother and his accomplice’s girlfriend corroborated each other, were given to people without apparent reason to lie, and were reported without delay.
The State gave no indication that its felony-murder prosecution depended on the admission of the police confession, and Moore does not now deny that he kidnaped and killed Rogers. Given all this, an unconstitutional admission of Moore’s confession to police might well have been found harmless even on direct review if Moore had gone to trial after the denial of a suppression motion.
Other than for its discussion of the basic proposition that a confession is often powerful evidence, Fulminante is not relevant to the present case. The state postconviction court reasonably could have concluded that Moore was not prejudiced by counsel’s actions. Under AEDPA, that finding ends federal review. See Richter, ante, at 109.
Judge Berzon’s concurring opinion in the Court of Appeals does not provide a basis for issuance of the writ. The concurring opinion would have found the state court’s prejudice determination unreasonable in light of Kimmelman. It relied on Kimmelman to find that Moore suffered prejudice for Strickland purposes because there was a reasonable possibility that he would have obtained a better plea agreement but for his counsel’s errors. But Kimmelman concerned a conviction following a bench trial, so it did not establish, much less clearly establish, the appropriate standard for prejudice in cases involving plea bargains. See 477 U. S., at 389. That standard was established in Hill, which held that a defendant who enters a plea agreement must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” 474 U. S., at 59. Moore’s failure to make that showing forecloses relief under AEDPA.
IV
There are certain differences between inadequate-assistance-of-counsel claims in cases, where there was a full trial on the merits and those, like this one, where a plea was entered even before the prosecution decided upon all of the charges. A trial provides the full written record and factual background that serve to limit and clarify some of the choices counsel made. Still, hindsight cannot suffice for relief when counsel’s choices were reasonable and legitimate based on predictions of how the trial would proceed. See Richter, ante, at 108.
Hindsight and second guesses are also inappropriate, and often more so, where a plea has been entered without a full trial or, as in this case, even before the prosecution decided on the charges. The added uncertainty that results when there is no extended, formal record and no actual history to show how the charges have played out at trial works against the party alleging inadequate assistance. Counsel, too, faced that uncertainty. There is a most substantial burden on the claimant to show ineffective assistance. The plea process brings to the criminal justice system a stability and a certainty that must not be undermined by the prospect of collateral challenges in cases not only where witnesses and evidence have disappeared, but also in eases where witnesses and evidence were not presented in the first place. The substantial burden to show ineffective assistance of counsel, the burden the claimant must meet to avoid the plea, has not been met in this case.
The state postconviction court’s decision involved no unreasonable application of Supreme. Court precedent. Because the Court of Appeals erred in finding otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join.
In this case, we decide whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the State of California from sentencing a repeat felon to a prison term of 25 years to life under the State’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law.
r — <
A
California’s three strikes law reflects a shift in the State’s sentencing policies toward incapacitating and deterring repeat offenders who threaten the public safety. The law was designed “to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious and/or violent felony offenses.” Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 667(b) (West 1999). On March 3, 1993, California Assemblymen Bill Jones and Jim Costa introduced Assembly Bill 971, the legislative version of what would later become the three strikes law. The Assembly Committee on Public Safety defeated the bill only weeks later. Public outrage over the defeat sparked a voter initiative to add Proposition 184, based loosely on the bill, to the ballot in the November 1994 general election.
On October 1, 1993, while Proposition 184 was circulating, 12-year-old Polly Klaas was kidnaped from her home in Petaluma, California. Her admitted killer, Richard Allen Davis, had a long criminal history that included two prior kidnaping convictions. Davis had served only half of his most recent sentence (16 years for kidnaping, assault, and burglary). Had Davis served his entire sentence, he would still have been in prison on the day that Polly Klaas was kidnaped.
Polly Klaas’ murder galvanized support for the three strikes initiative. Within days, Proposition 184 was on its way to becoming the fastest qualifying initiative in California history. On January 3, 1994, the sponsors of Assembly Bill 971 resubmitted an amended version of the bill that conformed to Proposition 184. On January 31,1994, Assembly Bill 971 passed the Assembly by a 63 to 9 margin. The Senate passed it by a 29 to 7 margin on March 3, 1994. Governor Pete Wilson signed the bill into law on March 7, 1994. California voters approved Proposition 184 by a margin of 72 to 28 percent on November 8, 1994.
California thus became the second State to enact a three strikes law. In November 1993, the voters of Washington State approved their own three strikes law, Initiative 593, by a margin of 3 to 1. U. S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice, J. Clark, J. Austin, & D. Henry, “Three Strikes and You’re Out”: A Review of State Legislation 1 (Sept. 1997) (hereinafter Review of State Legislation). Between 1993 and 1995, 24 States and the Federal Government enacted three strikes laws. Ibid. Though the three strikes laws vary from State to State, they share a common goal of protecting the public safety by providing lengthy prison terms for habitual felons.
B
California’s current three strikes law consists of two virtually identical statutory schemes “designed to increase the prison terms of repeat felons.” People v. Superior Court of San Diego Cty. ex rel. Romero, 13 Cal. 4th 497, 504, 917 P. 2d 628, 630 (1996) (Romero). When a defendant is convicted of a felony, and he has previously been convicted of one or more prior felonies defined as “serious” or “violent” in Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§ 667.5 and 1192.7 (West Supp. 2002), sentencing is conducted pursuant to the three strikes law. Prior convictions must be alleged in the charging document, and the defendant has a right to a jury determination that the prosecution has proved the prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. § 1025; § 1158 (West 1985).
If the defendant has one prior “serious” or “violent” felony conviction, he must be sentenced to “twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction.” § 667(e)(1) (West 1999); § 1170.12(c)(1) (West Supp. 2002). If the defendant has two or more prior “serious” or “violent” felony convictions, he must receive “an indeterminate term of life imprisonment.” § 667(e)(2)(A) (West 1999); § 1170.12(c)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2002). Defendants sentenced to life under the three strikes law become eligible for parole on a date calculated by reference to a “minimum term,” which is the greater of (a) three times the term otherwise provided for the current conviction, (b) 25 years, or (c) the term determined by the court pursuant to §1170 for the underlying conviction, including any enhancements. §§667(e)(2)(A)(i)-(iii) (West 1999); §§ 1170.12(c)(2)(A)(i)-(iii) (West Supp. 2002).
Under California law, certain offenses may be classified as either felonies or misdemeanors. These crimes are known as “wobblers.” Some crimes that would otherwise be misdemeanors become “wobblers” because of the defendant’s prior record. For example, petty theft, a misdemeanor, becomes a “wobbler” when the defendant has previously served a prison term for committing specified theft-related crimes. §490 (West 1999); §666 (West Supp. 2002). Other crimes, such as grand theft, are “wobblers” regardless of the defendant’s prior record. See § 489(b) (West 1999). Both types of “wobblers” are triggering offenses under the three strikes law only when they are treated as felonies. Under California law, a “wobbler” is presumptively a felony and “remains a felony except when the discretion is actually exercised” to make the crime a misdemeanor. People v. Wil liams, 27 Cal. 2d 220, 229, 163 P. 2d 692, 696 (1945) (emphasis deleted and internal quotation marks omitted).
In California, prosecutors may exercise their discretion to charge a “wobbler” as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Likewise, California trial courts have discretion to reduce a “wobbler” charged as a felony to a misdemeanor either before preliminary examination or at sentencing to avoid imposing a three strikes sentence. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§ 17(b)(5), 17(b)(1) (West 1999); People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty. ex rel. Alvarez, 14 Cal. 4th 968, 978, 928 P. 2d 1171, 1177-1178 (1997). In exercising this discretion, the court may consider “those factors that direct similar sentencing decisions,” such as “the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s appreciation of and attitude toward the offense,... [and] the general objectives of sentencing.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
California trial courts can also vacate allegations of prior “serious” or “violent” felony convictions, either on motion by the prosecution or sua sponte. Romero, supra, at 529-530, 917 P. 2d, at 647-648. In ruling whether to vacate allegations of prior felony convictions, courts consider whether, “in light of the nature and circumstances of [the defendant’s] present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the [three strikes’] scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part.” People v. Williams, 17 Cal. 4th 148, 161, 948 P. 2d 429, 437 (1998). Thus, trial courts may avoid imposing a three strikes sentence in two ways: first, by reducing “wobblers” to misdemeanors (which do not qualify as triggering offenses), and second, by vacating allegations of prior “serious” or “violent” felony convictions.
C
On parole from a 9-year prison term, petitioner Gary Ewing walked into the pro shop of the El Segundo Golf Course in Los Angeles County on March 12, 2000. He walked out with three golf clubs, priced at $399 apiece, concealed in his pants leg. A shop employee, whose suspicions were aroused when he observed Ewing limp out of the pro shop, telephoned the police. The police apprehended Ewing in the parking lot.
Ewing is no stranger to the criminal justice system. In 1984, at the age of 22, he pleaded guilty to theft. The court sentenced him to six months in jail (suspended), three years’ probation, and a $300 fine. In 1988, he was convicted of felony grand theft auto and sentenced to one year in jail and three years’ probation. After Ewing completed probation, however, the sentencing court reduced the crime to a misdemeanor, permitted Ewing to withdraw his guilty plea, and dismissed the case. In 1990, he was convicted of petty theft with a prior and sentenced to 60 days in the county jail and three years’ probation. In 1992, Ewing was convicted of battery and sentenced to 30 days in the county jail and two years’ summary probation. One month later, he was convicted of theft and sentenced to 10 days in the county jail and 12 months’ probation. In January 1993, Ewing was convicted of burglary and sentenced to 60 days in the county jail and one year’s summary probation. In February 1993, he was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia and sentenced to six months in the county jail and three years’ probation. In July 1993, he was convicted of appropriating lost property and sentenced to 10 days in the county jail and two years’ summary probation. In September 1993, he was convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm and trespassing and sentenced to 30 days in the county jail and one year’s probation.
In October and November 1993, Ewing committed three burglaries and one robbery at a Long Beach, California, apartment complex over a 5-week period. He awakened one of his victims, asleep on her living room sofa, as he tried to disconnect her video cassette recorder from the television in that room. When she screamed, Ewing ran out the front door. On another occasion, Ewing accosted a victim in the mailroom of the apartment complex. Ewing claimed to have a gun and ordered the victim to hand over his wallet. When the victim resisted, Ewing produced a knife and forced the victim back to the apartment itself. While Ewing rifled through the bedroom, the victim fled the apartment screaming for help. Ewing absconded with the victim’s money and credit cards.
On December 9,1993, Ewing was arrested on the premises of the apartment complex for trespassing and lying to a police officer. The knife used in the robbery and a glass cocaine pipe were later found in the back seat of the patrol car used to transport Ewing to the police station. A jury convicted Ewing of first-degree robbery and three counts of residential burglary. Sentenced to nine years and eight months in prison, Ewing was paroled in 1999.
Only 10 months later, Ewing stole the golf clubs at issue in this case. He was charged with, and ultimately convicted of, one count of felony grand theft of personal property in excess of $400. See Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 484 (West Supp. 2002); §489 (West 1999). As required by the three strikes law, the prosecutor formally alleged, and the trial court later found, that Ewing had been convicted previously of four serious or violent felonies for the three burglaries and the robbery in the Long Beach apartment complex. See § 667(g) (West 1999); § 1170.12(e) (West Supp. 2002).
At the sentencing hearing, Ewing asked the court to reduce the conviction for grand theft, a “wobbler” under California law, to a misdemeanor so as to avoid a three strikes sentence. See §§ 17(b), 667(d)(1) (West 1999); § 1170.12(b)(1) (West Supp. 2002). Ewing also asked the trial court to exercise its discretion to dismiss the allegations of some or all of his prior serious or violent felony convictions, again for purposes of avoiding a three strikes sentence. See Romero, 13 Cal. 4th, at 529-531, 917 P. 2d, at 647-648. Before sen-fencing Ewing, the trial court took note of his entire criminal history, including the fact that he was on parole when he committed his latest offense. The court also heard arguments from defense counsel and a plea from Ewing himself.
In the end, the trial judge determined that the grand theft should remain a felony. The court also ruled that the four prior strikes for the three burglaries and the robbery in Long Beach should stand. As a newly convicted felon with two or more “serious” or “violent” felony convictions in his past, Ewing was sentenced under the three strikes law to 25 years to life.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed in an unpublished opinion. No. B143745 (Apr. 25, 2001). Relying on our decision in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S. 263 (1980), the court rejected Ewing’s claim that his sentence was grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. Enhanced sentences under recidivist statutes like the three strikes law, the court reasoned, serve the “legitimate goal” of deterring and incapacitating repeat offenders. The Supreme Court of California denied Ewing’s petition for review, and we granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 969 (2002). We now affirm.
II
A
The Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, contains a “narrow proportionality principle” that “applies to noncapital sentences.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 996-997 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); cf. Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 371 (1910); Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660, 667 (1962) (applying the Eighth Amendment to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment). We have most recently addressed the proportionality principle as applied to terms of years in a series of cases beginning with Rummel v. Estelle, supra.
In Rummel, we held that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment for a State to sentence a three-time offender to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Id., at 284-285. Like Ewing, Rummel was sentenced to a lengthy prison term under a recidivism statute. Rummel’s two prior offenses were a 1964 felony for “fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services,” and a 1969 felony conviction for “passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36.” Id., at 265. His triggering offense was a conviction for felony theft — “obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses.” Id., at 266.
This Court ruled that “[hjaving twice imprisoned him for felonies, Texas was entitled to place upon Rummel the onus of one who is simply unable to bring his conduct within the social norms prescribed by the criminal law of the State.” Id., at 284. The recidivism statute “is nothing more than a societal decision that when such a person commits yet another felony, he should be subjected to the admittedly serious penalty of incarceration for life, subject only to the State’s judgment as to whether to grant him parole.” Id., at 278. We noted that this Court “has on occasion stated that the Eighth Amendment prohibits imposition of a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime.” Id., at 271. But “[ojutside the context of capital punishment, successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences have been exceedingly rare.” Id., at 272. Although we stated that the proportionality principle “would . . . come into play in the extreme example ... if a legislature made overtime parking a felony punishable by life imprisonment,” id., at 274, n. 11, we held that “the mandatory life sentence imposed upon this petitioner does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,” id., at 285.
In Hutto v. Davis, 454 U. S. 370 (1982) (per curiam), the defendant was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 20 years in prison for possession with intent to distribute nine ounces of marijuana and distribution of marijuana. We held that such a sentence was constitutional: “In short, Rummel stands for the proposition that federal courts should be reluctant to review legislatively mandated terms of imprisonment, and that successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences should be exceedingly rare.” Id., at 374 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Three years after Rummel, in Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 279 (1983), we held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited “a life sentence without possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony.” The triggering offense in Solem was “uttering a ‘no account’ check for $100.” Id., at 281. We specifically stated that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments “prohibits .. . sentences that are disproportionate to the crime committed,” and that the “constitutional principle of proportionality has been recognized explicitly in this Court for almost a century.” Id., at 284, 286. The Solem Court then explained that three factors may be relevant to a determination of whether a sentence is so disproportionate that it violates the Eighth Amendment: “(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Id., at 292.
Applying these factors in Solem, we struck down the defendant’s sentence of life without parole. We specifically noted the contrast between that sentence and the sentence in Rummel, pursuant to which the defendant was eligible for parole. 463 U. S., at 297; see also id., at 300 (“[T]he South Dakota commutation system is fundamentally different from the parole system that was before us in Rummel”). Indeed, we explicitly declined to overrule Rummel: “[Q]ur conclusion today is not inconsistent with Rummel v. Estelle.” 463 U. S., at 303, n. 32; see also id., at 288, n. 13 (“[O]ur decision is entirely consistent with this Court’s prior cases — including Rummel v. Estelle”).
Eight years after Solem, we grappled with the proportionality issue again in Harmelin. Harmelin was not a recidivism case, but rather involved a first-time offender convicted of possessing 672 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. A majority of the Court rejected Harmelin’s claim that his sentence was so grossly disproportionate that it violated the Eighth Amendment. The Court, however, could not agree on why his proportionality argument failed. Justice Scalia, joined by The Chief Justice, wrote that the proportionality principle was “an aspect of our death penalty jurisprudence, rather than a generalizable aspect of Eighth Amendment law.” 501 U. S. at 994. He would thus have declined to apply gross disproportionality principles except in reviewing capital sentences. Ibid.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises a question concerning the extent to which the Railway Labor Act of 1926 imposes an obligation upon the parties to a railroad labor dispute to maintain the status quo while the “purposely long and drawn out” procedures of the Act are exhausted. Petitioner, a railroad, contends that the status quo which the Act requires be maintained consists only of the working conditions specifically covered in the parties’ existing collective-bargaining agreement. Respondent railroad brotherhood contends that what must be preserved as the status quo are the actual, objective working conditions out of which the dispute arose, irrespective of whether these conditions are covered in an existing collective agreement. For the reasons stated below, we think that only the union’s position is consistent with the language and purposes of the Railway Labor Act.
The facts involved in this case are these: The main line of the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line (Shore Line), petitioner’s railroad, runs from Lang Yard in Toledo, Ohio, 50 miles north to Dearoad Yard near Detroit, Michigan. For many years prior to 1961, Lang Yard was the terminal at which all train and engine crews reported for work and from which they left at the end of the day. As the occasions arose, the Shore Line transported crews from Lang Yard to perform switching and other operations at various points to the north, assuming the costs of transportation and overtime for the crew members. On February 21, 1961, the railroad advised respondent, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (BLF&E), of its intention to establish “outlying work assignments” at Trenton, Michigan, a point on the main line about 35 miles north of Lang Yard. These new assignments would have required many employees to report for work at Trenton rather than Lang Yard where they had been reporting. The BLF&E responded to this announcement by filing a notice under § 6 of the Railway Labor Act proposing an amendment to the collective-bargaining agreement to cover the changed working conditions of the employees who would work out of Trenton. Section 6 requires both the carrier and union to give the other party a 30-day notice of an “intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.” Since the union thus invoked the “major-dispute” settlement procedures of the Railway Labor Act, the dispute first went to conference and, when the parties failed to agree between themselves, then to the National Mediation Board.
While the case was pending before the National Mediation Board, the Shore Line announced two new outlying assignments at Dearoad, Michigan, at the northern end of the line. Because work crews could be taken by cab from Dearoad south to Trenton, the railroad concluded that it no longer needed to establish assignments at Trenton and so advised the Mediation Board. When the Dearoad assignments were announced, the union withdrew from the Mediation Board proceedings, and, before a Special Board of Adjustment convened under § 3 of the Act, challenged the railroad’s right under the parties’ collective agreement to establish outlying assignments. On November 30, 1965, the Special Board ruled that the Shore Line-BLF&E agreement did not prohibit the railroad from making the assignments.
Relying in part on the ruling of the Special Board, the railroad notified the union on January 24, 1966, that it was reviving its plan for work assignments at Trenton. Again the union responded by filing a § 6 notice of a proposed change in the parties’ collective agreement. This time the union sought to amend the agreement to forbid the railroad from making any outlying assignments at all. The parties were again unable to negotiate a settlement themselves, and on June 17, 1966, the union invoked the services of the National Mediation Board. While the Mediation Board proceedings were pending, the railroad posted a bulletin definitely creating the disputed work assignments at Trenton effective September 26, 1966. Faced with this unilateral change in working conditions, the union threatened a strike. The railroad then brought this action in the United States District Court to enjoin the BLF&E from calling and carrying out the allegedly illegal strike. The union counterclaimed for an injunction prohibiting the Shore Line from establishing outlying assignments on the ground that the status quo provision of § 6 of the Railway Labor Act forbids a carrier from taking unilateral action altering “rates of pay, rules, or working conditions” while the dispute is pending before the National Mediation Board. The pertinent part of § 6 provides:
“In every case where . . . the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party . . . , rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon ... by the Mediation Board . . . .” 45 U. S. C. § 156.
The District Court dismissed the railroad’s complaint, from which no appeal has been taken, but it granted the injunction sought by the union restraining the railroad from establishing any new outlying assignments at Trenton or elsewhere. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the issuance of the injunction against the railroad. 401 F. 2d 368 (1968). We granted certiorari, 393 U. S. 1116 (1969).
In granting the injunction the District Court held that the status quo requirement of § 6 prohibited the Shore Line from making outlying assignments even though there was nothing in the parties’ collective agreement which prohibited such assignments. The Shore Line vigorously challenges this holding. It contends that the purpose of the status quo provisions of the Act is to guarantee only that existing collective agreements continue to govern the parties’ rights and duties during efforts to change those agreements. Therefore, the railroad argues, what Congress intended by writing in § 6 that “rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered” was that rates of pay, rules, or working conditions as expressed in an agreement shall not be altered. And since nothing in the railroad’s agreement with the union precluded the railroad from altering the location of work assignments, this working condition was not “expressed in an agreement.” Thus, the argument runs, the railroad could make outlying assignments without violating the status quo provision of § 6, and the judgments below must be reversed.
We note at the outset that the language of § 6 simply does not say what the railroad would have it say. Instead, the section speaks plainly of “rates of pay, rules, or working conditions” without any limitation to those obligations already embodied in collective agreements. More important, wTe are persuaded that the railroad’s interpretation of this section is sharply at variance with the overall design and purpose of the Railway Labor Act.
The Railway Labor Act was passed in 1926 to encourage collective bargaining by railroads and their employees in order to prevent, if possible, wasteful strikes and interruptions of interstate commerce. The problem of strikes was considered to be particularly acute in the area of “major disputes,” those disputes involving the formation of collective agreements and efforts to change them. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711, 722-726 (1945). Rather than rely upon compulsory arbitration, to which both sides were bitterly opposed, the railroad and union representatives who drafted the Act chose to leave the settlement of major disputes entirely to the processes of noncompulsory adjustment. Id., at 724. To this end, the Act established rather elaborate machinery for negotiation, mediation, voluntary arbitration, and conciliation. General Committee, B. L. E. v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., 320 U. S. 323, 328-333 (1943). It imposed upon the parties an obligation to make every reasonable effort to negotiate a settlement and to refrain from altering the status quo by resorting to self-help while the Act’s remedies were being exhausted. Railroad Trainmen v. Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369, 378 (1969); Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, supra, at 721-731; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548, 565-566 (1930). A final and crucial aspect of the Act was the power given to the parties and to representatives of the public to make the exhaustion of the Act’s remedies an almost interminable process. As we noted in Railway Clerks v. Florida E. C. R. Co., 384 U. S. 238, 246 (1966), “the procedures of the Act are purposely long and drawn out, based on the hope that reason and practical considerations will provide in time an agreement that resolves the dispute.”
The Act’s status quo requirement is central to its design. Its immediate effect is to prevent the union from striking and management from doing anything that would justify a strike.' In the long run, delaying the time when the parties can resort to self-help provides time for tempers to cool; helps create an atmosphere in which rational bargaining can occur, and permits the forces of public opinion to be mobilized in favor of a settlement without a strike or lockout. Moreover, since disputes usually arise when one party wants to change the status quo without undue delay, the power which the Act gives the other party to preserve the status quo for a prolonged period will frequently make it worthwhile for the moving party to compromise with the interests of the other side and thus reach agreement without interruption to commerce.
There are three status quo provisions in the Act, each covering a different stage of the major dispute settlement procedures. Section 6, the section of immediate concern in this case, provides that “rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered” during the period from the first notice of a proposed change in agreements up to and through any proceedings before the National Mediation Board. Section 5 First provides that for 30 days following the closing of Mediation Board proceedings “no change shall be made in the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions or established practices in effect prior to the time the dispute arose,” unless the parties agree to arbitration or a Presidential Emergency Board is created during the 30 days. Finally, § 10 provides that after the creation of an Emergency Board and for 30 days after the Board has made its report to the President, “no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions ont of which the dispute arose.” These provisions must be read in conjunction with the implicit status quo requirement in the obligation imposed upon both parties by § 2 First, “to exert every reasonable effort” to settle disputes without interruption to interstate commerce.
While the quoted language of §§ 5, 6, and 10 is not identical in each case, we believe that these provisions, together with § 2 First, form an integrated, harmonious scheme for preserving the status quo from the beginning of the major dispute through the final 30-day “cooling-off” period. Although these three provisions are applicable to different stages of the Act’s procedures, the intent and effect of each is identical so far as defining and preserving the status quo is concerned. The obligation of both parties during a period in which any of these status quo provisions is properly invoked is to preserve and maintain unchanged those actual, objective working conditions and practices, broadly conceived, which were in effect prior to the time the pending dispute arose and which are involved in or related to that dispute.
It is quite apparent that under our interpretation of the status quo requirement, the argument advanced by the Shore Line has little merit. The railroad contends that a party is bound to preserve the status quo in only those working conditions covered in the parties’ existing collective agreement, but nothing in the status quo provisions of §§ 5, 6, or 10 suggests this restriction. We have stressed that the status quo extends to those actual, objective working conditions out of which the dispute arose, and clearly these conditions need not be covered in an existing agreement. Thus, the mere fact that the collective agreement before us does not expressly prohibit outlying assignments would not have barred the railroad from ordering the assignments that gave rise to the present dispute if, apart from the agreement, such assignments had occurred for a sufficient period of time with the knowledge and acquiescence of the employees to become in reality a part of the actual working conditions. Here, however, the dispute over the railroad’s establishment of the Trenton assignments arose at a time when actual working conditions did not include such assignments. It was therefore incumbent upon the railroad by virtue of § 6 to refrain from making outlying assignments at Trenton or any other place in which there had previously been none, regardless of the fact that the railroad was not precluded from making these assignments under the existing agreement.
The Shore Line’s interpretation of the status quo requirement is also fundamentally at odds with the Act’s primary objective — the prevention of strikes. This case provides a good illustration of why that is so. The goal of the BLF&E was to prevent the Shore Line from making outlying assignments, a matter not covered in their existing collective agreement. To achieve its goal, the union invoked the procedures of the Act. The railroad, however, refused to maintain the status quo and, instead, proceeded to make the disputed outlying assignments. It could hardly be expected that the union would sit idly by as the railroad rushed to accomplish the very result the union was seeking to prohibit by agreement. The union undoubtedly felt it could resort to self-help if the railroad could, and, not unreasonably, it threatened to strike. Because the railroad prematurely resorted to self-help, the primary goal of the Act came very close to being defeated. The example of this case could no doubt be multiplied many times. It would be virtually impossible to include all working conditions in a collective-bargaining agreement. Where a condition is satisfactorily tolerable to both sides, it is often omitted from the agreement, and it has been suggested that this practice is more frequent in the railroad industry than in most others. When the union moves to bring such a previously uncovered condition within the agreement, it is absolutely essential that the status quo provisions of the Act apply to that working condition if the purpose of the Act is to be fulfilled. If the railroad is free at this stage to take advantage of the agreement’s silence and resort to self-help, the union cannot be expected to hold back its own economic weapons, including the strike. Only if both sides are equally restrained can the Act’s remedies work effectively.
We now turn to answer some of the arguments advanced by the Shore Line in support of its position. The first of these involves § 2 Seventh of the Act. That section forbids a carrier from changing “the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in section 6 of this Act.” (Emphasis added.) The Shore Line argues that this section is a status quo provision and that the “as embodied in agreements” restriction it contains should be read into the status quo provisions of §§ 5, 6, and 10. We find no merit in this argument. Section 2 Seventh, which was added to the Act in 1934, does not impose any status quo dutiés attendant upon major dispute procedures. It simply states one category of cases in which those procedures must be invoked. The purpose of § 2 Seventh is twofold: it operates to give legal and binding effect to collective agreements, and it lays down the requirement that collective agreements can be changed only by the statutory procedures. The violation of this section is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment or fine or both. Violations of the status quo provisions of §§ 5, 6, and 10 are only civil wrongs.
Second, the Shore Line contends that the interpretation of § 6 which we adopt today is at variance with the position we have taken on two previous occasions, citing Order of Conductors v. Pitney, 326 U. S. 561 (1946), and Williams v. Terminal Co., 315 U. S. 386 (1942). Although these cases do contain statements which out of context tend to support petitioner’s position, neither dealt with the question we have before us today. Pitney involved a suit brought by a union to enjoin the reorganization trustees of a bankrupt railroad from transferring certain job assignments to another union. The plaintiff’s contention was that the disputed jobs belonged to its members by both custom and agreement. The trustees were therefore prohibited from reassigning the jobs, the union argued, since they had never filed the appropriate notice of “intended change in agreements” required by § 6. The railroad disputed that the reassignments of the jobs would require a “change in agreements” and thus put the meaning of the parties’ agreements in issue. We held that the proper forum for interpreting the agreements was the Adjustment Board provided by Congress in the Railway Labor Act, § 3 First (i), for that purpose, and directed the District Court to stay its proceedings accordingly. 326 U. S., at 567-568. Thus, Pitney, at most, involved a question of the necessity of filing a § 6 notice and was not at all concerned with the status quo provision of that section.
The Williams case is equally inapposite. In that case “redcaps” brought suit through their union representative against the Dallas railroad terminal to recover wages allegedly owed them and retained by the terminal in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Railway Labor Act. The redcaps’ argument under the Fair Labor Standards Act was that Congress had not intended that tips be included in their wages for purposes of satisfying minimum wage requirements. Yet, that is what the terminal had done under its “accounting and guarantee” plan from October 1938, when the F. L. S. A. became effective, until March 1940. The majority of the Court rejected the redcaps’ argument, holding that the F. L. S. A. neither prohibited nor required the inclusion of tips within wages. The question was held to be one for contract between the parties. 315 U. S., at 407-408. The redcaps’ claim under the Railway Labor Act was that the terminal’s “accounting and guarantee” plan under which tips were considered as part of wages was put into operation unilaterally by the terminal on the effective date of the F. L. S. A., despite the fact that the redcaps had two weeks earlier asked for a conference to negotiate an agreement which would include the subject of wages. This, the redcaps argued, violated the status quo provisions of § 6 since prior to the F. L. S. A. tips had not been included in wages. The Court concluded, however, that § 6 was not applicable to the dispute between the parties. The Court reasoned that when the redcaps continued to work after being individually notified of the “accounting and guarantee” plan, new and independent contracts were formed between each redcap and the terminal. The Court held that these contracts were not affected by the pending request for collective bargaining under the Railway Labor Act. The decision rested partially on the ground that “[independent individual contracts are not affected by the Act.” 315 U. S., at 399. And the Court also said more narrowly that the status quo requirements of § 6 were inapplicable since that section applies only when a “change in agreements” is involved. 315 U. S., at 400. In Williams there was absolutely no prior history of any collective bargaining or agreement between the parties on any matter. Without pausing to comment upon the present vitality of either of these grounds for dismissing the redcaps’ Railway Labor Act claim, it is readily apparent that Williams involved only the question of whether the status quo requirement of § 6 applied at all. The Court in Williams therefore never reached the question of the scope of the status quo requirement in a dispute, such as the one before the Court today, to which that requirement concededly applies.
Finally, the Shore Line points out, quite correctly, that its position on § 6 is identical to that taken by the National Mediation Board in several of its Annual Reports. However, the Mediation Board has no adjudicatory authority with regard to major disputes, nor has it a mandate to issue regulations construing the Act generally. Certainly there is nothing in the Act which can be interpreted as giving the Mediation Board the power to change the plain, literal meaning of the statute, which would be the result were we to adopt its interpretation of § 6.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq.
Railway Clerks v. Florida E. C. R. Co., 384 U. S. 238, 246 (1966).
The United Transportation Union, the successor organization to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, was substituted as party respondent by order of the Court, March 3, 1969. Respondents also include two officers of the BLF&E named in the original complaint.
The parties treat the term “outlying work assignment” as meaning a work assignment with a reporting point for going on and off duty located elsewhere than at the Shore Line’s principal yard, Lang Yard in Toledo, Ohio. We adopt that usage here.
44 Stat. 582, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 156. Section 6, in its entirety, provides:
“Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon as required by section 5 of this Act, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board.”
See n. 5, supra.
A “major dispute” is one arising out of the formation or change of collective agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711, 722-727 (1945).
44 Stat. 578, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 153. At this point, the BLF&E was considering the controversy as a “minor dispute,” i. e., a dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of collective agreements. Under § 3 of the Railway Labor Act such disputes are settled by an Adjustment Board whose interpretation of the collective agreement is binding on the parties. See Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, supra, at 722-727.
The Special Board of Adjustment found:
“What took place here was not a change in the recognized terminal, but simply amounted to an outlying assignment. There is nothing in the rules of agreement which precludes this carrier from establishing an outside assignment.” App. 110.
The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen was also named a defendant, as were several officers of both unions. The causes of action against the two brotherhoods were completely different, however, and the cases were treated as distinct at trial and on appeal. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is not involved in the present litigation at this stage.
The full section is set out in n. 5, supra.
The order of the District Court is unreported. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, No. C 66-207 (D. C. N. D. Ohio, filed Nov. 15, 1966). The opinion of the District Court on motion to vacate the judgment is reported at 267 F. Supp. 572 (1967).
In Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 648, 565 (1930), the Court said: “The Brotherhood insists, and we think rightly, that the major purpose of Congress in passing the Railway Labor Act was 'to provide á machinery to prevent strikes.’ ”
The Act’s major-dispute procedures and status quo requirement were concisely stated in an opinion by Mr. Justice Harlan only last Term, Railroad Trainmen v. Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369, 378 (1969):
“The Act provides a detailed framework to facilitate the voluntary settlement of major disputes. A party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice. § 6. The parties must confer, § 2 Second, and if conference fails to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the National Mediation Board, which may also proffer its services sua sponte if it finds a labor emergency to exist. § 5 First. If mediation fails, the Board must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent. §§ 5 First, 7. If arbitration is rejected and the dispute threatens ‘substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service, the Mediation Board shall notify the President,’ who may create an emergency board to investigate and report on the dispute. § 10. While the dispute is working its way through these stages, neither party may unilaterally alter the status quo. §§ 2 Seventh, 5 First, 6, 10.”
Section 6 is set out in its entirety in n. 5, supra.
Section 5 First, 44 Stat. 580, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 155 First, provides in part:
“If arbitration at the request of the Board shall be refused by one or both parties, the Board shall at once notify both parties in writing that its mediatory efforts have failed and for thirty days thereafter, unless in the intervening period the parties agree to arbitration, or an emergency board shall be created under section 10 of this Act, no change shall be made in the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions or established practices in effect prior to the time the dispute arose.”
Section 10, 44 Stat. 586, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 160, provides in part:
“After the creation of such board and for thirty days after such board has made its report to the President, no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose.”
Section 2 First, 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 152 First, provides:
“It shall be the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof.”
The relationship between the status quo provisions and §2 First, was made explicit in the testimony of Donald Richberg who spoke as the unions’ representative when the proposed railroad legislation was presented to Congress jointly by the railroads and the unions:
“As to maintaining the status quo from the time that a dispute is engendered, it is a violation of the duties imposed by this law for either party to take any action to arbitrarily change the conditions until that dispute has been adjusted in accordance with the law. Their primary duty is to exert every reasonable effort to avoid interruptions of commerce through disputes. The ‘reasonable efforts’ are set forth here that all disputes shall be considered and decided in conference, if possible; that, second, if conference fails a certain type of disputes shall be carried to the board of adjustment; the other type of disputes, or those not decided by the board of adjustment, may be carried to the board of mediators, and it shall be the duty of the board of mediators to act.” Hearings on H. R. 7180 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 92-93 (1926).
This interpretation of the status quo provisions is supported by the legislative history of the Act. See, e. g., the testimony of Donald Richberg set out in n. 18, supra. Mr. Richberg also testified:
“[T]he only thing that can provoke an arbitrary action [referring to strikes] is the power to arbitrarily change the rates of pay or rules of working conditions before the controversy is settled, and it is provided that they shall not be altered during the entire period of utilization of this law.” Hearings on H. R. 7180 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 93 (1926).
Moreover, when the status quo provision of § 5 was added to that section in 1934, its purpose was to provide continuity between §§ 6 and 10 by preserving the status quo for 30 days following the end of proceedings before the Mediation Board. Joseph B. Eastman, Federal Co-ordinator of Transportation, the principal draftsman and proponent of the 1934 amendments, testified:
“As the present act reads, a railroad, by rejecting the Board of Mediation’s final recommendation to arbitrate the dispute, is enabled to change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions arbitrarily, prior to the issuance of an order by the President appointing a fact-finding board and maintaining the status quo for 60 days. . . . The railroads have taken advantage of this unintentional hiatus in the present law in several instances. The change now proposed is designed to plug this hole.” Hearings on S. 3266 before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 21 (1934).
The status quo provision of § 10 was the only one discussed in any depth at the 1926 congressional hearings on the bill. Donald Richberg, n. 19, supra, testified as follows when questioned about the intended scope of the status quo provision:
“The thought was to include in the broadest way all the factors which contributed to what is commonly called the status quo. In other words, the conditions may depend upon the dispute, whether it is with regard to rules or with regard to wages.” Hearings on H. R. 7180 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 44 (1926).
“What broader phrase could be used than 'conditions out of which the dispute arose’ which comprehends all the elements affecting the controversy? It is intended to make it clear that the parties are going to wait and give the Government full opportunity to adjust the controversy.” Hearings on S. 2306 before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 88-89 (1926).
See n. 9, supra.
Brief of Railway Labor Executives’ Association as amicus curiae 17.
Respondent BLF&E has urged in its brief that we also consider the question whether the Shore Line violated a duty to bargain in good faith, citing Fibreboard Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U. S. 203 (1964), and NLRB v. Katz, 369 U. S. 736 (1962). Deciding the case as we do under the status quo provisions of the Act, we find it unnecessary to reach this argument.
Section 2 Seventh, 48 Stat. 1188, 45 U. S. C. §152 Seventh, provides as follows:
“No carrier, its officers or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in section 6 of this Act.”
Railway Labor Act, § 2 Tenth, 48 Stat. 1189, 45 U. S. C. § 152 Tenth.
The 34th Annual Report of the National Mediation Board stated:
"Section 6 states that where notice of intended change in an agreement has been given, rates of pay, rules, and working conditions as expressed in the agreement shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon in accordance with specified procedures.” NMB, 34th Ann. Rep. 23 (fiscal year ended June 30, 1968). (Emphasis added.) See also NMB, 33d Ann. Rep. 36 (fiscal year ended June 30, 1967); NMB, 31st Ann. Rep. 25 (fiscal year ended June 30, 1965).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Following his success in this Court in Perkins v. Standard Oil Co., 395 U. S. 642, the petitioner filed in the District Court for the District of Oregon an application for allowance of attorneys’ fees, pursuant to § 4 of the Clayton Act, for legal services performed during the appellate stages of that litigation, both in the Court of Appeals and in this Court. The District Court denied the application, ruling that § 4 did not authorize the allowance of attorneys’ fees for services performed in connection with appellate proceedings.
Petitioner appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals and simultaneously filed in that court two separate applications for attorneys’ fees for legal services performed there and in this Court. The Court of Appeals denied the latter application, believing that our mandate in Perkins, by not mentioning attorneys’ fees, was intended to preclude an award of such fees.
The District Court was in error in holding that § 4 does not authorize the award of counsel fees for legal services performed at the appellate stages of a successfully prosecuted private antitrust action. Both the language and purpose of § 4 make that construction untenable. See American Can Co. v. Ladoga Canning Co., 44 F. 2d 763, cert. denied, 282 U. S. 899. The amount of the award for such services should, as a general rule, be fixed in the first instance by the District Court, after hearing evidence as to the extent and nature of the services rendered. See, e. g., Osborn v. Sinclair Refining Co., 207 F. Supp. 856, 864. The Court of Appeals was also in error in interpreting our mandate as precluding the award of such fees for services performed in connection with the litigation in this Court. Our failure to make explicit mention in the mandate of attorneys’ fees simply left the matter open for consideration by the District Court, to which the mandate was directed.
The petitions for certiorari are granted and the judgments are vacated. No. 1556 is remanded to the District Court, and No. 1507 to the Court of Appeals, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
That section provides in pertinent part as follows:
“Any 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.” 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 15.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | F | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
New York, by statute, bars certain resident aliens from state financial assistance for higher education. N. Y. Educ. Law § 661 (3) (McKinney Supp. 1976). This litigation presents a constitutional challenge to that statute.
I
New York provides assistance, primarily in three forms, to students pursuing higher education. The first type is the Regents college scholarship. These are awarded to high school graduates on the basis of performance in a competitive examination. §§ 605 (1) and 670. Currently, in the usual case, a recipient is entitled to $250 annually for four years of study without regard to need. §§ 670 (2) and (3)(b). The second and chief form of aid is the tuition assistance award. These are noncompetitive; they are available to both graduate and undergraduate students “enrolled in approved programs and who demonstrate the ability to complete such courses.” §§ 604 (1) and 667 (1). The amount of the award depends on both tuition and income. The ceiling on assistance was $600, although it has been increased for undergraduates to $1,500. §1 667 (3) and (4). The third form of assistance is the student loan. §§ 680-684. The loan is guaranteed by the State; a borrower meeting certain income restrictions is entitled to favorable interest rates and generally to an interest-free grace period of at least nine months after he completes or terminates his course of study. §§ 680, 682 (2) and (3).-
There are several general restrictions on eligibility for participation in any of these programs. § 661. For example, there is a modest durational residency requirement. § 661 (5). The instant dispute, however, concerns only § 661 (3). That subsection provides:
“Citizenship. An applicant (a) must be a citizen of the United States, or (b) must have made application to become a citizen, or (c) if not qualified for citizenship, must submit a statement affirming intent to apply for United States citizenship as soon as he has the qualifications, and must apply as soon as eligible for citizenship, or (d) must be an individual of a class of refugees paroled by the attorney general of the United States under his parole authority pertaining to the admission of aliens to the United States.”
The statute obviously serves to bar from the assistance programs the participation of all aliens who do not satisfy its terms. Since many aliens, such as those here on student visas, may be precluded by federal law from establishing a permanent residence in this country, see, e. g., 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a) (15) (F) (i); 22 CFR §41.45 (1976), the bar of § 661 (3) is of practical significance only to resident aliens. The Court has observed of this affected group: “Resident aliens, like citizens, pay taxes, support the economy, serve in the Armed Forces, and contribute in myriad other ways to our society.” In re Griffiths, 413 U. S. 717, 722 (1973).
II
Appellee Jean-Marie Mauclet is a citizen of France and has lived in New York since April 1969. He has been a permanent resident of the United States since November of that year. He is married to a United States citizen and has a child by that marriage. The child is also a United States citizen. App. 49. Mauclet by affidavit stated: “Although I am presently qualified to apply for citizenship and intend to reside permanently in the United States, I do not wish to relinquish my French citizenship at this time.” Id., at 50. He applied for a tuition assistance award to aid in meeting the expenses of his graduate studies at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Because of his refusal to apply for United States citizenship, his application was. not processed. Id., at 49-50.
Appellee Alan Rabinovitch is a citizen of Canada. He was admitted to this country in 1964 at the age of nine as a permanent resident alien. He is unmarried and, since his admission, has lived in New York with his parents and a younger sister, all of whom are Canadian citizens. He registered with Selective Service on his 18th birthday. He graduated in 1973 from the New York public school system. Id., at 68, 71. As a result of a commendable performance on the competitive Regents Qualifying Examinations, Rabinovitch was informed that he was qualified for, and entitled to, a Regents college scholarship and tuition assistance. He later was advised, however, that the offer of the scholarship was withdrawn since he intended to retain his Canadian citizenship. Id., at 69, 25. Rabinovitch entered Brooklyn College without financial aid from the State. He states that he “does not intend to become a naturalized American, but . . . does intend to continue to reside in New York.” Id., at 65.
Mauclet and Rabinovitch each brought suit in United States District Court (Mauclet in the Western District of New York and Rabinovitch in the Eastern District), alleging that the citizenship bar of § 661 (3) was unconstitutional. The same three-judge court was convened for each of the cases. Subsequently, it was ordered that the cases be heard together. App. 45. After cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court in a unanimous opinion ruled in appellees’ favor. It held that § 661 (3) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in that the citizenship requirement served to discriminate unconstitutionally against resident aliens. 406 F. Supp. 1233 (WDNY and EDNY 1976). Its enforcement was enjoined in separate judgments. App. 103, 106.
Appellants — the various individuals and corporate entities responsible for administering the State’s educational assistance programs — challenge this determination. We noted probable jurisdiction. 429 U. S. 917 (1976).
III
The Court has ruled that classifications by a State that are based on alienage are “inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny.” Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 372 (1971). See Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572, 601-602 (1976); In re Griffiths, 413 U. S., at 721; Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634, 642 (1973). In undertaking this scrutiny, “the governmental interest claimed to justify the discrimination is to be carefully examined in order to determine whether that interest is legitimate and substantial, and inquiry must be made whether the means adopted to achieve the goal are necessary and precisely drawn.” Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S., at 605. See In re Griffiths, 413 U. S., at 721-722. Alienage classifications by a State that do not withstand this stringent examination cannot stand.
Appellants claim that § 661 (3) should not be subjected to such strict scrutiny because it does not impose a classification based on alienage. Aliens who have applied for citizenship, or, if not qualified for it, who have filed a statement of intent to apply as soon as they are eligible, are allowed to participate in the assistance programs. Hence, it is said, the statute distinguishes “only within the 'heterogeneous’ class of aliens” and “does not distinguish between citizens and aliens vel non.” Brief for Appellants 20. Only statutory classifications of the latter type, appellants assert, warrant strict scrutiny.
Graham v. Richardson, supra, undermines appellants’ position. In that case, the Court considered an Arizona statute that imposed a durational residency requirement for welfare benefits on aliens but not on citizens. Like the New York statute challenged here, the Arizona statute served to discriminate only within the class of aliens: Aliens who met the durational residency requirement were entitled to welfare benefits. The Court nonetheless subjected the statute to strict scrutiny and held it unconstitutional. The important points are that § 661 (3) is directed at aliens and that only aliens are harmed by it. The fact that the statute is not an absolute bar does not mean that it does not discriminate against the class. Cf. Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 504-505, n. 11 (1976); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 169, 172 (1972).
Appellants also assert that there are adequate justifications for § 661 (3). First, the section is said to offer an incentive for aliens to become naturalized. Second, the restriction on assistance to only those who are or will become eligible to vote is tailored to the purpose of the assistance program, namely, the enhancement of the educational level of the electorate. Brief for Appellants 22-25. Both justifications are claimed to be related to New York’s interest in the preservation of its “political community.” See Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S., at 642-643, 647-649; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 344 (1972).
The first purpose offered by the appellants, directed to what they describe as some “degree of national affinity,” Brief for Appellants 18, however, is not a permissible one for a State. Control over immigration and naturalization is entrusted exclusively to the Federal Government, and a State has no power to interfere. U. S. Const., Art I, § 8, cl. 4. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 84-85 (1976); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S., at 376-380; Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U. S. 410, 419 (1948). But even if we accept, arguendo, the validity of the proffered justifications, we find them inadequate to support the ban.
In Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S., at 642, the Court recognized that the State’s interest “in establishing its own form of government, and in limiting participation in that government to those who are within 'the basic conception of a political community’ ” might justify some consideration of alienage. But as Sugarman makes quite clear, the Court had in mind a State’s historical and constitutional powers to define the qualifications of voters, or of “elective or important nonelective” officials “who participate directly in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy.” Id., at 647. See id., at 648. In re Griffiths, decided the same day, reflects the narrowness of the exception. In that case, despite a recognition of the vital public and political role of attorneys, the Court found invalid a state-court rule limiting the practice of law to citizens. 413 U. S., at 729.
Certainly, the justifications for § 661 (3) offered by appellants sweep far beyond the confines of the exception defined in Sugarman. If the encouragement of naturalization through these programs were seen as adequate, then every discrimination against aliens could be similarly justified. The exception would swallow the rule. Sugarman clearly does not tolerate that result. Nor does the claimed interest in educating the electorate provide a justification; although such education is a laudable objective, it hardly would be frustrated by including resident aliens, as well as citizens, in the State’s assistance programs.
Resident aliens are obligated to pay their full share of the taxes that support the assistance programs. There thus is no real unfairness in allowing resident aliens an equal right to participate in programs to which they contribute on an equal basis. And although an alien may be barred from full involvement in the political arena, he may play a role — perhaps even a leadership role — in other areas of import to the community. The State surely is not harmed by providing resident aliens the same educational opportunity it offers to others.
Since we hold that the challenged statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, we need not reach appellees’ claim that it also intrudes upon Congress’ comprehensive authority over immigration and naturalization. See Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S., at 378; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 42 (1915).
The judgments of the District Court are affirmed.
It is so ordered.
There also are other special competitive awards: Regents professional education in nursing scholarships, N. Y. Educ. Law §§ 605 (2) and 671 (McKinney Supp. 1976); Regents professional education in medicine or dentistry scholarships, §§ 605 (3) and 672; Regents physician shortage scholarships, §§ 605 (4) and 673; Regents war veteran scholarships, §§ 605 (5) and 674; and Regents Cornell University scholarships, § 605 (6).
The loan program is largely subsidized by the Federal Government. See 20 U. S. C. §§1071 to 1087-2 (1970 ed. and Supp. V). (In fiscal 1976 the federal expenditure for New York’s loan program was $67,208,000 and the state contribution was $9,466,000. Brief for Appellants 8 n. * and 17 n. *.) Although it appears that federal administrators have not lodged objections to the State’s practice of disqualifying certain resident aliens, see App. 82, the federal standards would make eligible for assistance an alien student who “is in the United States for other than a temporary purpose and intends to become a permanent resident thereof.” 45 CFR§ 177.2 (a) (1976).
This requirement is not the subject of challenge here. See Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441 (1973); Starns v. Malkerson, 401 U. S. 985 (1971), aff’g 326 F. Supp. 234 (Minn. 1970).
Section 661 (3) replaced former § 602 (2) of the State’s Education Law, in effect at the times appellees’ complaints were filed. 1974 N. Y. Laws, c. 942. Clause (d) was added after the commencement of the suits. 1975 N. Y. Laws, c. 663, § 1. Since clause (d) serves to make a class of aliens eligible for aid without regard to citizenship or intent to apply for citizenship, its inclusion serves to undermine the State’s arguments as to the purposes served by the first three clauses. See n. 13, infra.
In order to become a United States citizen, Mauclet would be required to renounce bis French citizenship. 8 U. S. G. § 1448 (a).
Other courts also have held that discrimination against resident aliens in the distribution of educational assistance is impermissible. See, e. g., Chapman v. Gerard, 456 F. 2d 577 (CA3 1972); Jagnandan v. Giles, 379 F. Supp. 1178 (ND Miss. 1974), appealed on damages and aff’d, 538 F. 2d 1166 (CA5 1976), cert. pending, No. 76-832.
Appellants also argue that the District Court should not have reached the question of the applicability of § 661 (3) to the loan program because appellee Rabinovitch, who alone challenged this aspect of the assistance program, had not been denied a loan. Hence, appellants assert, he lacks standing. Early in the litigation, however, Rabinovitch submitted an unrebutted affidavit to the effect that he believed that he “may require student loans to help cover the cost of” his education and that he was “barred from receiving a student loan simply because of [his] status as an alien.” App. 71. Indeed, appellants conceded in the District Court that any application from Rabinovitch for a loan would be refused because of § 661 (3). 406 F. Supp., at 1235. It is clear, therefore, that Art. Ill adverseness existed between the parties and that the dispute is a concrete one. The only obstacle to standing, under the circumstances, would arise from prudential considerations. And we see no reason to postpone resolution of the dispute. Rabinovitch has been denied other forms of aid and little is to be served by requiring him now to go through the formality of submitting an application for a loan, in light of the certainty of its denial. See Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 264 (1977). Until oral argument, appellants suggested no reason why the loan program should differ from the other forms of assistance. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7. In the absence of a more timely suggestion supporting a distinction among the forms of aid, we think that nothing is to be gained by adjudicating the validity of § 661 (3) with regard to only two of the three primary assistance programs. After all, the single statutory proscription applies with equal force to all the programs.
In Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67 (1976), the Court applied relaxed scrutiny in upholding the validity of a federal statute that conditioned an alien’s eligibility for participation in a federal medical insurance program on the satisfaction of a durational residency requirement, but imposed no similar burden on citizens. The appellants can draw no solace from the ease, however, because the Court was at pains to emphasize that Congress, as an aspect of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, enjoys rights to distinguish among aliens that are not shared by the States. Id., at 84-87. See Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U. S. 88, 100-101 (1976); De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351, 358 n. 6 (1976).
It is perhaps worthy of note that the Medicare program under consideration in Diaz granted a permanent resident alien eligibility when he had resided in the United States for five years. Five years’ residence is also the generally required period under federal law before an alien may seek to be naturalized. 8 U. S. C. § 1427 (a). Yet, ironically, this is precisely the point at which, in New York, a resident must petition for naturalization or, irrespective of declared intent, lose his eligibility for higher education assistance.
Appellants also seem to assert that strict scrutiny should not be applied because aid to education does not deny an alien “access to the necessities of life.” Brief for Appellants 21. They are joined in this view by The Chief Justice in dissent. Suffice it to say, the statutory statement of purpose for the aid programs reflects the State’s contrary position:
“In a world of unmatched scientific progress and technological advance, as well as of unparalleled danger to human freedom, learning has never been more crucial to man’s safety, progress and individual fulfillment. In the state and nation higher education no longer is a luxury; it is a necessity for strength, fulfillment and survival.” 1961 N. Y. Laws, c. 389, § Ka).
And, in any event, the Court noted in Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 376 (1971), that classifications based on alienage “are inherently suspect and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny whether or not a fundamental right is impaired.”
The District Court dealt abruptly with appellants’ contention:
“This argument defies logic. Those aliens who apply, or agree to apply when eligible, for citizenship are relinquishing their alien status. Because some aliens agree under the statute’s coercion to change their status does not alter the fact that the classification is based solely on alienage.” 406 F. Supp., at 1235.
Our Brother Rehnquist argues in dissent that strict scrutiny is inappropriate because under § 661 (3) a resident alien can voluntarily withdraw from disfavored status. But this aspect of the statute hardly distinguishes our past decisions. By the logic of the dissenting opinion, the suspect class for alienage would be defined to include at most only those who have resided in this country for less than five years, since after that time, if not before, resident aliens are generally eligible to become citizens. 8 U. S. C. § 1427 (a). The Court has never suggested, however, that the suspect class is to be defined so narrowly. In fact, the element of voluntariness in a resident alien’s retention of alien status is a recognized element in several of the Court’s decisions. For example, the Court acknowledged that In re Griffiths, 413 U. S. 717 (1973), involved an appellant who was eligible for citizenship, but who had not filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen, and had “no present intention of doing so.” Id., 718 n. 1. And, insofar as the record revealed, nothing precluded the appellees in Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634 (1973), from applying for citizenship. Id., at 650 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). Mr. Justice Rehnquist argued in dissent there, just as he does here today, that strict scrutiny was inappropriate in those cases because there was nothing to indicate that the aliens’ status “cannot be changed by their affirmative acts.” Id., at 657. Nonetheless, the Court applied strict scrutiny in the cases. We see no reason to depart from them now.
The footnote reads in part:
“That the statutory classifications challenged here discriminate among illegitimate children does not mean, of course, that they are not also properly described as discriminating between legitimate and illegitimate children.”
In support of the justifications offered for §661 (3), appellants refer to a statement of purpose in legislation adopted in 1961 that substantially amended the State’s aid programs. 1961 N. Y. Laws, c. 389, § 1. But the statement speaks only in general terms of encouraging education so as “to provide the broad range of leadership, inventive genius, and source of economic and cultural growth for oncoming generations,” § 1 (a), and of developing fully a “reservoir of talent and future leadership,” § 1 (c)— purposes that would be served by extending aid to resident aliens as well as to citizens — and hardly supports appellants in clear and unambiguous terms. Moreover, the statutory discrimination against aliens with regard to certain Regents scholarships dates from long before. 1920 N. Y. Laws, c. 502, § 1. And the very 1961 legislation on which appellants rely abolished the statutory disqualification of aliens in favor of an administrative rule. 1961 N. Y. Laws, c. 391, §§ 2 and 18. See also §§ 7, 14, and 19. In fact, it appears that the state administrators of the aid programs did not find the purposes in the 1961 legislation that appellants urge, since between 1961 and 1969, when the precursor of § 661 (3) was adopted, resident aliens were allowed to receive tuition assistance awards. Brief for Appellants 15.
See also Perkins v. Smith, 370 F. Supp. 134 (Md. 1974), summarily aff'd, 426 U. S. 913 (1976).
Although the record does not reveal the number of aliens who are disqualified by §661 (3), there is a suggestion that the number may be exceedingly small. See Brief for Appellee Mauclet 9 n. 4. Indeed, when asked about the cost of including aliens, appellants conceded at oral argument that “we may not be speaking about very much.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Thus, it appears that the inclusion of resident aliens in the assistance programs will have an insubstantial impact on the cost of the programs. And, in any event, the suggestion that the State can favor citizens over aliens in the distribution of benefits was largely rejected in Graham v. Richardson, 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.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Police officers, with probable cause to believe that a man had hidden marijuana in his home, prevented that man from entering the home for about two hours while they obtained a search warrant. We must decide whether those officers violated the Fourth Amendment. We conclude that the officers acted reasonably. They did not violate the Amendment’s requirements. And we reverse an Illinois court’s holding to the contrary.
I
A
On April 2,1997, Tera McArthur asked two police officers to accompany her to the trailer where she lived with her husband, Charles, so that they could keep the peace while she removed her belongings. The two officers, Assistant Chief John Love and Officer Richard Skidis, arrived with Tera at the trailer at about 3:15 p.m. Tera went inside, where Charles was present. The officers remained outside.
When Tera emerged after collecting her possessions, she spoke to Chief Love, who was then on the porch. She suggested he cheek the trailer because “Chuck had dope in there.” App. 15. She added (in Love’s words) that she had seen Chuck “slid[e] some dope underneath the couch.” Id., at 19.
Love knocked on the trailer door, told Charles what Tera had said, and asked for permission to search the trailer, which Charles denied. Love then sent Officer Skidis with Tera to get a search warrant.
Love told Charles, who by this time was also on the porch, that he could not reenter the trailer unless a police officer accompanied him. Charles subsequently reentered the trailer two or three times (to get cigarettes and to make phone calls), and each time Love stood just inside the door to observe what Charles did.
Officer Skidis obtained the warrant by about 5 p.m. He returned to the trailer and, along with other officers, searched it. The officers found under the sofa a marijuana pipe, a box for marijuana (called a “one-hitter” box), and a small amount of marijuana. They then arrested Charles.
B
Illinois subsequently charged Charles McArthur with unlawfully possessing drug paraphernalia and marijuana (less than 2.5 grams), both misdemeanors. See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §§550/4(a), 600/3.5(a) (1998). McArthur moved to suppress the pipe, box, and marijuana on the ground that they were the “fruit” of an unlawful police seizure, namely, the refusal to let him reenter the trailer unaccompanied, which would have permitted him, he said, to “have destroyed the marijuana.” App. 27.
The trial court granted McArthur’s suppression motion. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed, 304 Ill. App. 3d 395, 713 N. E. 2d 93 (1999), and the Illinois Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for leave to appeal, 185 Ill. 2d 651, 720 N. E. 2d 1101 (1999). We granted certiorari to determine whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the kind of temporary seizure at issue here.
II
A
The Fourth Amendment says that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U. S. Const., Arndt. 4. Its “central requirement” is one of reasonableness. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730, 739 (1983). In order to enforce that requirement, this Court has interpreted the Amendment as establishing rules and presumptions designed to control conduct of law enforcement officers that may significantly intrude upon privacy interests. Sometimes those rules require warrants. We have said, for example, that in “the ordinary case,” seizures of personal property are “unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” without more, “unless . . . accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant,” issued by a neutral magistrate after finding probable cause. United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 701 (1983).
We nonetheless have made it clear that there are exceptions to the warrant requirement. When faced with special law enforcement needs, diminished expectations of privacy, minimal intrusions, or the like, the Court has found that certain general, or individual, circumstances may render a warrantless search or seizure reasonable. See, e. g., Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U. S. 938, 940-941 (1996) (per curiam) (search of automobile supported by probable cause); Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444, 455 (1990) (suspicionless stops at drunk driver checkpoint); United States v. Place, supra, at 706 (temporary seizure of luggage based on reasonable suspicion); Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, 702-705 (1981) (temporary detention of suspect without arrest warrant to prevent flight and protect officers while executing search warrant); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 27 (1968) (temporary stop and limited search for weapons based on reasonable suspicion).
In the circumstances of the case before us, we cannot say that the warrantless seizure was per se unreasonable. It involves a plausible claim of specially pressing or urgent law enforcement need, i. e., “exigent circumstances.” Cf., e. g., United States v. Place, supra, at 701 (“[T]he exigencies of the circumstances” may permit temporary seizure without warrant); Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 298-299 (1967) (warrantless search for suspect and weapons reasonable where delay posed grave danger); Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 770-771 (1966) (warrantless blood test for alcohol reasonable where delay would have led to loss of evidence). Moreover, the restraint at issue was tailored to that need, being limited in time and scope, cf. Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 29-30, and avoiding significant intrusion into the home itself, cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980) (“‘[T]he chief evil against which the... Fourth Amendment is directed’ ” is warrantless entry and search of home) (quoting United States v. United States Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Mich., 407 U. S. 297, 313 (1972)). Consequently, rather than employing a per se rule of unreasonableness, we balance the privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns to determine if the intrusion was reasonable. Cf. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 654 (1979) (determining lawfulness by balancing privacy and law enforcement interests); United States v. BrignoniPonce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975) (same).
We conclude that the restriction at issue was reasonable, and hence lawful, in light of the following circumstances, which we consider in combination. First, the police had probable cause to believe that McArthur’s trailer home contained evidence of a crime and contraband, namely, unlawful drugs. The police had had an opportunity to speak with Tera McArthur and make at least a very rough assessment of her reliability. They knew she had had a firsthand opportunity to observe her husband’s behavior, in particular with respect to the drugs at issue. And they thought, with good reason, that her report to them reflected that opportunity. Cf. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U. S. 727, 732-734 (1984) (per curiam) (upholding search warrant issued in similar circumstances).
Second, the police had good reason to fear that, unless restrained, McArthur would destroy the drugs before they could return with a warrant. They reasonably might have thought that McArthur realized that his wife knew about his marijuana stash; observed that she was angry or frightened enough to ask the police to accompany her; saw that after leaving the trailer she had spoken with the police; and noticed that she had walked off with one policeman while leaving the other outside to observe the trailer. They reasonably could have concluded that McArthur, consequently suspecting an imminent search, would, if given the chance, get rid of the drugs fast.
Third, the police made reasonable efforts to reconcile their law enforcement needs with the demands of personal privacy. They neither searched the trailer nor arrested McArthur before obtaining a warrant. Rather, they imposed a significantly less restrictive restraint, preventing McArthur only from entering the trailer unaccompanied. They left his home and his belongings intact — until a neutral Magistrate, finding probable cause, issued a warrant.
Fourth, the police imposed the restraint for a limited period of time, namely, two hours. Cf. Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 28 (manner in which police act is “vital . . . part of . . . inquiry”). As far as the record reveals, this time period was no longer than reasonably necessary for the police, acting with diligence, to obtain the warrant. Compare United States v. Place, 462 U. S., at 709-710 (holding 90-minute detention of luggage unreasonable based on nature of interference with person’s travels and lack of diligence of police), with United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U. S. 249, 253 (1970) (holding 29-hour detention of mailed package reasonable given unavoidable delay in obtaining warrant and minimal nature of intrusion). Given the nature of the intrusion and the law enforcement interest at stake, this brief seizure of the premises was permissible.
B
Our conclusion that the restriction was lawful finds significant support in' this Court’s case law. In Segura v. United States, 468 U. S. 796 (1984), the Court considered the admissibility of drugs which the police had found in a lawful, warrant-based search of an apartment, but only after unlawfully entering the apartment and occupying it for 19 hours. The majority held that the drugs were admissible because, had the police acted lawfully throughout, they could have discovered and seized the drugs pursuant to the validly issued warrant. See id., at 799, 814-815 (citing Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920)). The minority disagreed. However, when describing alternative lawful search and seizure methods, both majority and minority assumed, at least for argument’s sake, that the police, armed with reliable information that the apartment contained drugs, might lawfully have sealed the apartment from the outside, restricting entry into the apartment while waiting for the warrant. Compare Segura v. United States, 468 U. S., at 814 (“Had police never entered the apartment, but instead conducted a perimeter stakeout to prevent anyone from entering . . . and destroying evidence, the contraband . . . would have been . . . seized precisely as it was here”), with id., at 824, n. 15 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“I assume impoundment would be permissible even absent exigent circumstances when it occurs ‘from the outside’ — when the authorities merely seal off premises pending the issuance of a warrant but do not enter”); see also Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 394 (1978) (exigent circumstances do not justify search where police guard at door could prevent loss of evidence); United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48, 52 (1951) (same).
In various other circumstances, this Court has upheld temporary restraints where needed to preserve evidence until police could obtain a warrant. See, e. g., United States v. Place, supra, at 706 (reasonable suspicion justifies brief detention of luggage pending further investigation); United States v. Van Leeuwen, supra, at 253 (reasonable suspicion justifies detaining package delivered for mailing). Cf. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 395 (1997) (no need to “knock and announce” when executing a search warrant where officers reasonably suspect that evidence might be destroyed); Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 153 (1925) (warrantless search of automobile constitutionally permissible).
We have found no case in which this Court has held unlawful a temporary seizure that was supported by probable cause and was designed to prevent the loss of evidence while the police diligently obtained a warrant in a reasonable period of time. But cf. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U. S. 740, 754 (1984) (holding warrantless entry into and arrest in home unreasonable despite possibility that evidence of noncriminal offense would be lost while warrant was being obtained).
C
Nor are we persuaded by the countervailing considerations that the parties or lower courts .have raised. McArthur argues that the police proceeded without probable cause. But McArthur has waived this argument. See 304 Ill. App. 3d, at 397, 713 N. E. 2d, at 95 (stating that McArthur does not contest existence of probable cause); Brief in Opposition 7 (acknowledging probable cause). And, in any event, it is without merit. See supra, at 331-332.
The Appellate Court of Illinois concluded that the police could not order McArthur to stay outside his home because McArthur’s porch, where he stood at the time, was part of his home; hence the order “amounted to a constructive eviction” of McArthur from his residence. 304 Ill. App. 3d, at 402, 713 N. E. 2d, at 98. This Court has held, however, that a person standing in the doorway of a house is “in a ‘public’ place,” and hence subject to arrest without a warrant permitting entry of the home. United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38, 42 (1976). Regardless, we do not believe the difference to which the Appellate Court points — porch versus, e.g., front walk — could make a significant difference here as to the reasonableness of the police restraint; and that, from the Fourth Amendment’s perspective, is what matters.
The Appellate Court also found negatively significant the fact that Chief Love, with McArthur’s consent, stepped inside the trailer’s doorway to observe McArthur when Mc-Arthur reentered the trailer on two or three occasions. 304 Ill. App. 3d, at 402-403, 713 N. E. 2d, at 98. McArthur, however, reentered simply for his own convenience, to make phone calls and to obtain cigarettes. Under these circumstances, the reasonableness of the greater restriction (preventing reentry) implies the reasonableness of the lesser (permitting reentry conditioned on observation).
Finally, McArthur points to a case (and we believe it is the only case) that he beliéves offers direct support, namely, Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra. In Welsh, this Court held that police could not enter a home without a warrant in order to prevent the loss of evidence (namely, the defendant’s blood alcohol level) of the “nonjailable traffic offense” of driving while intoxicated. 466 U. S., at 742, 754. McArthur notes that his two convictions are for misdemeanors, which, he says, are as minor, and he adds that the restraint, keeping him out of his home, was nearly as serious.
We nonetheless find significant distinctions. The evidence at issue here was of crimes that were “jailable,” not “non-jailable.” See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §550/4(a) (1998); ch. 730, § 5/5 — 8—3(3) (possession of less than 2.5 grams of marijuana punishable by up to 30 days in jail); ch. 720, § 600/ 3.5; ch. 730, § 5/5 — 8—3(1) (possession of drug paraphernalia punishable by up to one year in jail). In Welsh, we noted that, “[g]iven that the classification of state crimes differs widely among the States, the penalty that may attach to any particular offense seems to provide the clearest and most consistent indication of the State’s interest in arresting individuals suspected of committing that offense.” 466 U. S., at 754, n. 14. The same reasoning applies here, where class C misdemeanors include such widely diverse offenses as drag racing, drinking alcohol in a railroad car or on a railroad platform, bribery by a candidate for public office, and assault. See, e. g., Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 65, § 5/4-8-2 (1998); ch. 610, §90/1; ch. 625, §5/11-504; ch. 720, §5/12-1.
And the restriction at issue here is less serious. Temporarily keeping a person from entering his home, a consequence whenever police stop a person on the street, is considerably less intrusive than police entry into the home itself in order to make a warrantless arrest or conduct a search. Cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S., at 585 (the Fourth Amendment’s central concern is the warrantless entry and search of the home).
We have explained above why we believe that the need to preserve evidence of a “jailable” offense was sufficiently urgent or pressing to justify the restriction upon entry that the police imposed. We need not decide whether the circumstances before us would have justified a greater restriction for this type of offense or the same restriction were only a “nonjailable” offense at issue.
III
In sum, the police officers m this case had probable cause to believe that a home contained contraband, which was evidence of a crime. They reasonably believed that the home’s resident, if left free of any restraint, would destroy that evidence. And they imposed a restraint that was both limited and tailored reasonably to secure law enforcement needs while protecting privacy interests. In our view, the restraint met the Fourth Amendment’s demands.
The judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that respondent Danny Hill, who has been sentenced to death in Ohio, is entitled to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) because the decisions of the Ohio courts concluding that he is not intellectually disabled were contrary to Supreme Court precedent that was clearly established at the time in question. In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeals relied repeatedly and extensively on our decision in Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017), which was not handed down until long after the state-court decisions.
The Court of Appeals' reliance on Moore was plainly improper under § 2254(d)(1), and we therefore vacate that decision and remand so that Hill's claim regarding intellectual disability can be evaluated based solely on holdings of this Court that were clearly established at the relevant time.
I
In September 1985, 12-year old Raymond Fife set out on his bicycle for a friend's home. When he did not arrive, his parents launched a search, and that evening his father found Raymond-naked, beaten, and burned-in a wooded field. Although alive, he had sustained horrific injuries that we will not describe. He died two days later.
In 1986, respondent Danny Hill was convicted for torturing, raping, and murdering Raymond, and he was sentenced to death. An intermediate appellate court affirmed his conviction and sentence, as did the Ohio Supreme Court. We denied certiorari. Hill v. Ohio, 507 U.S. 1007, 113 S.Ct. 1651, 123 L.Ed.2d 272 (1993).
After unsuccessful efforts to obtain postconviction relief in state and federal court, Hill filed a new petition in the Ohio courts contending that his death sentence is illegal under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of a death sentence on a defendant who is "mentally retarded." In 2006, the Ohio trial court denied this claim, App. to Pet. for Cert. 381a-493a, and in 2008, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, State v. Hill, 177 Ohio App.3d 171, 2008-Ohio-3509, 894 N.E.2d 108. In 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court denied review. State v. Hill, 122 Ohio St.3d 1502, 2009-Ohio-4233, 912 N.E.2d 107.
In 2010, Hill filed a new federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking review of the denial of his Atkins claim. The District Court denied the petition, App. to Pet. for Cert. 77a-210a, but the Sixth Circuit reversed and granted habeas relief under § 2254(d)(1), which applies when a state-court adjudication "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." See Hill v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 483 (2018). The Sixth Circuit found two alleged deficiencies in the Ohio courts' decisions: First, they "overemphasized Hill's adaptive strengths"; and second, they "relied too heavily on adaptive strengths that Hill exhibited in the controlled environment of his death-row prison cell." Id., at 492. In reaching these conclusions, the court relied repeatedly on our decision in Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 197 L.Ed.2d 416. See 881 F.3d, at 486, 487, 488, n. 4, 489, 491, 492, 493, 495, 496, 498, 500. The court acknowledged that "[o]rdinarily, Supreme Court decisions that post-date a state court's determination cannot be 'clearly established law' for the purposes of [the federal habeas statute]," but the court argued "that Moore 's holding regarding adaptive strengths [was] merely an application of what was clearly established by Atkins ." Id., at 487.
The State filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, contending that the Sixth Circuit violated § 2254(d)(1) because a fundamental underpinning of its decision was Moore, a case decided by this Court well after the Ohio courts' decisions. Against this, Hill echoes the Court of Appeals' argument that Moore merely spelled out what was clearly established by Atkins regarding the assessment of adaptive skills.
II
The federal habeas statute, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), imposes important limitations on the power of federal courts to overturn the judgments of state courts in criminal cases. The statute respects the authority and ability of state courts and their dedication to the protection of constitutional rights. Thus, under the statutory provision at issue here, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), habeas relief may be granted only if the state court's adjudication "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of," Supreme Court precedent that was "clearly established" at the time of the adjudication. E.g., White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419-420, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 188 L.Ed.2d 698 (2014) ; Metrish v. Lancaster, 569 U.S. 351, 357-358, 133 S.Ct. 1781, 185 L.Ed.2d 988 (2013). This means that a state court's ruling must be "so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). We therefore consider what was clearly established regarding the execution of the intellectually disabled in 2008, when the Ohio Court of Appeals rejected Hill's Atkins claim.
Of course, Atkins itself was on the books, but Atkins gave no comprehensive definition of "mental retardation" for Eighth Amendment purposes. The opinion of the Court noted that the definitions of mental retardation adopted by the American Association on Mental Retardation and the American Psychiatric Association required both "subaverage intellectual functioning" and "significant limitations in adaptive skills such as communication, self-care, and self-direction that became manifest before age 18." 536 U.S., at 318, 122 S.Ct. 2242 ; see also id., at 308, n. 3, 122 S.Ct. 2242 (quoting definitions). The Court also noted that state statutory definitions of mental retardation at the time "[were] not identical, but generally conform[ed] to the[se] clinical definitions." Id., at 317, n. 22, 122 S.Ct. 2242. The Court then left " 'to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction' " that the Court adopted. Id ., at 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242 (quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 416, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986) (plurality opinion)).
More than a decade later, we expounded on the definition of intellectual disability in two cases. In Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014), we considered a rule restricting Atkins to defendants with "an IQ test score of 70 or less." 572 U.S., at 704, 134 S.Ct. 1986. We held that this rule violated the Eighth Amendment because it treated an IQ score higher than 70 as conclusively disqualifying and thus prevented consideration of other evidence of intellectual disability, such as evidence of "deficits in adaptive functioning over [the defendant's] lifetime." Id., at 724, 134 S.Ct. 1986.
Three years later in Moore, we applied Hall and faulted the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) for concluding that the petitioner's IQ scores, some of which were at or below 70, established that he was not intellectually disabled. Moore, 581 U.S., at ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1050. We also held that the CCA improperly evaluated the petitioner's adaptive functioning. It erred, we concluded, in "overemphasiz[ing] [petitioner's] perceived adaptive strengths," despite the medical community's focus on "adaptive deficits ." Id., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1050. And we found that the CCA also went astray in "stress[ing] [petitioner's] improved behavior in prison," even though the medical community "caution[ed] against reliance on adaptive strengths developed in a controlled setting, as a prison surely is." Id., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1050 (internal quotation marks omitted).
III
In this case, no reader of the decision of the Court of Appeals can escape the conclusion that it is heavily based on Moore, which came years after the decisions of the Ohio courts. Indeed, the Court of Appeals, in finding an unreasonable application of clearly established law, drew almost word for word from the two statements in Moore quoted above. See 881 F.3d, at 492 ("Contrary to Atkins, the Ohio courts overemphasized Hill's adaptive strengths and relied too heavily on adaptive strengths that Hill exhibited in the controlled environment of his death-row prison cell. In so doing, they unreasonably applied clearly established law").
Although the Court of Appeals asserted that the holding in Moore was "merely an application of what was clearly established by Atkins, " 881 F.3d, at 487, the court did not explain how the rule it applied can be teased out of the Atkins Court's brief comments about the meaning of what it termed "mental retardation." While Atkins noted that standard definitions of mental retardation included as a necessary element "significant limitations in adaptive skills ... that became manifest before age 18," 536 U.S., at 318, 122 S.Ct. 2242 Atkins did not definitively resolve how that element was to be evaluated but instead left its application in the first instance to the States. Id ., at 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242.
Moreover, the posture in which Moore reached this Court (it did not arise under AEDPA) and the Moore majority's primary reliance on medical literature that postdated the Ohio courts' decisions, 581 U.S., at ----, ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1050 provide additional reasons to question the Court of Appeals' analysis. Cf. Cain v. Chappell, 870 F.3d 1003, 1024, n. 9 (C.A.9 2017) (because "Moore is not an AEDPA case" and was "decided just this spring," "Moore itself cannot serve as 'clearly established' law at the time the state court decided Cain's claim").
IV
The centrality of Moore in the Court of Appeals' analysis is reflected in the way in which the intellectual-disability issue was litigated below. The Atkins portion of Hill's habeas petition did not focus on § 2254(d)(1), the provision on which the decision below is based. Instead, it began and ended with appeals to a different provision of the habeas statute, § 2254(d)(2), which supports relief based on a state court's "unreasonable determination of the facts." In particular, Hill opened with the claim that the Ohio courts' findings on "adaptive functioning" "were an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence," Amended Pet. for Habeas Corpus in No. 96-CV-795 (ND Ohio) (Doc. 94), p. 15, ¶ 44 (citing § 2254(d)(2) ), and he closed with the claim that the state trial court's assessment that he is "not mentally retarded" was based on "an unreasonable determination of the facts," id., at 36-37, ¶ 101 (citing § 2254(d)(2) ). Indeed, Hill's reply to the State's answer to his petition explicitly "concur [red] ... that it is proper to review [his Atkins claim] under § 2254(d)(2)." Traverse in No. 96-CV-795 (ND Ohio) (Doc. 102), p. 47. And so, unsurprisingly, the District Court analyzed Hill's Atkins claim solely under § 2254(d)(2), noting that "[a]s Hill concedes in his Traverse, his Atkins claim is more appropriately addressed as it relates to the Ohio appellate court's factual analysis under § 2254(d)(2)." App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a.
Hill pressed the same § 2254(d)(2) argument in his opening brief in the Sixth Circuit. There, he argued that the state courts' finding on "adaptive functioning ... was an unreasonable determination of the facts." Brief for Petitioner-Appellant in No. 14-3718 (CA6), p. 34 (citing § 2254(d)(2) ); see also id., at 65 ("As such, the state courts' findings of fact that [Hill] is not mentally retarded constitute an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the evidence presented. ( § 2254(d)(2) )").
It appears that it was not until the Court of Appeals asked for supplemental briefing on Moore that Hill introduced the § 2254(d)(1) argument that the Court of Appeals adopted. Although, as noted, the Court of Appeals ultimately disclaimed reliance on Moore, it explicitly asked the parties for supplemental briefing on how Moore "should be applied to this case." Because the reasoning of the Court of Appeals leans so heavily on Moore, its decision must be vacated. On remand, the court should determine whether its conclusions can be sustained based strictly on legal rules that were clearly established in the decisions of this Court at the relevant time.
* * *
The petition for certiorari and Hill's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Court explained that it was "fair to say that a national consensus" had developed against the execution of "mentally retarded" offenders. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S., 304, 316, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).
While Hill's petition argued at one point that certain unidentified "procedures" used by the state courts in making the relevant decisions "violated clearly established federal law of Ford/Panetti/Atkins ," Amended Pet. for Habeas Corpus in No. 96-CV-795 (ND Ohio) (Doc. 94), p. 15, ¶ 45, the petition plainly did not encompass his current argument that the Ohio Court of Appeals unreasonably applied clearly established law under Atkins by overemphasizing adaptive strengths and improperly considering his prison behavior.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether federal courts have statutory or inherent power to tax attorney’s fees directly against counsel who have abused the processes of the courts.
I
In June 1975, two former employees and one unsuccessful job applicant brought a civil rights class action against petitioner Roadway Express, Inc. (Roadway). The complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana alleged that Roadway’s employment policies discriminated on the basis of race, and asked for equitable relief.
Counsel for the plaintiffs — Robert E. Piper, Jr., Frank E. Brown, Jr., and Bobby Stromile — are the respondents in the present case. In September 1975, respondents served interrogatories on Roadway. Having secured an extension from the District Court, Roadway answered the interrogatories on January 5, 1976, and served its own set of interrogatories at the same time. Thereafter, however, the litigation was stalled by respondents’ uncooperative behavior.
On April 13, 1976, Roadway moved for an order compelling answers to its interrogatories. The motion was set for argument on the morning of April 21, but counsel for the plaintiffs did not appear. They did attend a rescheduled hearing that afternoon, and the Magistrate ordered that the interrogatories be answered by May 24. Respondents ignored that deadline and, in fact, never answered the interrogatories. Roadway also served notice in April that it would take depositions from all three plaintiffs in early May. One of the plaintiffs did not appear on the appointed days, however, and he never was deposed.
The respondents showed no greater respect for the orders of the District Court than for the requests of their adversaries. On April 7, the court instructed counsel for both sides to file briefs evaluating the impact of a recent decision in a related ease. Although respondents’ brief was due within 10 days, nothing arrived for six weeks. On May 19, the District Court gave respondents 10 additional days to file a brief or face dismissal of the action. No brief was ever submitted.
On June 14, Roadway moved to dismiss the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Roadway also requested an award of attorney’s fees and court costs. On June 30, the District Court heard argument and dismissed the action with prejudice. A second hearing, limited to the question of costs and attorney’s fees, was held in October 1976.
The District Court’s opinion sharply criticized the respondents for their “deliberate inaction” in handling the case. Monk v. Roadway Express, Inc., 73 F. R .D. 411, 417 (1977). Observing that respondents apparently had not advised their clients that the suit was a class action, id., at 414, 417, the court concluded that the three lawyers “improvidently enlarged and inadequately prosecuted” the action, id., at 417. As a sanction, the court ordered them to pay Roadway’s costs and attorney’s fees for the entire lawsuit. The total assessment exceeded $17,000. Monk v. Roadway Express, Inc., 599 F. 2d 1378, 1381 (CA5 1979).
The District Court found justification for its ruling in the confluence of several statutes. The civil rights statutes allow the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees “as part of the costs” of litigation. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 1988, 2000e-5 (k). And 28 TJ. S. C. § 1927 permits a court to tax the excess “costs” of a proceeding against a lawyer “who so multiplies the proceedings ... as to increase costs unreasonably and vexatiously. ...” Read together, the District Court concluded, the statutes authorize the assessment of costs and attorney’s fees against respondents.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found no clear error in the ruling that respondents had violated § 1927. 599 F. 2d, at 1381. The appellate court held, however, that respondents were not liable for attorney’s fees. It rejected the District Court’s view that the civil rights statutes can be read into § 1927. The civil rights laws, the court wrote, “provide for attorneys’ fees awards against unsuccessful parties to a suit, and they focus on actions which are frivolous, unreasonable, and baseless. . . .” 599 F. 2d, at 1383 (emphasis in original). In contrast, § 1927 deals only with attorney conduct and involves taxing costs against counsel. The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for recalculation of costs under § 1927. We granted certiorari, 444 U. S. 1012 (1980).
II
This case involves the problem of what sanctions may be imposed on lawyers who unreasonably extend court proceedings. Two specific provisions have been said to be controlling in this case: 28 U. S. C. § 1927, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. This opinion considers both provisions.
A
Section 1927 provides that lawyers who multiply court proceedings vexatiously may be assessed the excess “costs” they create. The provision, however, does not define the critical word. Only if “costs” includes attorney’s fees can § 1927 support the sanction in this case.
Courts generally have defined costs under § 1927 according to 28 U. S. C. § 1920, which enumerates the costs that ordinarily may be taxed to a losing party. E. g., United States v. Ross, 535 F. 2d 346, 350 (CA6 1976); Kiefel v. Las Vegas Hacienda, Inc., 404 F. 2d 1163, 1170 (CA7 1968), cert. denied sub nom. Hubbard v. Kiefel, 395 U. S. 908 (1969). Section 1920 lists clerk’s and marshal’s fees, court reporter charges, printing and witness fees, copying costs, interpreting costs, and the fees of court-appointed experts. Section 1920 also permits the assessment of the attorney “docket” fees set by 28 TJ. S. C. § 1923. In this case, that fee is $20. 28 TJ. S. C. § 1923 (a).
Roadway insists, however, that its recovery should not be restricted to the costs listed in § 1920. It argues that since courts look to § 1920 to determine the costs taxable under § 1927, they should be equally free to define costs according to other statutes that may be involved in a lawsuit. Roadway emphasizes that the civil rights statutes allow the award of attorney’s fees “as part of the costs” of the litigation. 42 TJ. S. C. § 2000e-5 (k); 42 TJ. S. C. § 1988. Accordingly, Roadway asks that we reinstate the District Court’s award. This superficially appealing argument cannot survive careful consideration.
1
Congress enacted the first version of § 1927 in 1813. It was drafted by a Senate Committee appointed “to inquire what Legislative provision is necessary to prevent multiplicity of suits or processes, where a single suit or process might suffice. . . .” 26 Annals of Cong. 29 (1813). The resulting legislation provided in part that any person who “multiplied the proceedings in any cause ... so as to increase costs unreasonably and vexatiously” could be held liable for “any excess of costs so incurred.” Act of July 22, 1813, 3 Stat. 21. The sparse legislative history makes this provision difficult to interpret.
In construing “costs,” however, we may look to the contemporaneous understanding of the term. Cf. Gilbert v. United States, 370 U. S. 650, 655 (1962). In 1796 the Court decided Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 Dali. 306. That ruling overturned an award of counsel fees on the ground that “[t]he general practice of the United States is in op [position to it.” Ibid. Thus, the Court recognized the “American rule” that attorney’s fees ordinarily are not among the costs that a winning party may recover. See Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S. 714, 717-718 (1967). We may assume that Congress followed that rule when it approved the 1813 Act.
Congress returned to the problems of the federal courts in 1853, when it approved a comprehensive measure setting the fees and costs for all federal actions. Act of Feb. 26, 1853, 10 Stat. 162; see Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 251-253 (1975). Some of those provisions survive, largely intact, in 28 U. S. C. §§ 1920 and 1923. See 10 Stat. 161-162, 168. The 1853 statute also substantially-re-enacted the earlier provision that allows lawyers who multiply legal proceedings to be taxed with the extra “costs” they generate. That provision, now codified as § 1927, has remained basically unchanged since 1853.
This history suggests that § 1920 and § 1927 should be read together as part of the integrated statute approved in 1853. See Erlenbaugh v. United States, 409 U. S. 239, 243-244 (1972); 2A C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 51.03, p. 299 (4th ed. 1973). The 1853 Act specified the costs recoverable in federal litigation and also allowed the award of excess “costs” against counsel who vexatiously multiply litigation. The most reasonable construction is that the Act itself defined those costs that may be recovered from counsel. Congress, of course, may amend those provisions that derive from the 1853 Act. In the absence of express modification of those provisions by Congress, however, we should not look beyond the Act for the definition of costs under § 1927.
The available legislative material supports this view. Congress in 1853 prescribed taxable costs for the same reasons it authorized the assessment of costs against dilatory attorneys: “[T]o prevent abuses arising from ingenious constructions ... to discourage unnecessary prolixity, old useless forms, and the multiplication of proceedings, and the prosecutions of several suits which might better be joined in one.” H. R. Rep. No. 50, 32d Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1852); see also Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, supra, at 251-253. Above all, Congress sought to standardize the treatment of costs in federal courts, to “make them uniform— make the law explicit and definite.” H. R. Rep. No. 50, supra, at 6. The sponsor of the legislation spoke of the need for “uniform rule[s],” Cong. Globe, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., App. 207 (1853) (Sen. Bradbury), while other Senators agreed that the legislation was designed to impose “uniformity,” id., at 584 (Sen. Bayard); see also id., at 589 (Sen. Geyer).
Roadway presses us to abandon the uniform approach of the 1853 Act. Because prevailing parties now may recover counsel fees in civil rights suits, Roadway argues that the statutes authorizing those recoveries should be read to modify § 1927. But Roadway offers no evidence that Congress intended to incorporate those attorney’s fee provisions into § 1927. Neither § 1988 nor § 2000e-5 (k) makes any mention of attorney liability for costs and fees. Roadway identifies nothing in the legislative records of those provisions that suggests that Congress meant to control the conduct of litigation. Without any evidence that Congress wished to alter the uniform structure established by the 1853 Act, we are reluctant to disrupt it. See Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., supra, at 719-720.
2
The statutory interpretation proposed by Roadway not only runs counter to the apparent intent of Congress in 1813 and 1853, but also could introduce into the statute distinctions unrelated to its goal. Indeed, Roadway’s argument could result in virtually random application of § 1927 on the basis of other laws that do not address the problem of controlling abuses of judicial processes.
The fee provisions of the civil rights laws are acutely sensitive to the merits of an action and to antidiscrimination policy. Unlike § 1927, both § 1988 and § 2000e-5 (k) restrict recovery to prevailing parties. In addition, those provisions have been construed to treat plaintiffs and defendants somewhat differently. Prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights cases win fee awards unless “special circumstances would render such an award unjust,” Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U. S. 400, 402 (1968) (per curiam), but a prevailing defendant may be awarded counsel fees only when the plaintiff’s underlying claim is “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.” Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 422 (1978). This distinction advances the congressional purpose to encourage suits by victims of discrimination while deterring frivolous litigation.
But § 1927 does not distinguish between winners and losers, or between plaintiffs and defendants. The statute is indifferent to the equities of a dispute and to the values advanced by the substantive law. It is concerned only with limiting the abuse of court processes. Dilatory practices of civil rights plaintiffs are as objectionable as those of defendants. In order to assess counsel fees against respondents under § 1927, the Court would have to adopt one of two alternatives. It could incorporate into § 1927 the normative considerations of the civil rights laws that are foreign to the 1813 enactment. Or the Court could select on an ad hoc basis those features of § 1988 and § 2000e-5 (k) that should be read into § 1927. The first course would alter fundamentally the nature of § 1927; the second would constitute standardless judicial lawmaking.
Moreover, Roadway’s statutory construction would create a two-tier system of attorney sanctions. A number of federal statutes permit the award of attorney’s fees. See Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S., at 260, n. 33. Under Roadway's view of § 1927, lawyers in cases brought under those statutes would face stiffer penalties for prolonging litigation than would other attorneys. There is no persuasive justification for subjecting lawyers in different areas of practice to differing sanctions for dilatory conduct. A court’s processes may be as abused in a commercial case as in a civil rights action. Without an express indication of congressional intent, we must hesitate to reach the imaginative outcome urged by Roadway, particularly when a more plausible construction flows from the original enactments in 1813 and 1853. To avoid the arbitrary results of Roadway's argument, Commissioner v. Brown, 380 U. S. 563, 571 (1965), citing Helvering v. Hammel, 311 U. S. 504, 510-511 (1941), we must reject the claim that § 1988 and § 2000e-5 (k) may supplant the framework established by the 1853 Act.
B
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (b) authorizes sanctions for failure to comply with discovery orders. The District Court may bar the disobedient party from introducing certain evidence, or it may direct that certain facts shall be “taken to be established for the purposes of the action. ...” The Rule also permits the trial court to strike claims from the pleadings, and even to “dismiss the action ... or render a judgment by default against the disobedient party.” See National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 U. S. 639 (1976) (per curiam); Heliums v. Powell, 184 U. S. App. D. C. 339, 566 F. 2d 231 (1977). Both parties and counsel may be held personally liable for expenses, “including attorney’s fees,” caused by the failure to comply with discovery orders. Rule 37 sanctions must be applied diligently both “to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, [and] to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.” National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, supra, at 643.
The respondents in this case never have complied with the District Court’s order that they answer Roadway’s interrogatories. That failure was the immediate ground for dismissing the case, 73 F. R. D., at 412, and it also exposed respondents and their clients to liability under Rule 37 (b) for the resulting costs and attorney’s fees. Indeed, Roadway’s motion for dismissal sought recovery of those expenses under Rule 37. On the remand of this action, the District Court will have the authority to act upon that request.
Ill
Roadway also contends that the District Court’s ruling was a proper exercise of the court’s inherent powers. The inherent powers of federal courts are those which “are necessary to the exercise of all others.”' United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812). The most prominent of these is the contempt sanction, “which a judge must have and exercise in protecting the due and orderly administration of justice and in maintaining the authority and dignity of the court. . . .” Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, 539 (1925); see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *282-*285. Because inherent powers are shielded from direct democratic controls, they must be exercised with restraint and discretion. See Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 450-451 (1011); Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 193-194 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting). There are ample grounds for recognizing, however, that in narrowly defined circumstances federal courts have inherent power to assess attorney’s fees against counsel.
In Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626, 632 (1962), this Court recognized the “well-acknowledged” inherent power of a court to levy sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices. The trial court had dismissed an action for failure to prosecute. Mr. Justice Harlan wrote for the Court:
“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted. The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts. The power is of ancient origin, having its roots in judgments of nonsuit and non prosequitur entered at common law, e. g., 3 Blackstone, Commentaries (1768), 295-296, and dismissals for want of prosecution of bills in equity, e. g., id., at 451.” Id., at 629-630 (footnote omitted).
The Court denied that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b) limits a court’s power to dismiss for failure to prosecute to instances where a defendant moves for dismissal. The Court wrote: “The authority ... to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an 'inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs. . . .” 370 U. S., at 630. Since the assessment of counsel fees is a less severe sanction than outright dismissal, Link strongly supports Roadway’s contention here.
Of course, the general rule in federal courts is that a litigant cannot recover his counsel fees. See Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S., at 257. But that rule does not apply when the opposing party has acted in bad faith. In Alyeska, we acknowledged the “inherent power” of courts to
“assess attorneys’ fees for the 'willful disobedience of a court order ... as part of the fine to be levied on the defendant[,] Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co., 261 U. S. 399, 426-428 (1923),’ Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., supra, at 718; or when the losing party has 'acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons . . . .’ F. D. Rich Co. [v. United States ex rel. Industrial Dumber Co.], 417 U. S. [116], at 129 [(1974)] (citing Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U. S. 527 (1962)).” Id., at 258-259.
The bad-faith exception for the award of attorney’s fees is not restricted to cases where the action is filed in bad faith. '"[B]ad faith’ may be found, not only in the actions that led to the lawsuit, but also in the conduct of the litigation.” Hall v. Cole, 412 U. S. 1, 15 (1973). See Browning Debenture Holders’ Comm. v. DASA Corp., 560 F. 2d 1078, 1088 (CA2 1977). This view coincides with the ruling in Link, supra, which approved judicial power to dismiss a case not because the substantive claim was without merit, but because the plaintiff failed to pursue the litigation.
The power of a court over members of its bar is at least as great as its authority over litigants. If a court may tax counsel fees against a party who has litigated in bad faith, it certainly may assess those expenses against counsel who willfully abuse judicial processes. See Renfrew, Discovery Sanctions: A Judicial Perspective, 67 Calif. L. Rev. 264, 268 (1979). Like other sanctions, attorney’s fees certainly should not be assessed lightly or without fair notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record. But in a proper ease, such sanctions are within a court’s powers.
IV
We affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals on § 1927. Since the District Court did not consider the costs and fees that' Roadway might recover under Rule 37, that question must be addressed on remand. Similarly, the trial court did not make a specific finding as to whether counsel’s conduct in this case constituted or was tantamount to bad faith, a finding that would have to precede any sanction under the court’s inherent powers. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to return it to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The initial complaint also named a local of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as defendant.
If a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” Rule 37 (b) (2) (C) allows the district court to “dismis[s] the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rende[r] a judgment by default against the disobedient party.” Rule 37 (b) (2) (E) also permits a court to “require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure. . . .”
Section 1927 states in full:
“Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case as to increase costs unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally such excess costs.”
As the Court of Appeals pointed out, “§ 1927 provides only for excess costs caused by the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ vexatious behavior and consequent multiplication of the proceedings, and not for the total costs of the litigation.” Monk v. Roadway Express, Inc., 599 F. 2d 1378, 1383 (CA5 1979) (emphasis in original).
Due to sloth, inattention, or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long indulged in dilatory practices. Cf. C. Dickens, Bleak House 2-5 (1948). A number of factors legitimately may lengthen a lawsuit, and the parties themselves may cause some of the delays. Nevertheless, many actions are extended unnecessarily by lawyers who exploit or abuse judicial procedures, especially the liberal rules for pretrial discovery. See Burger, Agenda for 2000 A. D.- A Need for Systematic Anticipation, 70 F. R. D. 83, 95-96 (1976); ABA, Report of Pound Conference FollowUp Task Force, 74 F. R. D. 159, 191-192 (1976); U. S. Dept, of Justice, C. Ellington, A Study of Sanctions for Discovery Abuse 117 (1979). The glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the federal courts and, ultimately, disrespect for the law.
Section 2000e-5 (k) states: “In any action or proceeding under this subchapter the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the [Equal Employment Opportunity] Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, and the Commission and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.”
Section 1988 provides in relevant part: “In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318, or in any civil action or proceedings [to enforce] a provision of the United States Internal Revenue Code, or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”
For the purposes of the issues in this opinion, the two provisions may be considered to have the same substantive content. See Lopez v. Arkansas County Independent School Dist., 570 F. 2d 541, 545 (CA5 1978); Mid-Hudson Legal Services, Inc. v. G & U, Inc., 578 F. 2d 34, 37-38 (CA2 1978). They authorize fee awards in identical language, and Congress acknowledged the close connection between the two statutes when it approved §1988. S. Rep. No. 94-1011, pp. 2-6 (1976); H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, pp. 5-8 (1976).
A letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the House of Representatives in 1842 suggests that the provision was prompted by the practices of certain United States Attorneys. H. R. Doe. No. 25, 27th Cong., 3d Sess., 21-22 (1842). Some of those officers, who were paid on a piecework basis, apparently had filed unnecessary lawsuits to inflate their compensation.
The attorney liability portion of the 1853 Act was codified as § 982 of the Revised Statutes, while the cost-setting portions were included as §§ 823 and 824. The portions assumed their present positions at §§ 1920, 1923, and 1927 of Title 28 in the Revised Code of 1948. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1920, 1923, 1927 (1946 ed., Supp. II).
For example, in 1978 Congress added 28 U. S. C. § 1920 (6) (1976 ed., Supp. II), providing for recovery of interpreting costs. Pub. L. 95-539, § 7, 92 Stat. 2044. Congress is now considering legislation that would expand § 1927 in all cases to include “costs, expenses and attorney’s fees. . . .” H. R. 4047, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979); S. 390, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., § 4 (1979).
The Senate Report accompanying § 1988 stated that the bill authorizes “an award of attorneys’ fees against a party. . . .” S. Rep. No. 94-4011, p. 5 (1976) (emphasis supplied). This reference reinforces the view that the statute was not intended to permit recovery from opposing counsel.
See Stanziale v. First National City Bank, 74 F. R. D. 557 (SDNY 1977) (attorneys); Charron v. Meavx, 66 F. R. D. 64 (SDNY 1975) (party); Chesa International, Ltd. v. Fashion Associates, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 234 (SDNY), aff’d, 573 F. 2d 1288 (CA2 1977) (joint liability of attorney and party).
Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Rehnquist would not reach the inherent power question considered in Part III of the opinion. Rather, they view that question as a substantial issue that should be addressed by the District Court on remand.
See generally In re Bithoney, 486 F. 2d 319 (CA1 1973); Flaksa v. Little River Marine Constr. Co., 389 F. 2d 885, 888-889 (CA5), cert. denied, 392 U. S. 928 (1968); Gamble v. Pope & Talbot, Inc., 307 F. 2d 729, 735-736 (CA3) (en banc) (Biggs, C. J., dissenting), cert, denied sub nom. United States District Court v. Mahoney, 371 U. S. 888 (1962).
New York courts have ordered attorneys who delay litigation to pay costs or fines to the opposing party. E. g., Moran v. Rynar, 39 App. Div. 2d 718, 332 N. Y. S. 2d 138 (1972); Kahn v. Stamp, 52 App. Div. 2d 748, 382 N. Y. S. 2d 199 (1976); Gillet v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 99 Misc. 2d 172, 415 N. Y. S. 2d 738 (Sup. Ct. 1979). The state-court opinions cite no statutory authority for their holdings, apparently relying on the inherent powers of those courts. Moran v. Rynar, supra, noted favorable commentary on Schwarz v. United States, 384 F. 2d 833, 836 (CA2 1967), which suggested that courts faced with cases “of inexcusable neglect by counsel [should consider] imposing substantial costs and attorney’s fees payable by offending counsel personally to the opposing party. . . .” Although the New York courts have sanctioned lawyers for •mere negligence, this opinion addresses only bad-faith conduct.
Some due process implications of sanctions for misconduct of litigation were discussed in Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U. S. 197, 208-212 (1958), which reversed the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a pretrial discovery order. The due process concerns posed by an outright dismissal are plainly greater than those presented by assessing counsel fees against lawyers. Cf. Schwarz v. United States, supra. Moreover, Societe Internationale did not involve willful misconduct or bad faith. The Court found that the party whose claim was dismissed had been barred by a Swiss criminal statute from complying with the order. 357 U. S., at 209, 211.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Per Curiam.
This appeal presents questions as to the appropriate standards of proof and appropriate remedy in suits that allege a violation of voting rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. We do not reach these questions, however, as it appears that the judgment under review may rest alternatively upon a statutory ground of decision.
I
Appellees, black voters of Escambia County, Fla., filed suit in the District Court, alleging that the at-large system for electing the five members of the Board of County Commissioners violated appellees’ rights under the First, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 71 Stat. 637, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1971(a)(1), and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973. Appellees contended that the at-large system operated to “dilute” their voting strength. See, e. g., Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 616-617 (1982).
The District Court entered judgment for appellees. That court found that the at-large system used by the county discriminated against black voters and had been retained at least in part for discriminatory purposes. The court concluded that the system violated appellees’ rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act. The District Court ordered that the five commissioners be elected from single-member districts.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment, concluding that the at-large election system violated the Fourteenth Amendment and that the District Court’s remedy was appropriate. 688 F. 2d 960 (1982). As the finding of a Fourteenth Amendment violation was adequate to support the District Court’s judgment, the Court of Appeals did not review the District Court’s conclusion that the at-large system also violated the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Id., at 961, n. 2.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 460 U. S. 1080 (1983).
II
This appeal presents the question whether the evidence of discriminatory intent in the record before the District Court was adequate to support the finding that the at-large system violated the Fourteenth Amendment. We decline to decide this question. As the Court of Appeals noted, the District Court’s judgment rested alternatively upon the Voting Rights Act. See 688 F. 2d, at 961, n. 2; App. to Juris. Statement 101a. Moreover, the 1982 amendments to that Act, Pub. L. 97-205, §3, 96 Stat. 134, 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b), were not before the Court of Appeals. Affirmance on the statutory ground would moot the constitutional issues presented by the case. It is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case. See Ashwander v. TV A, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
The parties have not briefed the statutory question, and, in any event, that question should be decided in the first instance by the Court of Appeals. We conclude, therefore, that the proper course is to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that court for consideration of the question whether the Voting Rights Act provides grounds for affirmance of the District Court’s judgment.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun, while joining the Court’s per curiam opinion, would disallow costs in this case.
Defendants named in the suit were Escambia County, the Board of County Commissioners and its individual members, and the County Supervisor of Elections. Only former and present individual members of the Board are now before the Court as appellants. See n. 4, infra.
The Court of Appeals initially had reversed the District Court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals had found, under this Court’s decision in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 (1980), that claims of “vote dilution” were not cognizable under the Fifteenth Amendment or the Voting Rights Act and that the evidence of discriminatory intent was insufficient to demonstrate a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 638 F. 2d 1239 (1981). After this Court decided Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613 (1982), the Court of Appeals granted appellees’ petition for rehearing and reversed its judgment on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. 688 F. 2d 960 (1982). The Court of Appeals concluded, in light of Rogers, that the District Court’s findings as to the discriminatory effects and purposes of the at-large system were not “clearly erroneous.” 688 F. 2d, at 969.
The Court of Appeals vacated its first opinion, see n. 2, supra, that had considered questions under the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. 688 F. 2d, at 961. Reconsideration of these grounds for relief on the petition for rehearing would have further delayed decision of the case, because appellants had not had an opportunity to brief the questions raised by Congress’ recent amendment of the Voting Rights Act, see infra, at 51.
Appellees move to dismiss on the grounds that no proper appellants are before the Court. The Board of County Commissioners itself has voted to dismiss the appeal. Aside from the two present Commissioners who dissented from this vote, several former Commissioners, who lost their seats in the subsequent court-ordered election, remain before the Court. Contrary to appellees’ contention, the former Commissioners were not automatically dismissed as appellants when they left office, and the jurisdictional statement did not limit them to participation in the appeal in their “official capacity.” Juris. Statement 1. Appellees have not suggested that the appeal is moot as to the issues of liability or that appellants have no live interest in the controversy.
Appellees do contend that the issue of appropriate remedy is moot, a contention that we need not reach in light of our disposition of the case. See n. 6, infra. Nor need we reach appellees’ contention that the case is not a proper appeal, a contention that may involve difficult questions of Florida law, as we would in any event treat the jurisdictional statement as a petition for certiorari, grant that petition, and dispose of the case as we do today. See 28 U. S. C. § 2103; El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U. S. 497, 501-503 (1965).
As amended, § 1973 provides in part:
“(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen ... to vote on account of race or color ....
“(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. ...”
Because questions of liability remain to be considered, we need not reach the issue whether the District Court’s remedial order was proper under Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U. S. 535 (1978), and McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130 (1981).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation concerns the proper computation of benefits to working recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), provided pursuant to subch. IV, pt. A, of the Social Security Act of 1935 (Act), as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq. Specifically, we must decide whether, in calculating a household’s need, the responsible state agency is to treat mandatory tax withholdings as a work expense encompassed within the flat-sum disregard of § 402(a)(8)(A)(ii) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §602(a)(8)(A)(ii), or whether the agency is to deduct such sums in determining “income” under § 402(a)(7)(A) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(7)(A). The latter interpretation, of course, would accrue to the benefit of the recipient.
I
Before 1981, § 402(a)(7) of the Act required the state agency responsible for calculating a family’s eligibility for AFDC benefits to “take into consideration any... income and resources of any child... claiming aid,” as well as any “expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of any such income.” See Pub. L. 87-543, § 106(b), 76 Stat. 188 (1962). The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA), Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 357, however, effected amendments of § 402(a)(7). While preserving the language that instructs the State to consider a family’s income and resources, Congress, in §2302 of OBRA, 95 Stat. 844, eliminated the requirement that the State take into account “expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of any such income.” At the same time, by §2301, 95 Stat. 843, Congress placed in § 402(a)(8)(A)(ii), 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(8)(A)(ii), a flat $75 “work expense” deduction or “disregard” to be taken from an individual’s “earned income.”
In response to these amendments, petitioner Secretary of Health and Human Services advised the responsible state agencies that mandatory payroll deductions were to be included in the new $75 work-expense disregard and that this disregard was to be taken from gross rather than net income. The State of California promptly issued regulations implementing these directions; this had the effect of significantly reducing benefits paid to approximately 45,000 California AFDC families with working members.
Respondents, a class of all past, present, and future California AFDC recipients who have been or will be affected by the changes wrought in the AFDC program by OBRA, brought this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the California regulations implementing the Secretary’s directions. They contended that the regulations misconstrued the term “income” in § 402(a)(7) to mean gross income, and thereby incorrectly relegated mandatory payroll deductions to the work expenses covered by the flat-sum disregard of § 402(a)(8); instead, according to respondents, they were entitled to have these mandatory payroll items disregarded by the State when calculating income and resources under § 402(a)(7). The State of California brought the Secretary into the litigation as a third-party defendant.
The District Court agreed with the plaintiff class. It therefore granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, as well as the State’s motion for summary judgment against the Secretary. The court enjoined the State from implementing its new regulations and the Secretary from terminating federal matching funds due the State. Turner v. Woods, 559 F. Supp. 603 (1982).
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Turner v. Prod, 707 F. 2d 1109 (1983). Finding’ the statutory language unhelpful, it scrutinized the legislative history and the administrative interpretation of the two statutory provisions before relying primarily on “congressional purpose” to conclude that § 402(a)(7) “income” had always been net income after deduction of amounts man-datorily withheld for payment of social security, federal, state, and local taxes. Therefore, it concluded, the substitution of the flat-sum disregard of § 402(a)(8) for the work-expense disregard of § 402(a)(7) had had no effect on the independent deduction of tax withholdings in determining need.
The other Courts of Appeals to address the issue have concluded that Congress intended the flat work-expense disregard of § 402(a)(8) to encompass mandatory payroll with-holdings, and that “income” for purposes of § 402(a)(7) was gross income. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 465 U. S. 1064 (1984). On July 19, 1984, after the writ had issued but before this Court heard oral argument, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat. 494, became law. This new legislation includes a provision, § 2625(a), 98 Stat. 1135, that directly addresses the issue raised by this case. On the basis of that congressional action, Justice Rehnquist, in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit, prospectively stayed the injunction from July 18, 1984. 468 U. S. 1305 (1984) (in chambers). We now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
HH H-H
“The AFDC program is based on a scheme of cooperative federalism.” King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 316 (1968). Established by Title IV of the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 627, “to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children and the parents or relatives who live with and care for them,” Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U. S. 251, 253 (1974), the federal program reimburses each State which chooses to participate with a percentage of the funds it expends. §403, 42 U. S. C. §603. In return, the State must administer its assistance program pursuant to a state plan that conforms to applicable federal statutes and regulations. §402, 42 U. S. C. §602. Among these provisions are the two relevant here — § 402(a)(7), which requires consideration of “income” for purposes of determining need, and § 402(a)(8), which requires the State to disregard certain sums from a recipient’s income in making that determination.
The present controversy has its roots in a series of amendments to these two sections. As originally enacted in 1935, the Act did not expressly require a State to decrease AFDC grants to families with other income sources. Effective July 1, 1941, however, Congress added § 402(a)(7), which mandated that a state agency, in determining need, shall “take into consideration any... income and resources of any child claiming aid to dependent children.” Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, § 401(b), 53 Stat. 1379.
This amendment, in its turn, created a new problem. Because “families with working members incurred certain employment-related expenses that reduced available income but were not taken into account by the States in determining eligibility for AFDC assistance,” the Social Security Board soon “recognized that a failure to consider work-related expenses could result in a disincentive to seek or retain employment.” Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U. S., at 259. To avoid defeating the purpose of the Act to encourage employment even where it did not wholly eliminate the need for public assistance, ibid.; see §401, 42 U. S. C. §601, the Board encouraged the State, in determining a family’s need, to take account of the additional incidental expenses encountered by a working person.
In 1962, Congress converted this administrative prompting into a statutory requirement. It amended § 402(a)(7) to oblige the State to consider, in addition to “income and resources,” all “expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of any such income.” Public Welfare Amendments of 1962, Pub. L. 87-543, § 106(b), 76 Stat. 188. The amendment made “mandatory the widespread but then optional practice of deducting employment expenses from total income in determining eligibility for assistance.” Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U. S., at 260.
The statute again was amended, effective July 1, 1969, to alter fundamentally the statutory treatment of earned income. Social Security Amendments of 1967, Pub. L. 90-248, § 202(b), 81 Stat. 881. Instead of merely protecting against the possibility of a disincentive, Congress moved to create an affirmative incentive to employment by adding several new deductions, or earned-income disregards. While it left intact the language of § 402(a)(7), requiring the State to take into account both a family’s “income and resources” and “any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of any such income,” the amended version subjected this requirement to a new provision, § 402(a)(8). In part, the new section required the State, in computing income for purposes of determining need, to disregard the first $30 of “earned income” in any month, “plus one-third of the remainder of such income for such month.” 81 Stat. 881. The effect, of course, was to decrease the amount of “earned income” and thereby to increase a family’s benefits.
In response to the new section, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which, as successor to the Social Security Board and predecessor of the Department of Health and Human Services, was then administering the AFDC program, issued regulations defining “earned income” for purposes of § 402(a)(8), and incorporating the new disregards into the benefit calculations. “Earned income” was defined as the “total amount” of “commissions, wages, or salary,” and calculated “irrespective of personal expenses, such as income-tax deductions....” 45 CFR § 233.20(a)(6)(iv) (1970).
In 1981, by OBRA, Congress again significantly altered the treatment of work expenses. As noted above, in place of the requirement of § 402(a)(7) that the State consider expenses “reasonably attributable” to the earning of income, Congress substituted in § 402(a)(8) a child-care disregard of up to $160, and a flat $75 disregard, “in lieu of itemized work expenses.” S. Rep. No. 97-139, p. 435 (1981). In addition, Congress restricted the “$30 plus one-third” disregard to the first four months of a recipient’s employment, § 402(a)(8)(B)(ii)(II), 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(8)(B)(ii)(II), and reduced its impact by requiring that the calculation be made after the work-expense and child-care disregards had been subtracted, § 402(a)(8)(A)(iv), 42 U. S. C. §602(a)(8)(A)(iv).
In determining how Congress intended these tandem provisions to operate, we look first, as always, to the language of the statute. North Dakota v. United States, 460 U. S. 300, 312 (1983). We do not find this language, as informed by the structure and pattern of amendment of the relevant provisions, as unhelpful as did the Court of Appeals.
K
The statute makes no explicit provision for the deduction of mandatory payroll-tax withholdings. Nor does it qualify the meaning of “income” for purposes of § 402(a)(7). Instead, that section provides that, “except as may be otherwise provided in” § 402(a)(8), the state agency’s determination of need must take account of “any other income and resources” of an AFDC recipient. Section 402(a)(8), in turn, requires that specified amounts of a recipient’s “earned income” be disregarded “in making the determination” under § 402(a)(7). Successive paragraphs of the statute, then, employ twin usages of the term “income” — the first expressly unqualified, the second limited to that “earned.” Absent contrary indications, it seems to us to make sense to read “earned income” to represent a subset of the broader term “income.” Since those portions of one’s salary or wages withheld to meet tax obligations are nonetheless “earned,” a common-sense meaning of “earned income” would include tax withholdings. Such an interpretation is reflected, in any event, in the Secretary’s longstanding definition of the term as “the total amount [of commissions, wages, or salary], irrespective of personal expenses, such as income-tax deductions.” 45 CFR §233.20(a)(6)(iv) (1984). The OBRA Congress must have had that definition in mind when it re-employed the term in § 402(a)(8). Since earned income includes mandatory tax withholdings, so too does the broader category of “income.” Thus, the calculation of need must include all income, unless the recipient has earned income. In that event, the recipient gets the benefit of the disregards of § 402(a)(8). Any authorization for the deduction from § 402(a)(7) income of a working recipient’s tax liabilities, even if mandatorily withheld from pay, must be found in the earned-income disregards of § 402(a)(8).
Among those disregards is the flat sum of $75 monthly. § 402(a)(8)(A)(ii). As the congressional Reports accompanying the 1981 amendments make clear, Congress provided this flat sum “in lieu of itemized work expenses.” S. Rep. No. 97-139, p. 435 (1981); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-208, p. 979 (1981). The substitution is apparent, as well, from the simultaneous elimination from § 402(a)(7) of the language requiring States to consider “expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of... income.” Tax liabilities indisputably are so attributable. Indeed, they are the paradigmatic work expense: while transportation, food, clothing, and the like often are susceptible to economies, the proverbial certainty attaches to taxes. Further, the new version of § 402(a)(8) provides a separate disregard, up to $160 monthly, for child-care expenditures, another species of work expense. In contrast, the absence of a special provision conferring independent authorization to disregard mandatory tax with-holdings indicates that they were thought to come within the flat deduction. In sum, there is no support in language or structure for any inference that, notwithstanding the unqualified benchmark of “any other income” in § 402(a)(7) and the specified earned-income disregards of § 402(a)(8), Congress contemplated an additional but unmentioned deduction for tax liabilities.
The administrative background against which the OBRA Congress worked also supports the conclusion that mandatory tax withholdings were among the items Congress intended to include within the flat-sum disregard of § 402(a)(8)(A)(ii). Until 1962, there was no statutory or regulatory requirement that the States disregard work-related expenses in assessing a working recipient’s income, although the successive federal agencies responsible for the AFDC program urged the States to do so as a matter of sound administrative practice. It appears that virtually all States acceded to that urging, at least to the extent of deducting mandatory tax withholdings, although practices varied widely as to other types of expenses. See App. 30-36, Bureau of Public Assistance, Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Assistance Report No. 43: State Methods for Determining Need in the Aid to Dependent Children Program (March 1961). The practice of deducting with-holdings continued after § 402(a)(7) was amended in 1962 expressly to require a State to take account of work expenses in determining income; of course, during this period the deduction and computation would have been the same whether the withholdings were subtracted from income pursuant to the work-expense disregard or not included in income in the first place.
The addition of the work-incentive disregard in 1967, however, made it necessary to detail the steps in the determination of need. In response, HEW promulgated detailed regulations on the application of these disregards to earned income. As noted above, one regulation, which has remained unchanged since its initial promulgation, defined “earned income” to mean
“the total amount [of commissions, wages, or salary], irrespective of personal expenses, such as income-tax deductions, lunches, and transportation to and from work, and irrespective of expenses of employment which are not personal, such as the cost of tools, materials, special uniforms, or transportation to call on customers.” 45 CFR § 233.20(a)(6)(iv) (1970).
Another regulation — which has also remained unchanged, though after OBRA it no longer applied to AFDC calculations — set forth the procedure by which the disregards would be applied:
“The applicable amounts of earned income to be disregarded will be deducted from the gross amount of ‘earned income,’ and all work expenses, personal and non-personal, will then be deducted. Only the net amount remaining will be applied in determining need and the amount of the assistance payment.” 45 CFR § 233.20(a)(7)(i) (1970).
The second regulation, echoing the terminology of the first, clearly treated mandatory tax withholdings as “personal” work expenses. The authority for deducting such expenses, of course, by then was the work-expense disregard of § 402(a)(7).
Administrative practice reflected the taxonomy of the regulations. Sometime after 1962, but well before the OBRA Congress acted, many States had come to treat tax withholdings as expenses “reasonably attributable to the earning of... income.” A 1972 HEW study reported that virtually every State subjected mandatory payroll with-holdings to the work-expense provision of § 402(a)(7). See App. 47, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Memorandum, Assistance Payments Administration, Social and Rehabilitation Service (Feb. 1, 1972). The Colorado program under consideration in Shea was said to treat mandatory payroll deductions as “expenses reasonably attributable to employment,” 416 U. S., at 254-255, and the Shea Court assumed as much, id., at 255. And, in 1977, the House Committee on Government Operations received a comprehensive report on the AFDC program which appeared to indicate that all of the 43 States that responded to the inquiry treated mandatory tax withholdings as deductible work expenses. Congressional Research Service, Administration of the AFDC Program: A Report to the Committee on Government Operations 98 (Comm. Print 1977).
There is no reason to suppose that the Congress that enacted OBRA legislated in ignorance of the then generally accepted categorization of mandatory tax withholdings as work expenses. To the contrary, the Senate Report described Congress’ understanding of existing law:
“In determining AFDC benefits, States are required to disregard from the recipient’s total income: (1) the first $30 earned monthly, plus one-third of additional earnings; and (2) any expenses (including child care) reasonably attributable to the earning of such income....” S. Rep. No. 97-139, p. 501 (1981).
It is unlikely that Congress would have omitted so important an independent step as the disregard of tax liabilities. Instead, the parenthetical mention of child-care expenditures presages their treatment in the revised § 402(a)(8) as the only type of work expense separately disregarded.
The House Conference Report describes the new provisions to the same effect:
“States would be required to disregard the following amount of earnings, in the following order:
“(a) Eligibility Determination — the first $75 of monthly earnings for full time employment (in lieu of itemized work expenses); and the cost of care for a child or incapacitated adult, up to $160 per child per month.
“(b) Benefit Calculation^-the first $75 of monthly earnings for full time employment; child care costs up to $160 per child per month; and $30 plus one-third of earnings not previously disregarded.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-208, pp. 978-979 (1981).
Again, we find it implausible that Congress would have provided an otherwise complete description of the proposed calculation, yet neglect to mention that “earnings” or “monthly earnings” did not include mandatory tax withholdings.
We acknowledge that the legislative history of the 1962 amendments, which codified the administrative policy that a state agency take account of work expenses in determining need, does not mention mandatory tax withholdings. See S. Rep. No. 1589, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 17-18 (1962); H. R. Rep. No. 1414, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 23 (1962). It is also true that in amending its guide to the States in response to the 1962 amendment of § 402(a)(7), HEW did not include such withholdings in its list of expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of income. See App. 39-41, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, pt. IV, §3140 (Apr. 22, 1964). This silence is at best ambiguous, however. The failure to mention these expenses well may have resulted from Congress’ and HEW’s recognition that the States, acquiescing in the longstanding policy of the federal agencies administering AFDC that state agencies attempt realistically to ascertain recipients’ need, already deducted these expenses in determining eligibility and benefit levels. As the Court of Appeals recognized, the source of the authority to reduce countable income by the amount of various work expenses was unclear at this time. 707 F. 2d, at 1120. In any event, we must identify Congress’ intention in 1981. It is clear that by then the practice of disregarding amounts withheld to satisfy tax liabilities had found a statutory home in the work-expense disregard of § 402(a)(7). It is equally clear that they were among the “itemized work expenses” which the OBRA Congress intended the flat-sum disregard to replace.
B
The Court of Appeals recognized that “if mandatory payroll deductions enter into income at all, they must be treated as work-related expenses subject to the $75 ceiling enacted by OBRA, because no separate disregard for payroll with-holdings exists.” 707 F. 2d, at 1120. It avoided this conclusion, however, by rejecting its premise. According to the Court of Appeals, mandatory tax withholdings always had been excluded from the calculation of a working recipient’s income by virtue of a long-enshrined principle of “actual availability,” which, independently of any explicit statutory disregards, governed the definition of “income” for purposes of § 402(a)(7). Therefore, the substitution of the flat $75 disregard of § 402(a)(8) for the work-expense disregard of § 402(a)(7) had no effect on the treatment of tax payments, which should continue to be deducted from a working recipient’s earnings as the first step in any determination of need.
We disagree. Contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, the principle of actual availability has not been understood to distinguish the treatment of tax withholdings from that of other work expenses. Rather, it has served primarily to prevent the States from conjuring fictional sources of income and resources by imputing financial support from persons who have no obligation to furnish it or by overvaluing assets in a manner that attributes nonexistent resources to recipients.
The availability principle traces its origins to congressional consideration of the 1939 amendments to the Act. At that time, some Members expressed concern, specifically with regard to the old-age assistance program, that state agencies not assume financial assistance from potential sources, such as children, who actually might not contribute. See 3 Hearings Relative to the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939 before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 2254 (1939) (statement of A. J. Alt-meyer, Chairman, Social Security Board); 84 Cong. Rec. 6851 (1939) (statement of Rep. Poage). Shortly after passage of the 1939 amendments, the Board adopted a policy statement applicable to various aid programs, including AFDC. See App. 17-20, Social Security Board Memorandum (Dec. 20, 1940). The statement cautioned the States that in effecting the new statutory directive to take into account a recipient’s “income and resources,” they must ensure that any such income or resources “actually exist,” be not “fictitious” or “imputed,” and “be actually on hand or ready for use when it is needed.” A short time later, this policy statement was incorporated in substantially the same form in the Board’s guidelines to the States, see App. 21-23, and successive federal agencies administering the AFDC program have continued to endorse the principle. See, e. g., HEW Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, pt. IV, §3131.7 (1967) (quoted in Lewis v. Martin, 397 U. S. 552, 555, and n. 6 (1970)). At no time, however, have the federal AFDC agencies suggested that it demanded special treatment of mandatory tax withholdings.
This Court, too, has viewed the actual availability principle “clearly [to] comport with the statute,” King v. Smith, 392 U. S., at 319, n. 16, and has not hesitated to give it effect in that case and others. See Lewis v. Martin, supra; Van Lare v. Hurley, 421 U. S. 338 (1975). But the Court’s cases applying the principle clearly reflect that its purpose is to prevent the States from relying on imputed or unrealizable sources of income artificially to depreciate a recipient’s need. For example, in King v. Smitk the Court considered the actual availability regulation in holding that Alabama could not deny assistance to otherwise eligible children solely on the basis of their mother’s cohabitation with a “substitute father,” not their own, without regard to whether the putative substitute actually contributed to the children’s support. 392 U. S., at 319-320, and n. 16.
The failure of the federal agencies administering AFDC to apply the availability principle to distinguish mandatory tax withholdings is not surprising. The sums they consume are no less available for living expenses than other sums mandatorily withheld from the worker’s paycheck and other expenses necessarily incurred while employed. In implicit recognition of this analytic difficulty, the Court of Appeals, without helpful explanation, purported to clarify the District Court’s ruling by excluding “non-governmental deductions” from its compass, specifying that only federal, state, and local income taxes, social security taxes, and “state disability and equivalent governmental programs” could properly be denominated “non-income items.” 707 F. 2d, at 1124. The
individual respondents make an identical concession, Brief for APDC Respondents 46, but they, also, fail to trace a similarly circumscribed rationale. Yet sums mandatorily withheld for obligations such as union dues, medical insurance, or retirement programs no more pass through the wage earner’s hands than do mandatory tax withholdings. Insofar as the Court of Appeals’ definition pivots on availability to meet family expenses, any distinction between various species of payroll withholdings would be “metaphysical indeed.” James v. O’Bannon, 557 F. Supp. 631, 641 (ED Pa. 1982), aff’d, 715 F. 2d 794 (CA3 1983), cert, pending sub nom. James v. Cohen, No. 83-6168. Likewise, the expenditure of funds on other work-related expenses, such as transportation, meals, and uniforms, just as effectively precludes their use for the needs of the family. That they first pass through the wage earner’s hands is a difference of no apparent import: “the time of payment seems... but a superficial distinction; all necessary expenses must be met sometime.” Dickenson v. Petit, 728 F. 2d 23, 25 (CA1 1984), cert, pending, No. 83-6769. There is no reason, then, why the actual availability principle, once applied to exclude mandatory tax withhold-ings from the definition of income, would not similarly apply to other mandatory payroll withholdings and other standard work expenses, both of which also render a portion of a wage earner’s income unavailable to meet the recipient family’s needs. Yet this would negate Congress’ enactment of the flat-sum work-expense disregard in 1981. The failure of the Court of Appeals to outline a principled limit to the applicability of the availability principle to sums deducted from gross income is telling.
The Court of Appeals, however, thought it “clear that the agency charged with the administration of this statute has long regarded it as dealing with net income exclusively.” 707 F. 2d, at 1115. To support this conclusion, it cited the then-current regulation embodying the availability principle, which, as republished after OBRA, provided that “ ‘in determining need and the amount of the assistance payment... [n]et income... and resources available shall be considered... Ibid., quoting 45 CFR §233.20(a)(3)(ii)(D) (1983), as amended by 47 Fed. Reg. 5647, 5675 (1982) (emphasis supplied by Court of Appeals). The court, in our view, however, ignored the context in which the term “net income” appeared. The “net income” to which the regulation then referred was that for which the recipient family must account “after all policies governing the reserves and allowances and disregard or setting aside of income and resources... have been uniformly applied.” 45 CFR §233.20(a)(3)(ii) (1983); see also 45 CFR §233.20(a)(3)(ii)(a) (1970). Among those “policies governing... disregard” was that governing earned income, which provided that “[o]nly the net amount remaining” after application of the work-incentive and work-expense disregards would be applied in determining need. 45 CFR § 233.20(a)(7)(f) (1970). This Court recognized the proper referent of “net income and resources” in Shea v. Vialpando, where we observed with regard to an earlier version of the regulation:
“The ‘income and resources’ attributable to an applicant, defined in 45 CFR §§ 233.20(a)(6) (iii-viii), consist generally of ‘only such net income as is actually available for current use on a regular basis... and only currently available resources.’ 45 CFR §233.20(a)(3)(ii)(c).... In determining net income, any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of income are deducted from gross income. Jp2 U. S. C. § 602(a)(7). If, taking into account these deductions and other deductions not at issue in the instant case, the net amount of ‘earned income’ is less than the predetermined statewide standard of need, the applicant is eligible for participation in the program and the amount of the assistance payments will be based upon that difference. 45 CFR §233.20 (a)(3)(ii)(a) and (c)” (emphasis supplied). 416 U. S., at 253-254.
Thus, it is apparent that the net amount to which the regulation refers is that remaining after AFDC disregards, not simply payroll withholdings.
Finally, even accepting the view of the Court of Appeals that § 402(a)(7) “income” does not encompass mandatory tax withholdings, one reaches a much more limited result than respondents seek. In the face of the straightforward regulatory definition of “earned income” and Congress’ reemployment of that term in reworking the § 402(a)(8) disregards, it is clear that the flat-sum disregard is to be deducted from total earned income, including mandatory tax withholdings, as provided by § 402(a)(8) and its implementing regulations. The putative rule excluding tax withholdings as “non-income items” under § 402(a)(7) income would also take total earnings as its starting point. Thus, the benefits each provides would be duplicative until deductions exceeded $75. Respondents’ understanding of § 402(a)(7) would simply require the state agency to permit recipients to deduct the greater of either actual payroll deductions or $75. No party urges this construction, of course, because it would have been a senseless and cumbersome way for Congress to achieve such a result. But, for us, it demonstrates the implausibility of respondents’ view of the interplay of § 402(a)(7) and § 402(a)(8).
C
Notwithstanding its conclusion that the actual availability principle had always governed the treatment of mandatory tax withholdings in calculating an AFDC family’s need, and continued to do so after enactment of OBRA, the Court of Appeals looked “primarily to congressional purpose” for its holding that these withholdings should be deducted independently of the flat-sum disregard. 707 F. 2d, at 1110. As the court noted, the AFDC statute has long sought to
“enabl[e] each State to furnish financial assistance... to needy dependent children and the parents or relatives with whom they are living... and to help such parents or relatives to attain or retain capability for the maximum self-support and personal independence consistent with the maintenance of continuing parental care and protection....” §401, 42 U. S. C. §601.
See Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U. S., at 253. While acknowledging the cost-cutting focus of the OBRA amendments, the Court of Appeals reasoned that its construction best accommodated what it saw as the competing purposes of the 76th and 97th Congresses. First, citing the elimination after the first four months of employment of the $30 and one-third, work-incentive disregard, which it regarded as OBRA’s “chief economizing feature,” as well as the imposition of a cap on the child-care and work-expense disregards, the court opined that other changes in the statutory disregards fully accomplished any budgetary savings intended by the OBRA Congress. Next, it reasoned that the unchanged statement of statutory purpose compelled its construction, which still resulted in a disincentive to employment, because it produced a lesser disincentive than that effected by the Secretary’s regulations. Finally, seeing “no reason to believe that AFDC recipients will work in order to pay handsomely for the privilege,” it decided that in the long term the OBRA Congress’ desire to reduce welfare expenditures would best be accomplished by avoiding or minimizing financial penalties on employed recipients. 707 F. 2d, at 1123.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the OBRA Congress neither changed the language of the AFDC statement of purpose nor abandoned the statutory goals. We also agree that the new scheme, as implemented by the Secretary, threatens to dissipate any incentive to employment, in some cases perhaps even forcing recipients who wish to work to apportion a smaller sum to family expenses than if they stayed at home. Unlike the Court of Appeals, however, we hesitate to tell Congress that it might have achieved its budgetary objectives by less than the full range of changes it chose to utilize, particularly when the information provided Congress by 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: | 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.
Petitioner was a participant in a joint venture which acquired a 45-acre parcel of land, the intended use for which is somewhat in dispute. Petitioner contends that the venturers’ intention was to develop and operate an apartment project on the land; the respondent’s position is that there was a “dual purpose” of developing the property for rental purposes or selling, whichever proved to be the more profitable. In any event, difficulties in obtaining the necessary financing were encountered, and the interior lots of the tract were subdivided and sold. The profit from those sales was reported and taxed as ordinary income.
The joint venturers continued to explore the possibility of commercially developing the remaining exterior parcels. Additional frustrations in the form of zoning restrictions were encountered. These difficulties persuaded petitioner and another of the joint venturers of the desirability of terminating the venture; accordingly, they sold out their interests in the remaining property. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to treat the profits from this last sale as capital gains; the respondent takes the position that this was “property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business,” and thus subject to taxation as ordinary income.
The District Court made the following finding:
“The members of [the joint venture], as of the date the 44.901 acres were acquired, intended either to sell the property or develop it for rental, depending upon which course appeared to be most profitable. The venturers realized that they had made a good purchase price-wise and, if they were unable to obtain acceptable construction financing or rezoning . . . which would be prerequisite to commercial development, they would sell the property in bulk so they wouldn’t get hurt. The purpose of either selling or developing the property continued during the period in which .[the joint venture] held the property.”
The District Court ruled that petitioner had failed to establish that the property was not held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, and thus rejected petitioner’s claim to capital gain treatment for the profits derived from the property’s resale. The’ Court of Appeals affirmed, 347 F. 2d 23. We granted certiorari (382 U. S. 900) to resolve a conflict among the courts of appeals with regard to the meaning of the term “primarily” as it is used in § 1221 (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
The statute denies capital gain treatment to profits reaped from the sale of “property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business.” (Emphasis added.) The respondent urges upon us a construction of “primarily” as meaning that a purpose may be “primary” if it is a “substantial” one.
As we have often said, “the words of statutes — including revenue acts — should be interpreted where possible in their ordinary, everyday senses.” Crane v. Commissioner, 331 U. S. 1, 6. And see Hanover Bank v. Commissioner, 369 U. S. 672, 687-688; Commissioner v. Korell, 339 U. S. 619, 627-628. Departure from a literal reading of statutory language may, on occasion, be indicated by relevant internal evidence of the statute itself and necessary in order to effect the legislative purpose. See, e. g., Board of Governors v. Agnew, 329 U. S. 441, 446-448. But this is not such an occasion. The purpose of the statutory provision with which we deal is to differentiate between the “profits and losses arising from the everyday operation of a business” on the one hand (Corn Products Co. v. Commissioner, 350 U. S. 46, 52) and “the realization of appreciation in value accrued over a substantial period of time” on the other. (Commissioner v. Gillette Motor Co., 364 U. S. 130, 134.) A literal reading of the statute is consistent with this legislative purpose. We hold that, as used in § 1221 (1), “primarily” means “of first importance” or “principally.”
Since the courts below applied an incorrect legal standard, we do not consider whether the result would be supportable on the facts of this case had the correct one been applied. We believe, moreover, that the appropriate disposition is to remand the case to the District Court for fresh fact-findings, addressed to the statute as we have now construed it.
Vacated and remanded.
Mr. Justice Black would affirm the judgments of the District Court and the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the decision of this case.
The taxpayer and his wife who filed a joint return are the petitioners, but for simplicity are referred to throughout as “petitioner.”
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 1221 (1), 26 U. S. C. § 1221 (1):
“For purposes of this subtitle, the term ‘capital asset’ means property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business), but does not include—
“(1) . . . property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business.”
Compare Rollingwood Corp. v. Commissioner, 190 F. 2d 263, 266 (C. A. 9th Cir.); American Can Co. v. Commissioner, 317 F. 2d 604, 605 (C. A. 2d Cir.), with United States v. Bennett, 186 F. 2d 407, 410-411 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Municipal Bond Corp. v. Commissioner, 341 F. 2d 683, 688-689 (C. A. 8th Cir.). Cf. Recordak Corp. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 294, 300-301, 325 F. 2d 460, 463-464.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case concerns the distinction between two sometimes confused or conflated concepts: federal-court “subject-matter” jurisdiction over a controversy; and the essential ingredients of a federal claim for relief. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful “for an employer . . . to discriminate,” inter alia, on the basis of sex. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). The Act’s jurisdictional provision empowers federal courts to adjudicate civil actions “brought under” Title VII. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Covering a broader field, the Judicial Code gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under” the laws of the United States. 28 U. S. C. § 1331. Title VII actions fit that description. In a provision defining 13 terms used in Title VII, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e, Congress limited the definition of “employer” to include only those having “fifteen or more employees,” §2000e(b). The question here presented is whether the numerical qualification contained in Title VII’s definition of “employer” affects federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction or, instead, delineates a substantive ingredient of a Title VII claim for relief.
The question arises in this context. Jenifer Arbaugh, plaintiff below, petitioner here, brought a Title VII action in federal court against her former employer, defendant-respondent Y&H Corporation (hereinafter Y&H), charging sexual harassment. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for Arbaugh in the total amount of $40,000. Two weeks after the trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict, Y&H moved to dismiss the entire action for want of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. For the first time in the litigation, Y&H asserted that it had fewer than 15 employees on its payroll and therefore was not amenable to suit under Title VII.
Although recognizing that it was “unfair and a waste of judicial resources” to grant the motion to dismiss, App. to Pet. for Cert. 47, the trial court considered itself obliged to do so because it believed that the 15-or-more-employees requirement was jurisdictional. We reject that categorization and hold that the numerical threshold does not circumscribe federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, the employee-numerosity requirement relates to the substantive adequacy of Arbaugh’s Title VII claim, and therefore could not be raised defensively late in the lawsuit, i. e., after Y&H had failed to assert the objection prior to the close of trial on the merits.
I
We set out below statutory provisions and rules that bear on this case. Title VII makes it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... 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.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a)(l). To spare very small businesses from Title VII liability, Congress provided that:
“[t]he term ‘employér’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person . . . .” § 20006(b).
This employee-numerosity requirement appears in a section headed “Definitions,” §2000e, which also prescribes the meaning, for Title VII purposes, of 12 other terms used in the Act.
Congress has broadly authorized the federal courts to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 1331. Title VII surely is a “la[w] of the United States.” Ibid. In 1964, however, when Title VII was enacted, §1331’s umbrella provision for federal-question jurisdiction contained an amount-in-controversy limitation: Claims could not be brought under § 1331 unless the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000. See § 1331(a) (1964 ed.). Title VII, framed in that light, assured that the amount-in-controversy limitation would not impede an employment-discrimination complainant’s access to a federal forum. The Act thus contains its own jurisdiction-conferring provision, which reads:
“Each United States district court and each United States court of a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).
Congress amended 28 U. S. C. § 1331 in 1980 to eliminate the amount-in-controversy threshold. See Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980, §2, 94 Stat. 2369. Since that time, Title VIPs own jurisdictional provision, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), has served simply to underscore Congress’ intention to provide a federal forum for the adjudication of Title VII claims. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13; Tr. of Oral Arg. 4.
We note, too, that, under 28 U. S. C. § 1367, federal courts may exercise “supplemental” jurisdiction over state-law claims linked to a claim based on federal law. Plaintiffs suing under Title VII may avail themselves of the opportunity § 1367 provides to pursue complete relief in a federal-court lawsuit. Arbaugh did so in the instant case by adding to her federal complaint pendent claims arising under state law that would not independently qualify for federal-court adjudication.
The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1), may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment. Rule 12(h)(3) instructs: “Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that, the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 455 (2004). By contrast, the objection that a complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” Rule 12(b)(6), may not be asserted post-trial. Under Rule 12(h)(2), that objection endures up to, but not beyond, trial on the merits: “A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ... may be made in any pleading ... or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits.” Cf. Kontrick, 540 U. S., at 459.
From May 2000 through February 2001, Jenifer Arbaugh worked as a bartender and waitress at the Moonlight Cafe, a New Orleans restaurant owned and operated by Y&H. Arbaugh alleged that Yalcin Hatipoglu, one of the company’s owners, sexually harassed her and precipitated her constructive discharge. In November 2001, Arbaugh filed suit against Y&H in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Her complaint asserted claims under Title VII and Louisiana law. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1-2.
Arbaugh’s pleadings alleged that her federal claim “ar[o]se under Title VII” and that the Federal District Court had jurisdiction over this claim under § 1331 plus supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims under § 1367. Record, Doc. 3, p. 1 (Amended Complaint). Y&H’s responsive pleadings admitted Arbaugh’s “jurisdictional” allegations but denied her contentions on the merits. Id., Doc. 4, p. 1 (Answer to Complaint). The pretrial order submitted and signed by the parties, and later subscribed by the presiding judge, reiterated that the court was “vested with jurisdiction over [Ar-baugh’s Title VII claim] pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1331,” and “ha[d] supplemental jurisdiction over [her] state law claims pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1867.” Id., Doc. 19, p. 2. The order listed “Uncontested Material Facts,” including: “Plaintiff was employed as a waitress/bartender at the Moonlight for Defendants from May, 2000 through February 10, 2001 when she terminated her employment with the company.” Id., p. 3. It did not list among “Contested Issues of Fact” or “Contested Legal Issues” the question whether Y&H had the requisite number of employees under 42 U. S. C. §2Q00e(b). Record, Doc. 19, pp. 4-5. Nor was the issue raised at any other point pretrial or at trial.
The parties consented to trial before a Magistrate Judge. See 28 U. S. C. § 636(c). After a two-day trial, the jury found that Arbaugh had been sexually harassed and constructively discharged in violation of Title VII and Louisiana anti-, discrimination law. The verdict awarded Arbaugh $5,000 in backpay, $5,000 in compensatory damages, and $30,000 in punitive damages. The trial court entered judgment for Arbaugh on November 5, 2002.
Two weeks later, Y&H filed a motion under Federal Rule 12(h)(3) to dismiss Arbaugh’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Record, Doc. 44. As sole ground for the motion, Y&H alleged, for the first time in the proceedings, that it “did not employ fifteen or more employees [during the relevant period] and thus is not an employer for Title VII purposes.” Id., p. 2 (Memorandum in Support of Rule 12(h)(3) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction). The trial court commented that “[i]t is unfair and a waste of judicial resources to permit [Y&H] to admit Ar-baugh’s allegations of jurisdiction, try the case for two days and then assert a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in response to an adverse jury verdict.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 47. Nevertheless, reciting the text of Rule 12(h)(3), see supra, at 506, the trial court allowed Y&H to plead that it did not qualify as an “employer” under Title VII's definition of that term. App. to Pet. for Cert. 47-48; see supra, at 504-505.
Discovery ensued. The dispute over the employee count turned on the employment status of Y&H’s eight drivers, engaged to make deliveries for the restaurant, and the company’s four owners (the Moonlight Cafe’s two managers and their shareholder spouses). As the trial court noted, “[i]f either the delivery drivers or the four owners are counted with the persons shown on the payroll journals, then Y&H employed fifteen or more persons for the requisite time.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 27. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, however, the trial court concluded that neither the delivery drivers nor the owner-managers nor their shareholder spouses qualified as “employees” for Title VII purposes. Id., at 32-43. Based on that determination, the trial court vacated its prior judgment in favor of Arbaugh, dismissed her Title VII claim with prejudice, and her state-law claims without prejudice. Id., at 23.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 380 F. 3d 219 (2004). Bound by its prior decisions, the Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s “failure to qualify as an ‘employer’ under Title VII deprives a district court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id., at 224 (citing, e. g., Dumas v. Mt. Vernon, 612 F. 2d 974,980 (1980)). Dismissal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction was proper, the Court of Appeals ruled, for the record warranted the conclusion that Y&H’s delivery drivers, its owner-managers, and their shareholder wives were not “employees” for Title VII purposes, 380 F. 3d, at 225-230, and it was undisputed that Y&H “did not employ the requisite 15 employees without the inclusion of” those persons, id., at 231.
We granted certiorari, 544 U. S. 1031 (2005), to resolve conflicting opinions in Courts of Appeals on the question whether Title VII’s employee-numerosity requirement, 42 U. S. C. §2000e(b), is jurisdictional or simply an element of a plaintiff’s claim for relief. Compare, e. g., 380 F. 3d, at 223-225 (Title VII’s employee-numerosity requirement is jurisdictional), and Armbruster v. Quinn, 711 F. 2d 1332, 1335 (CA6 1983) (same), with, e. g., Da Silva v. Kinsho International Corp., 229 F. 3d 358, 361-366 (CA2 2000) (Title VIFs employee-numerosity requirement is not jurisdictional); Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F. 3d 72, 76-83 (CA3 2003) (same); EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, 117 F. 3d 621, 623-624 (CADC 1997) (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990’s employee-numerosity requirement, 42 U. S. C. § 12111(5)(A), resembling Title VIFs requirement, is not jurisdictional).
Ill
“Jurisdiction,” this Court has observed, “is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 90 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court, no less than other courts, has sometimes been profligate in its use of the term. For example, this Court and others have occasionally described a non-extendable time limit as “mandatory and jurisdictional.” See, e. g., United States v. Robinson, 361 U. S. 220, 229 (1960). But in recent decisions, we have clarified that time prescriptions, however emphatic, “are not properly typed ‘jurisdictional.’” Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U. S. 401, 414 (2004); accord Eberhart v. United States, ante, at 16-19 (per curiam); Kontrick, 540 U. S., at 454-455. See also Carlisle v. United States, 517 U. S. 416, 434-435 (1996) (GiNSBURG, J., concurring).
The dispute now before us concerns the proper classification of Title VIFs statutory limitation of covered employers to those with 15 or more employees. If the limitation conditions subject-matter jurisdiction, as the lower courts held it did, then a conclusion that Y&H had fewer than 15 employees would require erasure of the judgment for Arbaugh entered on the jury verdict. But if the lower courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction characterization is incorrect, and the issue, instead, concerns the merits of Arbaugh’s case, then Y&H raised the employee-numerosity requirement too late. Its pretrial stipulations, see supra, at 508, and its failure to speak to the issue prior to the conclusion of the trial on the merits, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(2), supra, at 507, would preclude vacation of the $40,000 judgment in Arbaugh’s favor.
On the subject-matter jurisdiction/ingredient-of-claim-for-relief dichotomy, this Court and others have been less than meticulous. “Subject matter jurisdiction in federal-question cases is sometimes erroneously conflated with a plaintiff’s need and ability to prove the defendant bound by the federal law asserted as the predicate for relief — a merits-related determination.” 2 J. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 12.30[1], p. 12-36.1 (3d ed. 2005) (hereinafter Moore). Judicial opinions, the Second Circuit incisively observed, “often obscure the issue by stating that the court is dismissing ‘for lack of jurisdiction’ when some threshold fact has not been established, without explicitly considering whether the dismissal should be for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim.” Da Silva, 229 F. 3d, at 361. We have describéd such unrefined dispositions as “drive-by jurisdictional rulings” that should be accorded “no precedential effect” on the question whether the federal court had authority to adjudicate the claim in suit. Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 91.
Cases of this genre include Hiskon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69 (1984), and EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244 (1991). Hishon involved a Title VII claim brought by a lawyer denied partnership in a law firm. The District Court ruled that Title VII did not apply to the selection of partners and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. We noted that the District Court’s reasoning “ma[de] clear that it dismissed petitioner’s complaint on the ground that her allegations did not state a claim cognizable under Title VII.” 467 U. S., at 73, n. 2. Disagreeing with the lower courts, we held that Title VII applies to partnership decisions. Id., at 73-78. That holding, we said, “ma[de] it unnecessary to consider the wisdom of the District Court’s invocation of Rule 12(b)(1), as opposed to Rule 12(b)(6).” Id., at 73, n. 2. The former Rule concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, the latter, “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” See supra, at 507. Our opinion in Hishon thus raised, but did not decide, the question whether subject-matter jurisdiction was the proper rubric for the District Court’s decisions.
In Arabian American Oil Co., we affirmed the judgment of the courts below that Title VII, as then composed, did not apply to a suit by a United States employee working abroad for a United States employer. That judgment had been placed under a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction label. We agreed with the lower courts’ view of the limited geographical reach of the statute. 499 U. S., at 246-247. En passant, we copied the petitioners’ characterizations of terms included in Title VII’s “Definitions” section, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e, as “jurisdictional.” See 499 U. S., at 249, 251, 253. But our decision did not turn on that characterization, and the parties did not cross swords over it. See Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 91 (declining to follow a decision treating an issue as jurisdictional because nothing “turned upon whether [the issue] was technically jurisdictional” in that case). In short, we were not prompted in Arabian American Oil Co. to home in on whether the dismissal had been properly based on the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction rather than on the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. 499 U. S., at 247.
The basic statutory grants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Section 1331 provides for “[fjederal-question” jurisdiction, § 1332 for “[djiversity of citizenship” jurisdiction. A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 681-685 (1946). She invokes § 1332 jurisdiction when she presents a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000. See § 1332(a).
Arbaugh invoked federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331, but her case “aris[esj” under a federal law, Title VII, that specifies, as a prerequisite to its application, the existence of a particular fact, i.e., 15 or more employees. We resolve the question whether that fact is “jurisdictional” or relates to the “merits” of a Title VII claim mindful of the consequences of typing the 15-employee threshold a determinant of subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than an element of Arbaugh’s claim for relief.
First, “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States v. Cotton, 535 U. S. 625, 630 (2002). Moreover, courts, including this Court, have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U. S. 574, 583 (1999). Nothing in the text of Title VII indicates that Congress intended courts, on their own motion, to assure that the employee-numerosity requirement is met.
Second, in some instances, if subject-matter jurisdiction turns on contested facts, the trial judge may be authorized to review the ¿vidence and resolve the dispute on her own. See 5B C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1350, pp. 243-249 (3d ed. 2004); 2 Moore §12.30[3], pp. 12-37 to 12-38. If satisfaction of an essential element of a claim for relief is at issue, however, the jury is the proper trier of contested facts. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U. S. 133, 150-151 (2000).
Third, when a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety. See 16 Moore § 106.66[1], pp. 106-88 to 106-89. Thus in the instant case, the trial court dismissed, along with the Title VII claim, pendent state-law claims, see supra, at 506, fully tried by a jury and determined on the merits, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 23, 47. In contrast, when a court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a federal claim, the court generally retains discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1367, over pendent state-law claims. See 16 Moore § 106.66[1], pp. 106-86 to 106-89.
Of course, Congress could make the employee-numerosity requirement “jurisdictional,” just as it has made an amount-in-controversy threshold an ingredient of subject-matter jurisdiction in delineating diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1332. But neither § 1331, nor Title VIPs jurisdictional provision, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(f)(3) (authorizing jurisdiction over actions “brought under” Title VII), specifies any threshold ingredient akin to 28 U. S. C. § 1332’s monetary floor. Instead, the 15-employee threshold appears in a separate provision that “does not speak in jurisdictional terms or refer in any way to the jurisdiction of the district courts.” Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385, 394 (1982). Given the “unfair[ness]” and “waste of judicial resources,” App. to Pet. for Cert.. 47, entailed in tying the employee-numerosity requirement to subject-matter jurisdiction, we think it the sounder course to refrain from constricting §1331 or Title VIPs jurisdictional provision, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), and to leave the ball in Congress’ court. If the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed and will not be left to wrestle with the issue. See Da Silva, 229 F. 3d, at 361 (“Whether a disputed matter concerns jurisdiction or the merits (or occasionally both) is sometimes a close question.”). But when Congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character. Applying that readily administrable bright line to this case, we hold that the threshold number of' employees for application of Title VII is an element of a plaintiff’s claim for relief, not a jurisdictional issue.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The same provision further states that the term “employer” does not include the United States, corporations wholly owned by the United States, Indian tribes, certain departments and agencies of the District of Columbia, or tax-exempt “bona fide private membership club[s]” (other °than labor organizations). §2000e(b).
Congress originally prescribed a 25-or-more-employee threshold, Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701, 78 Stat. 253, but lowered the minimum number of employees to 15 in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, § 2, 86 Stat. 103.
The other terms defined in §2000e are: “person,” “employment agency,” “labor organization,” “employee,” “commerce,” “industry affecting commerce,” “State,” “religion,” “because of sex,” “complaining party,” “demonstrates,” and “respondent.”
Title VII contains a separate jurisdictional provision, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-6(b), authorizing suite by the Government to enjoin “pattern or practice” discrimination.
Section 1367(a) states: “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.”
See Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U. S. 129, 147 (2004) (constructive discharge compensable under Title VII includes an employee’s departure due to sexual harassment that renders “working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign”).
Y&H features Walters v. Metropolitan Ed. Enterprises, Inc., 519 U. S. 202 (1997), as supportive of the jurisdictional character of the employeenumerosity requirement. Brief for Respondent 8-10. Y&H urges that the Court must have considered the requirement jurisdictional, for Walters held definitively that, under the correct legal standard, the defendant had more than 15 employees. If the requirement had been seen as a merits issue, Y&H contends, the Court would have remanded the employee count for determination by the trier of fact. But the parties in Walters apparently stipulated to all relevant facts, leaving nothing for a fact trier to resolve on remand. Cf. 519 U. S., at 211-212.
Congress subsequently amended Title VII to extend protection to United States citizens working overseas. See Civil Rights Act of 1991, § 109(a), 105 Stat. 1077, codified at 42 U.S.C. §2000e(f) (“With respect to employment in a foreign country,” the term “employee” “includes an individual who is a citizen of the United States.”).
In EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., 486 U. S. 107 (1988), also featured by Y&H, see Brief for Respondent 12, a plurality of this Court noted that “[deactivation of state proceedings after the conclusion of federal proceedings serves [a] useful function,” in part because “Title VII does not give the EEOC jurisdiction to enforce the Act against employers of fewer than 15 employees.” 486 U. S., at 119, n. 5. That fleeting footnote addressed the relative administrative provinces of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state agencies. It did not speak of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction, which was not at issue in the case.
A claim invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331, Bell held, may be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i. e., if it is “immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” 327 U. S., at 682-683; see Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 89 (1998). Arbaugh’s case surely does not belong in that category.
Congress has exercised its prerogative to restrict the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal district courts based on a wide variety of factors, some of them also relevant to the merits of a case. Certain statutes confer subject-matter jurisdiction only for actions brought by specific plaintiffs, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1345 (United States and its agencies and officers); 49 U. S. C. §24301(i)(2) (Amtrak), or for claims against particular defendants, e.g., 7 U.S.C. §2707(e)(3) (persons subject to orders of the Egg Board); 28 U. S. C. § 1348 (national banking associations), or for actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds, e.g., 16 U.S.C. §814, or falls below, e.g., 22 U.S.C. §6713(a)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), a stated amount. Other jurisdiction-conferring provisions describe particular types of claims. See, e. g., § 1339 (“any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to the postal service”); § 1347 (“any civil action commenced by any tenant in common or joint tenant for the partition of lands where the United States is one of the tenants in common or joint tenants”). In a few instances, Congress has enacted a separate provision that expressly restricts application of a jurisdiction-conferring statute. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-761 (1975) (42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars 28 U. S. C. § 1331 jurisdiction over suits to recover Social Security benefits).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
For almost 30 years California has administered a disability insurance system that pays benefits to persons in private employment who are temporarily unable to work because of disability not covered by workmen’s compensation. The appellees brought this action to challenge the constitutionality of a provision of the California program that, in defining “disability,” excludes from coverage certain disabilities resulting from pregnancy. Because the appellees sought to enjoin the enforcement of this state statute, a three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284. On the appellees’ motion for summary judgment, the District Court, by a divided vote, held that this provision of the disability insurance program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore enjoined its continued enforcement. 359 F. Supp. 792. The District Court denied a motion to stay its judgment pending appeal. The appellant thereupon filed a similar motion in this Court, which we granted. 414 U. S. 897. We subsequently noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal. 414 U. S. 1110.
I
California’s disability insurance system is funded entirely from contributions deducted from the wages of participating employees. Participation in the program is mandatory unless the employees are protected by a voluntary private plan approved by the State. Each employee is required to contribute one percent of his salary, up to an annual maximum of $85. These contributions are placed in the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund, which is established and administered as a special trust fund within the state treasury. It is from this Disability Fund that benefits under the program are paid.
An individual is eligible for disability benefits if, during a one-year base period prior to his disability, he has contributed one percent of a minimum income of $300 to the Disability Fund. In the event he suffers a com-pensable disability, the individual can receive a “weekly benefit amount” of between $25 and $105, depending on the amount he earned during the highest quarter of the base period. Benefits are not paid until the eighth day of disability, unless the employee is hospitalized, in which case benefits commence on the first day of hospitalization. In addition to the “weekly benefit amount,” a hospitalized employee is entitled to receive “additional benefits” of $12 per day of hospitalization. “Weekly benefit amounts” for any one disability are payable for 26 weeks so long as the total amount paid does not exceed one-half of the wages received during the base period. “Additional benefits” for any one disability are paid for a maximum of 20 days.
In return for his one-percent contribution to the Disability Fund, the individual employee is insured against the risk of disability stemming from a substantial number of “mental or physical illness[es] and mental or physical injuries].” Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code §2626. It is not every disabling condition, however, that triggers the obligation to pay benefits under the program. As already noted, for example, any disability of less than eight days’ duration is not compensable, except when the employee is hospitalized. Conversely, no benefits are payable for any single disability beyond 26 weeks. Further, disability is not compensable if it results from the individual’s court commitment as a dipsomaniac, drug addict, or sexual psychopath. Finally, § 2626 of the Unemployment Insurance Code excludes from coverage certain disabilities that are attributable to pregnancy. It is this provision that is at issue in the present case.
Appellant is the Director of the California Department of Human Resources Development. He is responsible for the administration of the State’s disability insurance program. Appellees are four women who have paid sufficient amounts into the Disability Fund to be eligible for benefits under the program. Each of the appellees became pregnant and suffered employment disability as a result of her pregnancy. With respect to three of the ap-pellees, Carolyn Aiello, Augustina Armendariz, and Elizabeth Johnson, the disabilities were attributable to abnormal complications encountered during their pregnancies. The fourth, Jacqueline Jaramillo, experienced a normal pregnancy, which was the sole cause of her disability.
At all times relevant to this case, § 2626 of the Unemployment Insurance Code provided: Appellant construed and applied the final sentence of this statute to preclude the payment of benefits for any disability resulting from pregnancy. As a result, the appellees were ruled ineligible for disability benefits by reason of this provision, and they sued to enjoin its enforcement. The District Court, finding “that the exclusion of pregnancy-related disabilities is not based upon a classification having a rational and substantial relationship to a legitimate state purpose,” held that the exclusion was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. 359 F. Supp., at 801.
“ ‘Disability’ or ‘disabled’ includes both mental or physical illness and mental or physical injury. An individual shall be deemed disabled in any day in which, because of his physical or mental condition, he is unable to perform his regular or customary work. In no case shall the term ‘disability’ or ‘disabled’ include any injury or illness caused by or arising in connection with pregnancy up to the termination of such pregnancy and for a period of 28 days thereafter.” (Emphasis added.)
Shortly before the District Court’s decision in this case, the California Court of Appeal, in a suit brought by a woman who suffered an ectopic pregnancy, held that § 2626 does not bar the payment of benefits on account of disability that results from medical complications arising during pregnancy. Rentzer v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 32 Cal. App. 3d 604, 108 Cal. Rptr. 336 (1973). The state court construed the statute to preclude only the payment of benefits for disability accompanying normal pregnancy. The appellant acquiesced in this construction and issued administrative guidelines that exclude only the payment of “maternity benefits” — i. e., hospitalization and disability benefits for normal delivery and recuperation.
Although Rentzer was decided some 10 days before the District Court’s decision in this case, there was apparently no opportunity to call the court’s attention to it. The appellant, therefore, asked the court to reconsider its decision in light of the construction that the California Court of Appeal had given to § 2626 in the Rentzer case. By a divided vote, the court denied the motion for reconsideration. Although a more definitive ruling would surely have been preferable, we interpret the District Court’s denial of the appellant’s motion as a determination that its decision was not affected by the limiting construction given to § 2626 in Rentzer.
Because of the Rentzer decision and the revised administrative guidelines that resulted from it, the appellees Aiello, Armendariz, and Johnson, whose disabilities were attributable to causes other than normal pregnancy and delivery, became entitled to benefits under the disability insurance program, and their claims have since been paid. With respect to appellee Jaramillo, however, whose disability stemmed solely from normal pregnancy and childbirth, § 2626 continues to bar the payment of any benefits. It is evident that only Jaramillo continues to have a live controversy with the appellant as to the validity of § 2626. The claims of the other appellees have been mooted by the change that Rentzer worked in the construction and application of that provision. Thus, the issue before the Court on this appeal is whether the California disability insurance program invidiously discriminates against Jaramillo and others similarly situated by not paying insurance benefits for disability that accompanies normal pregnancy and childbirth.
II
It is clear that California intended to establish this benefit system as an insurance program that was to function essentially in accordance with insurance concepts. Since the program was instituted in 1946, it has been totally self-supporting, never drawing on general state revenues to finance disability or hospital benefits. The Disability Fund is wholly supported by the one percent of wages annually contributed by participating employees. At oral argument, counsel for the appellant informed us that in recent years between 90% and 103% of the revenue to the Disability Fund has been paid out in disability and hospital benefits. This history strongly suggests that the one-percent contribution rate, in addition to being easily computable, bears a close and substantial relationship to the level of benefits payable and to the disability risks insured under the program.
Over the years California has demonstrated a strong commitment not to increase the contribution rate above the one-percent level. The State has sought to provide the broadest possible disability protection that would be affordable by all employees, including those with very low incomes. Because any larger percentage or any flat dollar-amount rate of contribution would impose an increasingly regressive levy bearing most heavily upon those with the lowest incomes, the State has resisted any attempt to change the required contribution from the one-percent level. The program is thus structured, in terms of the level of benefits and the risks insured, to maintain the solvency of the Disability Fund at a one-percent annual level of contribution.
In ordering the State to pay benefits for disability accompanying normal pregnancy and delivery, the District Court acknowledged the State’s contention “that coverage of these disabilities is so extraordinarily expensive that it would be impossible to maintain a program supported by employee contributions if these disabilities are included.” 359 F. Supp., at 798. There is considerable disagreement between the parties with respect to how great the increased costs would actually be, but they would clearly be substantial. For purposes of analysis the District Court accepted the State's estimate, which was in excess of $100 million annually, and stated: “[I]t is clear that including these disabilities would not destroy the program. The increased costs could be accommodated quite easily by making reasonable changes in the contribution rate, the maximum benefits allowable, and the other variables affecting the solvency of the program.” Ibid.
Each of these “variables” — the benefit level deemed appropriate to compensate employee disability, the risks selected to be insured under the program, and the contribution rate chosen to maintain the solvency of the program and at the same time to permit low-income employees to participate with minimal personal sacrifice- — -represents a policy determination by the State. The essential issue in this case is whether the Equal Protection Clause requires such policies to be sacrificed or compromised in order-to finance the payment of benefits to those whose disability is attributable to- normal pregnancy and delivery.
We cannot agree that the exclusion of this disability from coverage amounts to invidious discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. California does not discriminate with respect to the persons or groups which are eligible for disability insurance protection under the program. The classification challenged in this case relates to the asserted underinclusiveness of the set of risks that the State has selected to insure. Although California has.created a program to insure most risks of employment disability, it has not chosen to insure all such risks, and this decision is reflected in the level of annual contributions exacted from participating employees. This Court has held that, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause, a State “may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.... The legislature may select one phase of one field and apply a remedy there, neglecting the others. .. .” Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489 (1955); Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535 (1972). Particularly with respect to social welfare programs, so long as the line drawn by the State is rationally supportable, the courts will not interpose their judgment as to the appropriate stopping point. “ [T]he Equal Protection Clause does not require that a State must choose between attacking every aspect of a problem or not attacking the problem at all.” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 486-487 (1970).
The District Court suggested that moderate alterations in what it regarded as “variables” of the disability insurance program could be made to accommodate the substantial expense required to include normal pregnancy within the program’s protection. The same can be said, however, with respect to the other expensive class of disabilities that are excluded from coverage — short-term disabilities. If the Equal Protection Clause were thought to compel disability payments for normal pregnancy, it is hard to perceive why it would not also compel payments for short-term disabilities suffered by participating employees.
It is evident that a totally comprehensive program would be substantially more costly than the present program and would inevitably require state subsidy, a higher rate of employee contribution, a lower scale of benefits for those suffering insured disabilities, or some combination of these measures. There is nothing in the Constitution, however, that requires the State to subordinate or compromise its legitimate interests solely to create a more comprehensive social insurance program than it already has.
The State has a legitimate interest in maintaining the self-supporting nature of its insurance program. Similarly, it has an interest in distributing the available resources in such a way as to keep benefit payments at an adequate level for disabilities that are covered, rather than to cover all disabilities inadequately. Finally, California has a legitimate concern in maintaining the contribution rate at a level that will not unduly burden participating employees, particularly low-income employees who may be most in need of the disability insurance.
These policies provide an objective and wholly non-invidious basis for the State’s decision not to create a more comprehensive insurance program than it has. There is no evidence in the record that the selection of the risks insured by the program worked to discriminate against any definable group or class in terms of the aggregate risk protection derived by that group or class from the program. There is no risk from which men are protected and women are not. Likewise, there is no risk from which women are protected and men are not.
The appellee simply contends that, although she has received insurance protection equivalent to that provided all other participating employees, she has suffered discrimination because she encountered a risk that was outside the program’s protection. For the reasons we have stated, we hold that this contention is not a valid one under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The stay heretofore issued by the Court is vacated, and the judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
This litigation began as two separate suits on behalf of California employees who had paid sufficient amounts into the Disability Fund to be eligible generally for benefits under the program. Carolyn Aiello brought, her suit against appellant in the Federal District Court. Augustina Armendariz, Elizabeth Johnson, and Jacqueline Jaramillo jointly initiated their suit as a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court. Both suits were brought as class actions and asserted the unconstitutionality of § 2626 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellant removed the state court suit to the Federal District Court, where the two actions were consolidated. See 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (b).
Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code §§ 3251-3254.
§§ 984, 985, 2901.
§ 3OO1.
§ 2652.
§ 2655. This provision has been amended, effective July 1, 1974, to provide for a maximum weekly benefit amount of $119.
§§ 2627 (b) and 2802.
§ 2801.
§2653.
§ 2801. Section 2608 provides a formula for determining whether a disabling condition that is intermittent is one disability or more than one disability for purposes of applying the limitations in §§ 2653 and 2801 on the maximum amount of benefits payable.
§ 2678. Sections 2675-2677 contain various other factors that will disqualify an employee from receiving benefits but that relate to matters other than the nature of the disabling condition.
Effective July 1, 1974, the Department of Human Resources •Development will be renamed the Department of Employment Development. See Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code § 301 et seq.
Aiello and Johnson suffered ectopic and tubal pregnancies, respectively, which required surgery to terminate the pregnancies. Armendariz suffered a miscarriage.
In an earlier decision, the Court of Appeal had sustained § 2626 against an equal protection challenge by a female employee who had suffered disability as a result of normal pregnancy and delivery. Clark v. California Employment Stabilization Comm’n, 166 Cal. App. 2d 326, 332 P. 2d 716 (1958).
Section 2626 was later amended, and a new § 2626.2 was added, in order clearly to reflect this interpretation. The two sections now provide as follows:
§ 2626 “ 'Disability’ or ‘disabled’ includes both mental or physical illness, mental or physical injury, and, to the extent specified in Section 2626.2, pregnancy. An individual shall be deemed disabled in any day in which, because of his physical or mental condition, he is unable to perform his regular or customary work.”
§2626.2 “Benefits relating to pregnancy shall be paid under this part only in accordance with the following:
“(a) Disability benefits shall be paid upon a doctor’s certification that the claimant is disabled because of an abnormal and involuntary complication of pregnancy, including but not limited to: puerperal infection, eclampsia, caesarian section delivery, ectopic pregnancy, and toxemia.
“(b) Disability benefits shall be paid upon a doctor’s certification that a condition possibly arising out of pregnancy would disable the claimant without regard to the pregnancy, including but not limited to: anemia, diabetes, embolism, heart disease, hypertension, phlebitis, phlebothrombosis, pyelonephritis, thrombophlebitis, vagi-nitis, varicose veins, and venous thrombosis.”
These amendments took effect on January I, 1974.
In his message to the state legislature proposing the creation of this program, Governor Earl Warren stated:
“It is not possible for employees to obtain from private insurance companies protection against loss of wages or salary during sickness as adequately or cheaply as that protection could be obtained by diverting their present 1 per cent contribution for the support of a Disability Benefits Program.” California Senate Journal, Jan. 23, 1946, p. 229.
The California Supreme Court has concluded “that the legislative purpose in providing unemployment disability benefits . . . was to provide an insurance program to pay benefits to individuals who are unemployed because of illness or injury. . . Garcia v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 41 Cal. 2d 689, 692, 263 P. 2d 8, 10 (1953) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Section 2604 of the Unemployment Insurance Code vests the Governor and the appellant with authority to modify the payment of benefits and to increase the waiting time for eligibility if such steps are necessary to forestall insolvency of the Disability Fund. But neither the Governor nor the appellant is authorized to increase the contribution rate under any circumstances.
Appellant’s estimate of the increased cost of including normal pregnancy within the insured risks has varied between $120.2 million and $131 million annually, or between a 33% and 36% increase in the present amount of benefits paid under the program. On the other hand, appellee contends that the increased cost would be $48.9 million annually, or a 12% increase over present expenditures.
The same could be said of disabilities continuing beyond 26 weeks.
The dissenting opinion to the contrary, this case is thus a far cry from cases like Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971), and Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973), involving discrimination based upon gender as such. The California insurance program does not exclude anyone from benefit eligibility because of gender but merely removes one physical condition — pregnancy—from the list of compensable disabilities. While it is true that only women can become pregnant,, it does not follow that every legislative classification concerning pregnancy is a sex-based classification like those considered in Reed, supra, and Frontiero, supra. Normal pregnancy is an objectively identifiable physical condition with unique characteristics. Absent a showing that distinctions involving pregnancy are mere pretexts designed to effect an invidious discrimination against the members of one sex or the other, lawmakers are constitutionally free to include or exclude pregnancy from the coverage of legislation such as this on any reasonable basis, just as with respect to any other physical condition.
The lack of identity between the excluded disability and gender as such under this insurance program becomes clear upon the most cursory analysis. The program divides potential recipients into two groups — pregnant women and nonpregnant persons. While the first group is exclusively female, the second includes members of both sexes. The fiscal and actuarial benefits of the program thus accrue to members of both sexes.
Indeed, the appellant submitted to the District Court data that indicated that both the annual claim rate and the annual claim cost are greater for women than for men. As the District Court acknowledged, “women contribute about 28 percent of the total disability insurance fund and receive back about 38 percent of the fund in benefits.” 359 F. Supp. 792, 800. Several amici curiae have represented to the Court that they have had a similar experience under private disability insurance programs.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Congress in 1793, shortly after the American Colonies became one united Nation, provided that in federal courts “a writ of injunction [shall not] be granted to stay proceedings in any court of a state.” Act of March 2, 1793, § 5, 1 Stat. 335. Although certain exceptions to this general prohibition have been added, that statute, directing that state courts shall remain free from interference by federal courts, has remained in effect until this time. Today that amended statute 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.” 28 U. S. C. § 2283.
Despite the existence of this longstanding prohibition, in this case a federal court did enjoin the petitioner, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (ACL), from invoking an injunction issued by a Florida state court which prohibited certain picketing by respondent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE). The case arose in the following way.
In 1967 BLE began picketing the Moncrief Yard, a switching yard located near Jacksonville, Florida, and wholly owned and operated by ACL. As soon as this picketing began ACL went into federal court seeking an injunction. When the federal judge denied the request, ACL immediately went into state court and there succeeded in obtaining an injunction. No further legal action was taken in this dispute until two years later in 1969, after this Court’s decision in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369 (1969). In that case the Court considered the validity of a state injunction against picketing by the BLE and other unions at the Jacksonville Terminal, located immediately next to Moncrief Yard. The Court reviewed the factual situation surrounding the Jacksonville Terminal picketing and concluded that the unions had a federally protected right to picket under the Railway Labor Act, 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., and that that right could not be interfered with by state court injunctions. Immediately after a petition for rehearing was denied in that case, 394 U. S. 1024 (1969), the respondent BLE filed a motion in state court to dissolve the Moncrief Yard injunction, arguing that under the Jacksonville Terminal decision the injunction was improper. The state judge refused to dissolve the injunction, holding that this Court’s Jacksonville Terminal decision was not controlling. The union did not elect to appeal that decision directly, but instead went back into the federal court and requested an injunction against the enforcement of the state court injunction. The District Judge granted the injunction and upon application a stay of that injunction, pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari, was granted. 396 U. S. 1201 (1969). The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed on the parties’ stipulation, and we granted a petition for certiorari to consider the validity of the federal court’s injunction against the state court. 396 U. S. 901 (1969).
In this Court the union contends that the federal injunction was proper either “to protect or effectuate” the District Court’s denial of an injunction in 1967, or as “necessary in aid of” the District Court’s jurisdiction. Although the questions are by no means simple and clear, and the decision is difficult, we conclude that the injunction against the state court was not justified under either of these two exceptions to the anti-injunction statute. We therefore hold that the federal injunction in this case was improper.
I
Before analyzing the specific legal arguments advanced in this case, we think it would be helpful to discuss the background and policy that led Congress to pass the anti-injunction statute in 1793. While all the reasons that led Congress to adopt this restriction on federal courts are not wholly clear, it is certainly likely that one reason stemmed from the essentially federal nature of our national government. When this Nation was established by the Constitution, each State surrendered only a part of its sovereign power to the national government. But those powers that were not surrendered were retained by the States and unless a State was restrained by “the supreme Law of the Land” as expressed in the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, it was free to exercise those retained powers as it saw fit. One of the reserved powers was the maintenance of state judicial systems for the decision of legal controversies. Many of the Framers of the Constitution felt that separate federal courts were unnecessary and that the state courts could be entrusted to protect both state and federal rights. Others felt that a complete system of federal courts to take care of federal legal problems should be provided for in the Constitution itself. This dispute resulted in compromise. One “supreme Court” was created by the Constitution, and Congress was given the power to create other federal courts. In the first Congress this power was exercised and a system of federal trial and appellate courts with limited jurisdiction was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73.
While the lower federal courts were given certain powers in the 1789 Act, they were not given any power to review directly cases from state courts, and they have not been given such powers since that time. Only the Supreme Court was authorized to review on direct appeal the decisions of state courts. Thus from the beginning we have had in this country two essentially separate legal systems. Each system proceeds independently of the other with ultimate review in this Court of the federal questions raised in either system. Understandably this dual court system was bound to lead to conflicts and frictions. Litigants who foresaw the possibility of more favorable treatment in one or the other system would predictably hasten to invoke the powers of whichever court it was believed would present the best chance of success. Obviously this dual system could not function if state and federal courts were free to fight each other for control of a particular case. Thus, in order to make the dual system work and “to prevent needless friction between state and federal courts,” Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Cas Co., 309 U. S. 4, 9 (1940), it was necessary to work out lines of demarcation between the two systems. Some of these limits were spelled out in the 1789 Act. Others have been added by later statutes as well as judicial decisions. The 1793 anti-injunction Act was at least in part a response to these pressures.
On its face the present Act is an absolute prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of three specifically defined exceptions. The respondents here have intimated that the Act only establishes a “principle of comity,” not a binding rule on the power of the federal courts. The argument implies that in certain circumstances a federal court may enjoin state court proceedings even if that action cannot be justified by any of the three exceptions. We cannot accept any such contention. In 1955 when this Court interpreted this statute, it stated: “This is not a statute conveying a broad general policy for appropriate ad hoc application. Legislative policy is here expressed in a clear-cut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions.” Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros., 348 U. S. 511, 515-516 (1955). Since that time Congress has not seen fit to amend the statute and we therefore adhere to that position and hold that any injunction against state court proceedings otherwise proper under general equitable principles must be based on one of the specific statutory exceptions to § 2283 if it is to be upheld. Moreover since the statutory prohibition against such injunctions in part rests on the fundamental constitutional independence of the States and their courts, the exceptions should not be enlarged by loose statutory construction. Proceedings in state courts should normally be allowed to continue unimpaired by intervention of the lower federal courts, with relief from error, if any, through the state appellate courts and ultimately this Court'.
II
In this case the Florida Circuit Court enjoined the union’s intended picketing, and the United States District Court enjoined the railroad “from giving effect to or availing [itself] of the benefits of” that state court order. App. 196. Both sides agree that although this federal injunction is in terms directed only at the railroad it is an injunction “to stay proceedings in a State court.” It is settled that the prohibition of § 2283 cannot be evaded by addressing the order to the parties or prohibiting utilization of the results of a completed state proceeding. Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Cas Co., 309 U. S. 4, 9 (1940); Hill v. Martin, 296 U. S. 393, 403 (1935). Thus if the injunction against the Florida court proceedings is to be upheld, it must be “expressly authorized by Act of Congress,” “necessary in aid of [the District Court’s] jurisdiction,” or “to protect or effectuate [that court’s] judgments.”
Neither party argues that there is any express congressional authorization for injunctions in this situation and we agree with that conclusion. The respondent union does contend that the injunction was proper either as a means to protect or effectuate the District Court’s 1967 order, or in aid of that court’s jurisdiction. We do not think that either alleged basis can be supported.
A
The argument based on protecting the 1967 order is not clearly expressed, but in essence it appears to run as follows: In 1967 the railroad sought a temporary restraining order which the union opposed. In the course of deciding that request, the United States District Court determined that the union had a federally protected right to picket Moncrief Yard and that this right could not be interfered with by state courts. When the Florida Circuit Court enjoined the picketing, the United States District Court could, in order to protect and effectuate its prior determination, enjoin enforcement of the state court injunction. Although the record on this point is not unambiguously clear, we conclude that no such interpretation of the 1967 order can be supported.
When the railroad initiated the federal suit it filed a complaint with three counts, each based entirely on alleged violations of federal law. The first two counts alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seg., and the third alleged a violation of that Act and the Interstate Commerce Act as well. Each of the counts concluded with a prayer for an injunction against the picketing. Although the union had not been formally served with the complaint and had not filed an answer, it appeared at a hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order and argued against the issuance of such an order. The union argued that it was a party to a labor dispute with the FEC, that it had exhausted the administrative remedies required by the Railway Labor Act, and that it was thus free to engage in “self-help,” or concerted economic activity. Then the union argued that such activity could not be enjoined by the federal court. In an attempt to clarify the basis of this argument the District Judge asked: “You are basing your case solely on the Norris-LaGuardia Act?” The union’s lawyer replied: “Right. I think at this point of the argument, since Norris-LaGuardia is clearly in point here.” App. 63. At no point during the entire argument did either side refer to state law, the effects of that law on the picketing, or the possible preclusion of state remedies as a result of overriding federal law. The next day the District Court entered an order denying the requested restraining order. In relevant part that order included these conclusions of law:
“3. The parties to the BLE-FEC ‘major dispute,’ having exhausted the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 151, et seq., are now free to engage in self-help. . . .
“4. The conduct of the FEC pickets and that of the responding ACL employees are a part of the FEC-BLE major dispute. . . .
“7. The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U. S. C. § 101, and the Clayton Act, 29 U. S. C. § 52, are applicable to the conduct of the defendants here involved.” App. 67.
In this Court the union asserts that the determination that it was “free to engage in self-help” was a determination that it had a federally protected right to picket and that state law could not be invoked to negate that right. The railroad, on the other hand, argues that the order merely determined that the federal court could not enjoin the picketing, in large part because of the general prohibition in. the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. § 101 et seq., against issuance by federal courts of injunctions in labor disputes. Based solely on the state of the record when the order was entered, we are inclined to believe that the District Court did not determine whether federal law precluded an injunction based on state law. Not only was that point never argued to the court, but there is no language in the order that necessarily implies any decision on that question. In short we feel that the District Court in 1967 determined that federal law could not be invoked to enjoin the picketing at Moncrief Yard, and that the union did have a right “to engage in self-help” as far as the federal courts were concerned. But that decision is entirely different from a decision that the Railway Labor Act precludes state regulation of the picketing as well, and this latter decision is an essential prerequisite for upholding the 1969 injunction as necessary “to protect or effectuate” the 1967 order. Finally we think it highly unlikely that the brief statements in the order conceal a determination of a disputed legal point that later was to divide this Court in a 4-to-3 vote in Jacksonville Terminal, supra, in opinions totaling 28 pages. While judicial writing may sometimes be thought cryptic and tightly packed, the union's contention here stretches the content of the words well beyond the limits of reasonableness.
Any lingering doubts we might have as to the proper interpretation of the 1967 order are settled by references to the positions adopted by the parties later in the litigation. In response to the railroad’s request for a temporary restraining order from the state court, the union referred to the prior federal litigation, noted that it was part of a “major dispute,” that it was covered by § 20 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 738, 29 U., S. C. § 52 and that “[l]abor activity which is within the Clayton Act is 'immunized trade union activities.' United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219, at pages 235-236.” 2 Record 105. At no point did the union appear to argue that the federal court had already determined that the railroad was precluded from obtaining an injunction under Florida law.
Similarly the union’s arguments in 1969 indicate that the 1967 federal order did not determine whether federal law precluded resort to the state courts. When the union tried to dissolve the state court injunction, the argument was based entirely on the controlling effect of the Jacksonville Terminal decision on the picketing at Moncrief Yard. The union argued that this Court’s “decision is squarely controlling upon [the Moncrief Yard] case which is identical in all material respects.” 2 Record 123; see also id., at 149-176. Although the union again mentioned that the federal District Judge had determined in 1967 that it was free to engage in self-help, it never argued that the 1967 order had in effect held with respect to Moncrief Yard what this Court later held was the law with respect to the Jacksonville Terminal situation. The railroad argued that Jacksonville Terminal was not controlling, and the Florida judge agreed.
Our reading of this record is not altered by the District Court’s 1969 opinion issued when the injunction was granted two years after the 1967 order was entered. In that opinion the court said:
“In its Order of April 26, 1967, this Court found that Plaintiff’s Moncrief Yard, the area in question, ‘is an integral and necessary part of [Florida East Coast Railway Company’s] operations.’. . . The Court concluded furthermore that Defendants herein ‘are now free to engage in self-help.’. . . The injunction of the state court, if allowed to continue in force, would effectively nullify this Court’s findings and delineation of rights of the parties. The categorization of Defendants’ activities as ‘secondary’ does not alter this state of affairs. See Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., - U. S. -, 22 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1969). The prohibition of 28 U. S. C. §2283, therefore, does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to enter the injunction in this instance.” App. 195-196.
We think the proper interpretation of that somewhat ambiguous passage can be reached only when it is considered in light of the arguments presented to the District Court by the union. In arguing that an injunction was necessary to protect the 1967 order, the union’s lawyer said: “Now, the basic finding [of that order] is that we are free to engage in such self-help as is permitted under the Railway Labor Act. Now, Your Honor, at that point, did not get to the question of how broad is this right, because the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevented Your Honor from issuing an injunction. Now, how broad, then, is that right? We know, from the [Jacksonville Terminal] decision 1 Record 249. The lawyer then proceeded to argue that the Jacksonville Terminal case had clearly revealed that the right of self-help is beyond state court proscription in these circumstances. At no point during this hearing did the union try to argue, as it now appears to do, that the 1967 order itself had anticipated the Jacksonville Terminal decision. Rather the union appears to have argued that the decision of this Court in Jacksonville Terminal operated to define the scope of the right to self-help which the District Court had found the union entitled to" exercise, and that the state court injunction interfered with that right as so defined. Considered in this light we cannot agree with the dissenting view in this case that the District Court in 1967 “by necessary implication” decided that the union had a federally protected right to picket that “could not be subverted by resort to state proceedings.” Post, at 299. On the contrary, we read the quoted passage in the 1969 opinion as an indication that the District Court accepted the union’s argument and concluded that the Jacksonville Terminal decision had amplified its 1967 order, and it was this amplification, rather than the original order itself, that required protection. Such a modification of an earlier order through an opinion in another case is not a “judgment” that can properly be protected by an injunction against state court proceedings.
This record, we think, conclusively shows that neither the parties themselves nor the District Court construed the 1967 order as the union now contends it should be construed. Rather we are convinced that the union in effect tried to get the Federal District Court to decide that the state court judge was wrong in distinguishing the Jacksonville Terminal decision. Such an attempt to seek appellate review of a state decision in the Federal District Court cannot be justified as necessary “to protect or effectuate” the 1967 order. The record simply will not support the union’s contention on this point.
B
This brings us to the second prong of the union’s argument in which it is suggested that even if the 1967 order did not determine the union’s right to picket free from state interference, once the decision in Jacksonville Terminal was announced, the District Court was then free to enjoin the state court on the theory that such action was “necessary in aid of [the District Court’s] jurisdiction.” Again the argument is somewhat unclear, but it appears to go in this way: The District Court had acquired jurisdiction over the labor controversy in 1967 when the railroad filed its complaint, and it determined at that time that it did have jurisdiction. The dispute involved the legality of picketing by the union and the Jacksonville Terminal decision clearly indicated that such activity was not only legal, but was protected from state court interference. The state court had interfered with that right, and thus a federal injunction was “necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.” For several reasons we cannot accept the contention.
First, a federal court does not have inherent power to ignore the limitations of § 2283 and to enjoin state court proceedings merely because those proceedings interfere with a protected federal right or invade an area preempted by federal law, even when the interference is unmistakably clear. This rule applies regardless of whether the federal court itself has jurisdiction over the controversy, or whether it is ousted from jurisdiction for the same reason that the state court is. Cf. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros., supra, at 519-520. This conclusion is required because Congress itself set forth the only exceptions to the statute, and those exceptions do not include this situation. Second, if the District Court does have jurisdiction, it is not enough that the requested injunction is related to that jurisdiction, but it must be “necessary in aid of” that jurisdiction. While this language is admittedly broad, we conclude that it implies something similar to the concept of injunctions to “protect or effectuate” judgments. Both exceptions to the general prohibition of § 2283 imply that some federal injunctive relief may be necessary to prevent a state court from so interfering with a federal court’s consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously impair the federal court’s flexibility and authority to decide that case. Third, no such situation is presented here. Although the federal court did have jurisdiction of the railroad’s complaint based on federal law, the state court also had jurisdiction over the complaint based on state law and the union’s asserted federal defense as well. Jacksonville Terminal, supra, at 375-377, 390. While the railroad could probably have based its federal case on the pendent state law claims as well, United Mine Workers v. Oibbs, 383 U. S. 715 (1966), it was free to refrain from doing so and leave the state law questions and the related issue concerning preclusion of state remedies by federal law to the state courts. Conversely, although it could have tendered its federal claims to the state court, it was also free to restrict the state complaint to state grounds alone. Cf. England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411 (1964). In short, the state and federal courts had concurrent jurisdiction in this case, and neither court was free to prevent either party from simultaneously pursuing claims in both courts. Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U. S. 226 (1922); cf. Donovan v. Dallas, 377 U. S. 408 (1964). Therefore the state court’s assumption, of jurisdiction over the state law claims and the federal preclusion issue did not hinder the federal court’s jurisdiction so as to make an injunction necessary to aid that jurisdiction. Nor was an injunction necessary because the state court may have taken action which the federal court was certain was improper under the Jacksonville Terminal decision. Again, lower federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state court decisions. If the union was adversely affected by the state court’s decision, it was free to seek vindication of its federal right in the Florida appellate courts and ultimately, if necessary, in this Court. Similarly if, because of the Florida Circuit Court’s action, the union faced the threat of immediate irreparable injury sufficient to justify an injunction under usual equitable principles, it was undoubtedly free to seek such relief from the Florida appellate courts, and might possibly in certain emergency circumstances seek such relief from this Court as well. Cf. Natural Gas Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 294 U. S. 698 (1935); United States v. Moscow Fire Ins. Co., 308 U. S. 542 (1939); R. Robertson & F. Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court § 441 (R. Wolfson & P, Kurland ed. 1951). Unlike the Federal District Court, this Court does have potential appellate jurisdiction over federal questions raised in state court proceedings, and that broader jurisdiction allows this Court correspondingly broader authority to issue injunctions “necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.”
Ill
This case is by no means an easy one. The arguments in support of the union’s contentions are not insubstantial. But whatever doubts we may have are strongly affected by the general prohibition of § 2283. Any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally determine the controversy. The explicit wording of § 2283 itself implies as much, and the fundamental principle of a dual system of courts leads inevitably to that conclusion.
The injunction issued by the District Court must be vacated. Since that court has not yet proceeded to a final judgment in the case, the cause is remanded to it for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
After this suit was instituted ACL merged with the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. to form the present Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. We will continue, as have the parties, to refer to the petitioner as ACL.
There is no present labor dispute between the ACL and the BLE or any other ACL employees. ACL became involved in this case as a result of a labor dispute between the Florida East Coast Railway Co. (FEC) and its employees. FEC cars are hauled into and out of Moncrief Yard and switched around to make up trains in that yard. The BLE picketed the yard, encouraging ACL employees not to handle any FEC cars.
The initial development of the controversy is chronicled in Railway Clerks v. Florida E. C. R. Co., 384 U. S. 238 (1966). See also, Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 362 F. 2d 649 (C. A. 5th Cir.), aff’d by an equally divided court, 385 U. S. 20 (1966); Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Railroad Trainmen, 336 F. 2d 172 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1964).
See the historical discussion of the origin of the 1793 statute in Toucey v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 314 U. S. 118, 129-132 (1941).
The Hutcheson case held that protected union activity would not be deemed violative of federal antitrust law.
For purposes of this case only, we will assume, without deciding, that the Florida Circuit Court’s decision was wrong in light of our decision in Jacksonville Terminal.
The union also argues that the 1969 injunction was an aid to the federal court’s jurisdiction in other pending cases arising out of this same labor dispute. This argument was not raised in the District Court and we need not consider it. In any event the reasons for rejecting the argument with respect to the 1967 order apply equally well to arguments relating to any other orders, cases, or judgments the union has advanced.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Robert C. Ecker drowned during a Saturday outing while boating on a South Korean lake. At the time of his death he was employed at a defense base in South Korea by the respondent, Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, a government contractor.
The decedent had been hired in the United States under an oral contract the terms of which provided that he was to be transported to South Korea at his employer’s expense, remain there for two years, and then, at his employer’s expense, be transported back to the United States. The employer paid his rent and provided him with a per diem expense allowance for each day of the year, including weekends and holidays, to cover “the necessary living expenditures in the Korean economy.” He worked on a “365 day per year basis . . . subject to call to the job site at any time.” He “quite often” worked on Saturdays and Sundays and at other times outside the normal work day. The employer considered all its employees to be “in the course of regular occupation from the time they leave the United States until their return.” The employer expected the decedent and its other employees to seek recreation away from the job site on weekends and holidays.
Based upon the above stipulated facts, the Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation, United States Department of Labor, petitioner herein, determined “that the accident and the subsequent death of the decedent arose out of and in the course of employment.” 222 F. Supp. 4, 6. He therefore awarded death benefits to the decedent’s widow and a minor child in accordance with the terms of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. (1958 ed.), as extended by the Defense Base Act, 55 Stat. 622, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1651 et seq. (1958 ed.). The employer and its insurance carrier, respondents herein, then brought this action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida to set aside and enjoin the enforcement of this compensation award. The District Court affirmed the compensation award and granted the Deputy Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. 222 F. Supp. 4. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit summarily reversed and set aside the award. 327 F. 2d 1003. But compare the later decision of another panel of the Fifth Circuit in O’Keeffe v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 338 F. 2d 319.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Section 2 (2) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 902 (2) (1958 ed.), provides workmen’s compensation for any “accidental injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment.” Section 19 (a), 33 U. S. C. § 919 (a) (1958 ed.), provides for the filing of a “claim for compensation” and specifies that “the deputy commissioner shall have full power and authority to hear and determine all questions in respect of such claim.” Section 20 (a), 33 U. S. C. § 920 (a) (1958 ed.), provides that “[i]n any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary . . . [t]hat the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter.” Finally, § 21 (b), 33 U. S. C. § 921 (b) (1958 ed.), provides that the Deputy Commissioner’s compensation order may be suspended and set aside by a reviewing court only “[i]f not in accordance with law.”
In cases decided both before and after the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237, as amended, 5 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. (1958 ed.), the Court has held that the foregoing statutory provisions limit the scope of judicial review of the Deputy Commissioner’s determination that a “particular injury arose out of and in the course of employment.” Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 330 U. S. 469, 477-478; O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U. S. 504, 507-508.
“It matters not that the basic facts from which the Deputy Commissioner draws this inference are undisputed rather than controverted. ... It is likewise immaterial that the facts permit the drawing of diverse inferences. The Deputy Commissioner alone is charged with the duty of initially selecting the inference which seems most reasonable and his choice, if otherwise sustainable, may not be disturbed by a reviewing court. . . . Moreover, the fact that the inference of the type here made by the Deputy Commissioner involves an application of a broad statutory term or phrase to a specific set of facts gives rise to no greater scope of judicial review.. . .” Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., supra, at 478.
The rule of judicial review has therefore emerged that the inferences drawn by the Deputy Commissioner are to be accepted unless they are irrational or “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record ... as a whole.” O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., supra, at 508.
The Brown-Pacific-Maxon case held that the standard to be applied by the Deputy Commissioner does not require “a causal relation between the nature of employment of the injured person and the accident. Thom v. Sinclair, [1917] A. C. 127, 142. Nor is it necessary that the employee be engaged at the time of the injury in activity of benefit to his employer. All that is required is that the ‘obligations or conditions’ of employment create the ‘zone of special danger’ out of which the injury arose.” Id., at 507. And, borrowing from language in Matter of Waters v. Taylor Co., 218 N. Y. 248, 252, 112 N. E. 727, 728, the Court in Brown-Pacific-Maxon drew the line only at cases where an employee had become “so thoroughly disconnected from the service of his employer that it would be entirely unreasonable to say that injuries suffered by him arose out of and in the course of his employment.” 340 U. S., at 507. This standard is in accord with the humanitarian nature of the Act as exemplified by the statutory command that “[i]n any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary . . . [t]hat the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter.” § 20 (a), 33 U. S. C. §920 (a).
In this case, the Deputy Commissioner, applying the Brown-Pacific-Maxon standard to the undisputed facts, concluded “that the accident and the subsequent death of the decedent arose out of and in the course of employment.” 222 F. Supp. 4, 6. The District Court, likewise applying the Brown-Padfic-Maxon standard, held “that the Deputy Commissioner was correct in his finding that the conditions of the deceased’s employment created a zone where the deceased Ecker had to seek recreation under exacting and unconventional conditions and that therefore the accident and death of the decedent arose out of and in the course of employment.” 222 F. Supp., at 9.
We agree that the District Court correctly affirmed the finding of the Deputy Commissioner. While this Court may not have reached the same conclusion as the Deputy Commissioner, it cannot be said that his holding that the decedent’s death, in a zone of danger, arose out of and in the course of his employment is irrational or without substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The decedent was hired to work in the exacting and unconventional conditions of Korea. His transportation over and back was to be at the employer’s expense, and while there he was considered to be working on a 365-day-per-year basis, subject to call at the job site at any time, and quite often he worked Saturdays and Sundays and at other times outside the working day. The employer considered decedent and all other employees at this hazardous overseas base to be “in the course of regular occupation from the time they leave the United States until their return.” Finally, the employer provided neither housing nor recreational activities for its employees, but expected them to live, while necessarily in the country to perform its work, under the exacting and dangerous conditions of Korea. The employer paid decedent’s rent and provided him with a per diem expense allowance for each day of the year, including weekends and holidays, to cover the necessary living expenses in the Korean economy. The accident here occurred on an outing for a short period of time on a lake located only 30 miles from the employer’s job site. In the words of the District Court, “It was reasonable to conclude that recreational activities contributed to a higher efficiency of the employer’s work and that when conducted in the restricted area of employment, on a work day, so to speak,, and in a manner not prohibited by the employer, such activity was an incident of the employment.” 222 F. Supp. 4, 9.
The dissent, while giving lip service to the Brown-Pacific-Maxon standards, would reverse the determination of the Deputy Commissioner and District Court here, as well as the Deputy Commissioner and the Courts of Appeals in other cases, that the several accidents involved were within the “zone of special danger.” As Brown-Pacific-Maxon made clear, it is just this type of determination which the statute leaves to the Deputy Commissioner subject only to limited judicial review. Indeed, this type of determination, depending as it does on an analysis of the many factors involved in the area of the employment, would seem to be one peculiarly for the Deputy Commissioner.
The District Court therefore correctly upheld the determination of the Deputy Commissioner and the Court of Appeals erred in summarily reversing its judgment. Cf. O’Keeffe v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 338 F. 2d 319 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1964); Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. O’Hearne, 335 F. 2d 70 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1964); Self v. Hanson, 305 F. 2d 699 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1962); Hastorf-Nettles, Inc. v. Pillsbury, 203 F. 2d 641 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1953).
Since we believe that the Deputy Commissioner and District Court properly applied the Brown-Pacific-Maxon standard, and since we deem it necessary to preserve the integrity of the administrative process established by Congress to effectuate the statutory scheme, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 union, Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians, challenged the Alabama Circuit Court's jurisdiction over a suit by Broadcast Service of Mobile, the corporate name of Radio Station WSIM, to restrain peaceful picketing by the union and its solicitation of advertisers aimed at persuading them to cease doing business with the station. It contended that although the annual gross receipts of WSIM are below the National Labor Relations Board’s jurisdictional minimum of $100,000 per year for radio stations, WSIM is an integral part of a group of radio stations owned and operated by Charles W. Holt and the Holt Broadcasting Service and that the annual receipts of the common enterprise are in excess of $100,000, which is determinative under the Board’s standards. Stating that every court has judicial power to determine its jurisdiction and that the union failed to allege "that the appellant’s [WSIM’s] gross business exceeded $100,000 per annum,” the Alabama Supreme Court held that the state courts had jurisdiction over WSIM’s complaint. We granted certiorari. 379 U. S. 812. The judgment below must be reversed.
Although a state court may assume jurisdiction over labor disputes over which the National Labor Relations Board has, but declines to assert, jurisdiction, 29 U. S. C. §§ 164 (c)(1) and (2) (1958 ed., Supp. V), there must be a proper determination of whether the case is actually one of those which the Board will decline to hear. Hattiesburg Building Trades Council v. Broome, 377 U. S. 126. The Board will assert jurisdiction over an employer operating a radio station if his gross receipts equal or exceed $100,000 per year, Raritan Valley Broadcasting Co., 122 N. L. R. B. 90, and in determining the relevant employer, the Board considers several nominally separate business entities to be a single employer where they comprise an integrated enterprise, N. L. R. B. twenty-first Ann. Rep. 14-15 (1956). The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated in Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership. Sakrete of Northern California, Inc., 137 N. L. R. B. 1220, aff’d 332 F. 2d 902 (C. A. 9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U. S. 961; Family Laundry, Inc., 121 N. L. R. B. 1619; Canton, Carp’s, Inc., 125 N. L. R. B. 483; V. I. P. Radio, Inc., 128 N. L. R. B. 113; Perfect T. V., Inc., 134 N. L. R. B. 575; Overton Markets, Inc., 142 N. L. R. B. 615. The record made below is more than adequate to show that all of these factors are present in regard to the Holt enterprise and that this is not a case which the Board has announced it would decline to hear. Since the conduct set out in the complaint is regulated by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 141 et seq. (1958 ed.), “due regard for the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield.” San Diego Building Trades v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 244; Construction & General Laborers’ Union v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542.
Reversed.
The United States, as amicus curiae, confirms the view that the Board’s standards for determining a single employer enterprise were fully satisfied by the structure and operation of the Holt stations.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On June 7, 1972, respondent Haymes was removed from his assignment as inmate clerk in the law library at the Attica Correctional Facility in the State of New York. That afternoon Haymes was observed circulating among other inmates a document prepared by him and at the time signed by 82 other prisoners. Among other things, each signatory complained that he had been deprived of legal assistance as the result of the removal of Haymes and another inmate from the prison law library. The document, which was addressed to a federal judge but sought no relief, was seized and held by prison authorities. On June 8, Haymes was advised that he would be transferred to Clinton Correctional Facility, which, like Attica, was a maximum-security institution. The transfer was effected the next day. No loss of good time, segregated confinement, loss of privileges, or any other disciplinary measures accompanied the transfer. On August 3, Haymes filed a petition with the United States District Court which was construed by the judge to be an application under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343 seeking relief against petitioner Montanye, the then Superintendent at Attica. The petition complained that the seizure and retention of the document, despite requests for its return, not only violated Administrative Bulletin No. 20, which allegedly made any communication to a court privileged and confidential, but also infringed Haymes' federally guaranteed right to petition the court for redress of grievances. It further asserted that Haymes’ removal to Clinton was to prevent him from pursuing his remedies and also was in reprisal for his having rendered legal assistance to various prisoners as well as having, along with others, sought to petition the court for redress.
In response to a show-cause order issued by the court, petitioner Brady, the correctional officer at Attica in charge of the law library, stated in an affidavit that Haymes had been relieved from his assignment as an inmate clerk in the law library “because of his continual disregard for the rules governing inmates and the use of the law library” and that only one of the inmates who had signed the petition being circulated by Haymes had ever made an official request for legal assistance. The affidavit of Harold Smith, Deputy Superintendent of Attica, furnished the court with Paragraph 21 of the Inmate’s Rule Book, which prohibited an inmate from furnishing legal assistance to another inmate without official permission and with a copy of a bulletin board notice directing inmates with legal problems to present them to Officer Brady — inmates were in no circumstances to set themselves up as legal counselors and receive pay for their services. The affidavit asserted that the petition taken from Haymes was being circulated “in direct disregard of the above rule forbidding legal assistance except with the approval of the Superintendent” and that Haymes had been cautioned on several occasions about assisting other inmates without the required approval.
Haymes responded by a motion to join Brady as a defendant, which was granted, and with a counteraffi-davit denying that there was a rulebook at Attica, reasserting that the document seized was merely a letter to the court not within the scope of the claimed rule and alleging that his removal from the law library, the seizure of his petition, and his transfer to Clinton were acts of reprisal for his having attempted to furnish legal assistance to the other prisoners rather than merely hand out library books to them.
After retained counsel had submitted a memorandum on behalf of Haymes, the District Court dismissed the action. It held that the rule against giving legal assistance without consent was reasonable and that the seizure of Haymes’ document was not in violation of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the transfer to Clinton did not violate Haymes’ rights: “Although a general allegation is made that punishment was the motive for the transfer, there is no allegation that the facilities at [Clinton] are harsher or substantially different from those afforded to petitioner at Attica. . . . Petitioner’s transfer was consistent with the discretion given to prison officials in exercising proper custody of inmates.” App. 26a.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. 505 F. 2d 977 (1974). Because the District Court had considered affidavits outside the pleadings, the dismissal was deemed to have been a summary judgment under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56. The judgment was ruled erroneous because there were two unresolved issues of material fact: whether Haymes’ removal to Clinton was punishment for a disobedience of prison rules and if so whether the effects of the transfer were sufficiently burdensome to require a hearing under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court’s legal theory was that Haymes should no more be punished by a transfer having harsh consequences than he should suffer other deprivations which under prison rules could not be imposed without following specified procedures. Disciplinary transfers, the Court of Appeals thought, were in a different category from “administrative” transfers. “When harsh treatment is meted out to reprimand, deter, or reform an individual, elementary fairness demands that the one punished be given a satisfactory opportunity to establish that he is not deserving of such handling. ... [T]he specific facts upon which a decision to punish are predicated can most suitably be ascertained at an impartial hearing to review the evidence of the alleged misbehavior, and to assess the effect which transfer will have on the inmate’s future incarceration.” 505 F. 2d, at 980. The Court of Appeals found it difficult “to look upon the circumstances of the transfer as a mere coincidence,” id., at 979; it was also convinced that Haymes might be able to demonstrate sufficiently burdensome consequences attending the transfer to trigger the protections of the Due Process Clause, even though Attica and Clinton were both maximum-security prisons. The case was therefore remanded for further proceedings to the District Court. We granted certiorari, 422 U. S. 1055 (1975), and heard the case with Meachum v. Fano, ante, p. 215. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals did not hold, as did the Court of Appeals in Meachum v. Fano, that every disadvantageous transfer must be accompanied by appropriate hearings. Administrative transfers, although perhaps having very similar consequences for the prisoner, were exempt from the Court of Appeals ruling. Only disciplinary transfers having substantial adverse impact on the prisoner were to call for procedural formalities. Even so, our decision in Meachum requires a reversal in this case. We held in Meachum v. Fano, that no Due Process Clause liberty interest of a duly convicted prison inmate is infringed when he is transferred from one prison to another within the State, whether with or without a hearing^ absent some right or justifiable expectation rooted in state law that he will not be transferred except for misbehavior or upon the occurrence of other specified events. We therefore disagree with the Court of Appeals’ general proposition that the Due Process Clause by its own force requires hearings whenever prison authorities transfer a prisoner to another institution because of his breach of prison rules, at least where the transfer may be said to involve substantially burdensome consequences. As long as the conditions or degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected is within the sentence imposed upon him and is not otherwise violative of the Constitution, the Due Process Clause does not in itself subject an inmate’s treatment by prison authorities to judicial oversight. The Clause does not require hearings in connection with transfers whether or not they are the result of the inmate’s misbehavior or may be labeled as disciplinary or punitive.
We also agree with the State of New York that under the law of that State Haymes had no right to remain at any particular prison facility and no justifiable expectation that he would not be transferred unless found guilty of misconduct. Under New York law, adult persons sentenced to imprisonment are not sentenced to particular institutions, but are committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections. He receives adult, male felons at a maximum-security reception center for initial evaluation and then transfers them to specified institutions. N. Y. Corree. Law § 71 (1) (McKinney Supp. 1975-1976); 7 N. Y. C. R. R. § 103.10. Thereafter, the Commissioner is empowered by statute to “transfer inmates from one correctional facility to another.” N. Y. Corree. Law §23(1) (McKinney Supp. 1975-1976). The Court of Appeals reasoned that because under the applicable state statutes and regulations, various specified punishments were reserved as sanctions for breach of prison rules and could not therefore be imposed without appropriate hearings, neither could the harsh consequences of a transfer be imposed as punishment for misconduct absent appropriate due process procedures. But under the New York law, the transfer of inmates is not conditional upon or limited to the occurrence of misconduct. The statute imposes no conditions on the discretionary power to transfer, and we are advised by the State that no such requirements have been promulgated. Transfers are not among the punishments which may be imposed only after a prison disciplinary hearing. 7 N. Y. C. R. R. § 253.5. Whatever part an inmate’s behavior may play in a decision to transfer, there is no more basis in New York law for invoking the protections of the Due Process Clause than we found to be the case under the Massachusetts law in the Meachum case.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The document read verbatim:
“Hon. Judge John T. Curtin:
“I am writing to complain that I am now being deprived of legal assistance as a result of inmate Rodney R. Haymes and John Washington being removed from the prison law library.
“Since the removal of the above two from the law library, I cannot any longer obtain any legal assistance either in the nature of obtaining the proper applicable case law corresponding with the particular issue contained in my case, as well as assistance in preparing my post-conviction application to the courts.
“The major problem and reason for my not being able to obtain legal assistance is a direct result of the attitude displayed by the law library officer whom goes out of his way to circumvent inmates legal assistance.
“I feel that this was obviously the same reason why this officer has had Rodney Haymes and John Washington removed from the law library whereby they no longer have proper access to either the law books or myself and the other inmates whom they are legally assisting.
“Wherefore, I feel that my constitutional rights to adequate access to the courts for judicial review and redress is being violated as a direct result of the circumstances and conditions herein set forth.
“[Signed by 82 inmates.]”
Inmates are forbidden, except upon approval of the warden, to assist other inmates in the preparation of legal papers.
The notice read as follows:
“Office of Superintendent
“April 25, 1972
“To ALL concerned:
“In all instances where inmates desire assistance in the use of the Law Library, they are to present their problems to Correction Officer Brady, who will assist them to the extent necessary or will assign inmates on the Law Library staff to particular cases.
“Under no circumstances are inmates to set themselves up as 'legal counselors’ and receive pay for their services.
“Ernest L. Montanye
“Superintendent”
The Court of Appeals found “that the hardship involved in the mere fact of dislocation may be sufficient to render Haymes’s summary transfer — if a trial establishes that it was punitive — a denial of due process.” 605 F. 2d, at 981. The court said:
“The facts of this case may provide a good illustration of the real hardship in being shuttled from one institution to another. After being sent to Clinton, Haymes found himself several hundred miles away from his home and family in Buffalo, New York. Not only was he effectively separated by the transfer from his only contact with the world outside the prison, but he also was removed from the friends he had made among the inmates at Attica and forced to adjust to a new environment where he may well have been regarded as a troublemaker. Contacts with counsel would necessarily have been more difficult. A transferee suffers other consequences as well: the inmate is frequently put in administrative segregation upon arrival at the new facility, 7 N. Y. C. R. R. Part 260; personal belongings are often lost; he may be deprived of facilities and medications for psychiatric and medical treatment, see Hoitt v. Vitek, 361 F. Supp. 1238, 1249 (D. N. H. 1973); and educational and rehabilitative programs can be interrupted. Moreover, the fact of transfer, and perhaps the reasons alleged therefor, will be put on the record reviewed by the parole board, and the prisoner may have difficulty rebutting, long after the fact, the adverse inference to be drawn therefrom.” Id., at 981-982.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider together the above two cases. Both involve suits to recover sums exacted from businesses by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as employment taxes on employers under the Social Security Act. In both instances the taxes were collected on assessments made administratively by the Commissioner because he concluded the persons here involved were employees of the taxpayers. Both cases turn on a determination as to whether the workers involved were employees under that Act or whether they were independent contractors. Writs of certiorari were granted, 329 U. S. 702 and 329 U. S. 709, because of the general importance in the collection of social security taxes of deciding what are the applicable standards for the determination of employees under the Act. Varying standards have been applied in the federal courts.
Respondent in No. 312, Albert Silk, doing business as the Albert Silk Coal Co., sued the United States, petitioner, to recover taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed and collected from respondent for the years 1936 through 1939 under the Social Security Act. The taxes were levied on respondent as an employer of certain workmen some of whom were engaged in unloading railway coal cars and the others in making retail deliveries of coal by truck.
Respondent sells coal at retail in the city of Topeka, Kansas. His coalyard consists of two buildings, one for an office and the other a gathering place for workers, railroad tracks upon which carloads of coal are delivered by the railroad, and bins for the different types of coal. Respondent pays those who work as unloaders an agreed price per ton to unload coal from the railroad cars. These men come to the yard when and as they please and are assigned a car to unload and a place to put the coal. They furnish their own tools, work when they wish and work for others at will. One of these unloaders testified that he worked as regularly “as a man has to when he has to eat” but there was also testimony that some of the unloaders were floaters who came to the yard only intermittently.
Respondent owns no trucks himself but contracts with workers who own their own trucks to deliver coal at a uniform price per ton. This is paid to the trucker by the respondent out of the price he receives for the coal from the customer. When an order for coal is taken in the company office, a bell is rung which rings in the building used by the truckers. The truckers have voluntarily adopted a call list upon which their names come up in turn, and the top man on the list has an opportunity to deliver the coal ordered. The truckers are not instructed how to do their jobs, but are merely given a ticket telling them where the coal is to be delivered and whether the charge is to be collected or not. Any damage caused by them is paid for by the company. The District Court found that the truckers could and often did refuse to make a delivery without penalty. Further, the court found that the truckers may come and go as they please and frequently did leave the premises without permission. They may and did haul for others when they pleased. They pay all the expenses of operating their trucks, and furnish extra help necessary to the delivery of the coal and all equipment except the yard storage bins. No record is kept of their time. They are paid after each trip, at the end of the day or at the end of the week, as they request.
The Collector ruled that the unloaders and truckers were employees of the respondent during the years 1936 through 1939 within the meaning of the Social Security Act and he accordingly assessed additional taxes under Titles VIII and IX of the Social Security Act and Sub-chapters A and C of Chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code. Respondent filed a claim for a refund which was denied. He then brought this action. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals thought that the truckers and unloaders were independent contractors and allowed the recovery.
Respondent in No. 673, Grey van Lines, Inc., a common carrier by motor truck, sued the petitioner, a Collector of Internal Revenue, to recover employment taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed and collected from it under similar provisions of the Social Security Act involved in Silk’s case for the years or parts of years 1937 through the first quarter of 1942. From a holding for the respondent in the District Court petitioner appealed. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The chief question in this case is whether truckmen who perform the actual service of carrying the goods shipped by the public are employees of the respondent. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals thought that the truckmen were independent contractors.
The respondent operates its trucking business under a permit issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission under the “grandfather clause” of the Motor Carrier Act. 32 M. C. C. 719, 723. It operates throughout thirty-eight states and parts of Canada, carrying largely household furniture. While its principal office is in Chicago, it maintains agencies to solicit business in many of the larger cities of the areas it serves, from which it contracts to move goods. As early as 1930, before the passage of the Social Security Act, the respondent adopted the system of relations with the truckmen here concerned, which gives rise to the present issue. The system was based on contracts with the truckmen under which the truckmen were required to haul exclusively for the respondent and to furnish their own trucks and all equipment and labor necessary to pick up, handle and deliver shipments, to pay all expenses of operation, to furnish all fire, theft, and collision insurance which the respondent might specify, to pay for all loss or damage to shipments and to indemnify the company for any loss caused it by the acts of the truckmen, their servants and employees, to paint the designation “Greyvan Lines” on their trucks, to collect all money due the company from shippers or consignees, and to turn in such moneys at the office to which they report after delivering a shipment, to post bonds with the company in the amount of $1,000 and cash deposits of $250 pending final settlement of accounts, to personally drive their trucks at all times or be present on the truck when a competent relief driver was driving (except in emergencies, when a substitute might be employed with the approval of the company), and to follow all rules, regulations, and instructions of the company. All contracts or bills of lading for the shipment of goods were to be between the respondent and the shipper. The company’s instructions covered directions to the truckmen as to where and when to load freight. If freight was tendered the truckmen, they were under obligation to notify the company so that it could complete the contract for shipment in its own name. As remuneration, the truckmen were to receive from the company a percentage of the tariff charged by the company varying between 50 and 52% and a bonus up to 3% for satisfactory performance of the service. The contract was terminable at any time by either party. These truckmen were required to take a short course of instruction in the company’s methods of doing business before carrying out their contractual obligations to haul. The company maintained a staff of dispatchers who issued orders for the truckmen’s movements, although not the routes to be used, and to which the truckmen, at intervals, reported their positions. Cargo insurance was carried by the company. All permits, certificates and franchises “necessary to the operation of the vehicle in the service of the Company as a motor carrier under any Federal or State Law” were to be obtained at the company’s expense.
The record shows the following additional undisputed facts, not contained in the findings. A manual of instructions, given by the respondent to the truckmen, and a contract between the company and Local No. 711 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America were introduced in evidence. It suffices to say that the manual purported to regulate in detail the conduct of the truckmen in the performance of their duties, and that the agreement with the Union provided that any truckman must first be a member of the union, and that grievances would be referred to representatives of the company and the union. A company official testified that the manual was impractical and that no attempt was made to enforce it. We understand the union contract was in effect. The company had some trucks driven by truckmen who were admittedly company employees. Operations by the company under the two systems were carried out in the same manner. The insurance required by the company was carried under a blanket company policy for which the truckmen were charged proportionately.
The Social Security Act of 1935 was the result of long consideration by the President and Congress of the evil of the burdens that rest upon large numbers of our people because of the insecurities of modern life, particularly old age and unemployment. It was enacted in an effort to coordinate the forces of government and industry for solving the problems. The principal method adopted by Congress to advance its purposes was to provide for periodic payments in the nature of annuities to the elderly and compensation to workers during periods of unemployment. Employment taxes, such as we are here considering, are necessary to produce the revenue for federal participation in the program of alleviation. Employers do not pay taxes on certain groups of employees, such as agricultural or domestic workers but none of these exceptions are applicable to these cases. §§ 811 and 907. Taxes are laid as excises on a percentage of wages paid the nonexempt employees. §§ 804 and 901; I. R. C. §§ 1410, 1600. “Wages” means all remuneration for the employment that is covered by the Act, cash or otherwise. §§ 811, 907; I. R. C. §§ 1426,1607 (b). “Employment” means “any service, of whatever nature, performed... by an employee for his employer, except... Agricultural labor” et cetera. §§ 811 (b), 907 (c); I.- R. C. §§ 1426 (b), 1607 (c). As a corollary to the coverage of employees whose wages are the basis for the employment taxes under the tax sections of the social security legislation, rights to benefit payments under federal old age insurance depend upon the receipt of wages as employees under the same sections. 53 Stat. 1360, §§ 202, 209 (a), (b), (g), 205 (c) (1). See Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U. S. 358. This relationship between the tax sections and the benefit sections emphasizes the underlying purpose of the legislation — the protection of its beneficiaries from some of the hardships of existence. Helvering v. Davis, supra, 640. No definition of employer or employee applicable to these cases occurs in the Act. See § 907 (a) and I. R. C. § 1607 (a). Compare, as to carrier employment, I. R. C. § 1532 (d), as amended by 60 Stat. 722, § 1. Nothing that is helpful in determining the scope of the coverage of the tax sections of the Social Security Act has come to our attention in the legislative history of the passage of the Act or amendments thereto.
Since Congress has made clear by its many exemptions, such as, for example, the broad categories of agricultural labor and domestic service, 53 Stat. 1384,1393, that it was not its purpose to make the Act cover the whole field of service to every business enterprise, the sections in question are to be read with the exemptions in mind. The very specificity of the exemptions, however, and the generality of the employment definitions indicates that the terms “employment” and “employee,” are to be construed to accomplish the purposes of the legislation. As the federal social security legislation is an attack on recognized evils in our national economy, a constricted interpretation of the phrasing by the courts would not comport with its purpose. Such an interpretation would only make for a continuance, to a considerable degree, of the difficulties for which the remedy was devised and would invite adroit schemes by some employers and employees to avoid the immediate burdens at the expense of the benefits sought by the legislation. These considerations have heretofore guided our construction of the Act. Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinley, 308 U. S. 358; Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358.
Of course, this does not mean that all who render service to an industry are employees. Compare Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514, 520. Obviously the private contractor who undertakes to build at a fixed price or on cost-plus a new plant on specifications is not an employee of the industry thus served nor are his employees. The distributor who undertakes to market at his own risk the product of another, or the producer who agrees so to manufacture for another, ordinarily cannot be said to have the employer-employee relationship. Production and distribution are different segments of business. The purposes of the legislation are not frustrated because the Government collects employment taxes from the distributor instead of the producer or the other way around.
The problem of differentiating between employee and an independent contractor, or between an agent and an independent contractor, has given difficulty through the years before social legislation multiplied its importance. When the matter arose in the administration of the National Labor Relations Act, we pointed out that the legal standards to fix responsibility for acts of servants, employees or agents had not been reduced to such certainty that it could be said there was “some simple, uniform and easily applicable test.” The word “employee,” we said, was not there used as a word of art, and its content in its context was a federal problem to be construed “in the light of the mischief to be corrected and the end to be attained.” We concluded that, since that end was the elimination of labor disputes and industrial strife, “employees” included workers who were such as a matter of economic reality. The aim of the Act was to remedy the inequality of bargaining power in controversies over wages, hours and working conditions. We rejected the test of the “technical concepts pertinent to an employer’s legal responsibility to third persons for acts of his servants.” This is often referred to as power of control, whether exercised or not, over the manner of performing service to the industry. Restatement of the Law, Agency, § 220. We approved the statement of the National Labor Relations Board that “the primary consideration in the determination of the applicability of the statutory definition is whether effectu-ation of the declared policy and purposes of the Act comprehend securing to the individual the rights guaranteed and protection afforded by the Act.” Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111, 120, 123, 124, 128, 129, 131.
Application of the social security legislation should follow the same rule that we applied to the National Labor Relations Act in the Hearst case. This, of course, does not leave courts free to determine the employer-employee relationship without regard to the provisions of the Act. The taxpayer must be an “employer” and the man who receives wages an “employee.” There is no indication that Congress intended to change normal business relationships through which one business organization obtained the services of another to perform a portion of production or distribution. Few businesses are so completely integrated that they can themselves produce the raw material, manufacture and distribute the finished product to the ultimate consumer without assistance from independent contractors. The Social Security Act was drawn with this industrial situation as a part of the surroundings in which it was to be enforced. Where a part of an industrial process is in the hands of independent contractors, they are the ones who should pay the social security taxes.
The long-standing regulations of the Treasury and the Federal Security Agency (H. Doc. 595, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.) recognize that independent contractors exist under the Act. The pertinent portions are set out in the margin. Certainly the industry’s right to control how “work shall be done” is a factor in the determination of whether the worker is an employee or independent contractor. The Government points out that the regulations were construed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to cover the circumstances here presented. This is shown by his additional tax assessments. Other instances of such administrative determinations are called to our attention.
So far as the regulations refer to the effect of contracts, we think their statement of the law cannot be challenged successfully. Contracts, however “skilfully devised,” Lucas v. Earl, 281 U. S. 111, 115, should not be permitted to shift tax liability as definitely fixed by the statutes.
Probably it is quite impossible to extract from the statute a rule of thumb to define the limits of the employer-employee relationship. The Social Security Agency and the courts will find that degrees of control, opportunities for profit or loss, investment in facilities, permanency of relation and skill required in the claimed independent operation are important for decision. No one is controlling nor is the list complete. These unloaders and truckers and their assistants are from one standpoint an integral part of the businesses of retailing coal or transporting freight. Their energy, care and judgment may conserve their equipment or increase their earnings but Greyvan and Silk are the directors of their businesses. On the other hand, the truckmen hire their own assistants, own their trucks, pay their own expenses, with minor exceptions, and depend upon their own initiative, judgment and energy for a large part of their success.
Both lower courts in both cases have determined that these workers are independent contractors. These inferences were drawn by the courts from facts concerning which there is no real dispute. The excerpts from the opinions below show the reasons for their conclusions.
Giving full consideration to the concurrence of the two lower courts in a contrary result, we cannot agree that the unloaders in the Silk case were independent contractors. They provided only picks and shovels. They had no opportunity to gain or lose except from the work of their hands and these simple tools. That the unloaders did not work regularly is not significant. They did work in the course of the employer’s trade or business. This brings them under the coverage of the Act. They are of the group that the Social Security Act was intended to aid. Silk was in a position to exercise all necessary supervision over their simple tasks. Unloaders have often been held to be emplees in tort cases.
There are cases, too, where driver-owners of trucks or wagons have been held employees in accident suits at tort or under workmen’s compensation laws. But we agree with the decisions below in Silk and Greyvan that where the arrangements leave the driver-owners so much responsibility for investment and management as here, they must be held to be independent contractors. These driver-owners are small businessmen. They own their own trucks. They hire their own helpers. In one instance they haul for a single business, in the other for any customer. The distinction, though important, is not controlling. It is the total situation, including the risk undertaken, the control exercised, the opportunity for profit from sound management, that marks these driver-owners as independent contractors.
No. 312, United States v. Silk, is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
No. 673, Harrison v. Greyvan Lines, Inc., is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Murphy are of the view that the applicable principles of law, stated by the Court and with which they agree, require reversal of both judgments in their entirety.
Mr. Justice Rutledge.
I join in the Court’s opinion and in the result insofar as the principles stated are applied to the unloaders in the Silk case. But I think a different disposition should be made in application of those principles to the truckers in that case and in the Greyvan case.
So far as the truckers are concerned, both are borderline cases. That would be true, I think, even if the so-called “common law control” test were conclusive, as the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals in each case seem to have regarded it. It is even more true under the broader and more factual approach the Court holds should be applied.
I agree with the Court’s views in adopting this approach and that the balance in close cases should be cast in favor of rather than against coverage, in order to fulfill the statute’s broad and beneficent objects. A narrow, constricted construction in doubtful cases only goes, as indeed the opinion recognizes, to defeat the Act’s policy and purposes pro tanto.
But I do not think it necessary or perhaps in harmony with sound practice, considering the nature of this Court’s functions and those of the district courts, for us to undertake drawing the final conclusion generally in these borderline cases. Having declared the applicable principles of law to be applied, our function is sufficiently discharged by seeing to it that they are observed. And when this has been done, drawing the final conclusion, in matters so largely factual as the end result must be in close cases, is more properly the business of the district courts than ours.
Here the District Courts and the Circuit Courts of Appeals determined the cases largely if not indeed exclusively by applying the so-called “common law control” test as the criterion. This was clearly wrong, in view of the Court’s present ruling. But for its action in drawing the ultimate and largely factual conclusion on that basis, the error would require remanding the causes to the District Courts in order for them to exercise that function in the light of the present decision.
I would follow that course, so far as the truckers are concerned.
Titles VIII and IX, Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 636 and 639, as repealed in part 53 Stat. 1.
See Internal Revenue Code, chap. 9, subchap. A and C.
Texas Co. v. Higgins, 118 F. 2d 636; Jones v. Goodson, 121 F. 2d 176; Deecy Products Co. v. Welch, 124 F. 2d 592; American Oil Co. v. Fly, 135 F. 2d 491; Glenn v. Beard, 141 F. 2d 376; Magruder v. Yellow Cab Co., 141 F. 2d 324; United States v. Mutual Trucking Co., 141 F. 2d 655; Glenn v. Standard Oil Co., 148 F. 2d 51, 53; McGowan v. Lazeroff, 148 F. 2d 512; United States v. Wholesale Oil Co., 154 F. 2d 745; United States v. Vogue, Inc., 145 F. 2d 609, 612; United States v. Aberdeen Aerie No. 24., 148 F. 2d 655, 658; Grace v. Magruder, 148 F. 2d 679, 680-81; Nevins, Inc. v. Rothensies, 151 F. 2d 189.
155 F. 2d 356.
156 F. 2d 412.
Message of the President, January 17, 1935, and Report of the Committee on Economic Security, H. Doc. No. 81, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 734, 76th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. Rep. No. 728, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 548; Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619.
See 53 Stat. 1384,1393, “The term 'employment’ means any service performed prior to January 1,1940, which was employment as defined in this section prior to such date, and any service, of whatever nature, performed after December 31, 1939, within the United States by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, except—....” Compare 49 Stat. 639 and 643.
Nothing to suggest tax avoidance appears in these records.
Treasury Regulations 90, promulgated under Title IX of the Social Security Act, Art. 205:
“Generally the relationship exists when the person for whom services are performed has the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services, not only as to the result to be accomplished by the work but also as to the details and means by which that result is accomplished. That is, an employee is subject to the will and control of the emploj'-er not only as to what shall be done but how it shall be done.... The right to discharge is also an important factor indicating that the person possessing that right is an employer. Other factors characteristic of an employer are the furnishing of tools and the furnishing of a place to work, to the individual who performs the services. In general, if an individual is subject to the control or direction of another merely as to the result to be accomplished by the work and not as to the means and methods for accomplishing the result, he is an independent contractor, not an employee.
“If the relationship of employer and employee exists, the designation or description of the relationship by the parties as anything other than that of employer and employee is immaterial. Thus, if two individuals in fact stand in the relation of employer and employee to each other, it is of no consequence that the employee is designated as a partner, coadventurer, agent, or independent contractor.
“The measurement, method, or designation of compensation is also immaterial, if the relationship of employer and employee in fact exists.
“Individuals performing services as independent contractors are not employees. Generally, physicians, lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, contractors, subcontractors, public stenographers, auctioneers, and others who follow an independent trade, business, or profession, in which they offer their services to the public, are independent contractors and not employees.” 26 C. F. R. § 400.205. See also Treasury Regulations 91, 26 C. F. R. §401.3. (Emphasis added.)
The citation of these cases does not imply approval or disapproval of the results. The cases do show the construction of the regulation by the agency. United States v. Mutual Trucking Co., 141 F. 2d 655; Jones v. Goodson, 121 F. 2d 176; Magruder v. Yellow Cab Co., 141 F. 2d 324; Texas Co. v. Higgins, 118 F. 2d 636; American Oil Co. v. Fly, 135 F. 2d 491; Glenn v. Standard Oil Co., 148 F. 2d 51.
See also note 2.
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U. S. 465; Griffiths v. Commissioner, 308 U. S. 355; Higgins v. Smith, 308 U. S. 473; Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U. S. 331.
United, States v. Silk, 155 F. 2d 356, 358-9: “But even while they work for appellee they are not subject to his control as to the method or manner in which they are to do their work. The undisputed evidence is that the only supervision or control ever exercised or that could be exercised over the haulers was to give them the sales ticket if they were willing to take it, and let them deliver the coal. They were free to choose any route in going to or returning. They were not required even to take the coal for delivery.
“We think that the relationship between appellee and the unloaders is not materially different from that between him and the haulers. In response to a question on cross examination, appellee did testify that the unloaders did what his superintendent at the coal yard told them to do, but when considered in the light of all his testimony, all that this answer meant was that they unloaded the ear assigned to them into the designated bin....
“The undisputed facts fail to establish such reasonable measure of direction and control over the method and means of performing the services performed by these workers as is necessary to establish a legal relationship of employer and employee between appellee and the workers in question.”
Greyvan Lines v. Harrison, 156 F. 2d 412, 414-16. After stating the trial court’s finding that the truckmen were not employees, the appellate court noted:
“Appellant contends that in determining these facts the court failed to give effect to important provisions of the contracts which it asserts clearly show the reservation of the right of control over the truckmen and their helpers as to the methods and means of their operations which, it is agreed, furnish the test for determining the relationship here in question....”
It then discussed the manual and concluded:
“While it is true that many provisions of the manual, if strictly enforced, would go far to establish an employer-employee relationship between the Company and its truckmen, we agree with appellee that there was evidence to justify the court’s disregarding of it. It was not prepared until April, 1940, although the tax period involved was from November, 1937, through March, 1942, and there was no evidence to show any change or tightening of controls after its adoption and distribution; one driver testified that he was never instructed to follow the rules therein provided; an officer of the Company testified that it had been prepared by a group of three men no longer in their employ, and that it had been impractical and was not adhered to.”
After a discussion of the helper problem, this statement appears: “... the Company cannot be held liable for employment taxes on the wages of persons over whom it exerts no control, and of whose employment it has no knowledge. And this element of control of the truck-men over their own helpers goes far to prevent the employer-employee relationship from arising between them and the Company. While many factors in this case indicate such control as to give rise to that relationship, we think the most vital one is missing because of the complete control of the truckmen as to how many, if any, and what helpers they make use of in their operations....”
Cf. Grace v. Magruder, 148 F. 2d 679.
I. R. C., chap. 9, subchap. A, § 1426 (b), as amended, 53 Stat. 1384:
“The term 'employment’ means any service performed... by an employee for the person employing him... except—
“(3) Casual labor not in the course of the employer’s trade or business;...”
Swift & Co. v. Alston, 48 Ga. App. 649, 173 S. E. 741; Holmes v. Tennessee Coal, I. & R. Co., 49 La. Ann. 1465, 22 So. 403; Muncie Foundry Co. v. Thompson, 70 Ind. App. 157, 123 N. E. 196; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Bennett, 36 Okla. 358, 128 P. 705; Murray’s Case, 130 Me. 181, 154 A. 352; Decatur R. Co. v. Industrial Board, 276 Ill. 472, 114 N. E. 915; Benjamin v. Fertilizer Co., 169 Miss. 162, 152 So. 839.
Western Express Co. v. Smeltzer, 88 F. 2d 94; Industrial Commission v. Bonfils, 78 Colo. 306, 241 P. 735; Coppes Bros. & Zook v. Pontius, 76 Ind. App. 298, 131 N. E. 845; Burruss v. B. M. C. Logging Co., 38 N. M. 254, 31 P. 2d 263; Bradley v. Republic Creosoting Co., 281 Mich. 177, 274 N. W. 754; Rouse v. Town of Bird Island, 169 Minn. 367, 211 N. W. 327; Industrial Commission v. Hammond, 77 Colo. 414, 236 P. 1006; Kirk v. Lime Co. & Insurance Co., 137 Me. 73, 15 A. 2d 184; Showers v. Lund, 123 Neb. 56, 242 N. W. 258; Burt v. Davis-Wood Lumber Co., 157 La. 111, 102 So. 87; Dunn v. Reeves Coal Yards Co., Inc., 150 Minn. 282, 184 N. W. 1027; Waters v. Pioneer Fuel Co., 52 Minn. 474, 55 N. W. 52; Warner v. Hardwood Lumber Co., 231 Mich. 328, 204 N. W. 107; Frost v. Blue Ridge Timber Corp., 158 Tenn. 18, 11 S. W. 2d 860; Lee v. Mark H. Brown Lumber Co., 15 La. App. 294, 131 So. 697.
See particularly Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Rahn, 132 U. S. 518.
Compare United States v. Mutual Trucking Co., 141 F. 2d 655; Glenn v. Standard Oil Co., 148 F. 2d 51.
The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Greyvan case stated, after referring to United States v. Mutual Trucking Co., 141 F. 2d 655: “It is true that the facts there do not present as close a question as in the case at bar.” And see note 3.
It is not at all certain that either Silk or Greyvan Lines would not be held liable in tort, under application of the common law test, for injuries negligently inflicted upon persons or property of others by their truckers, respectively, in the course of operating the trucks in connection with their businesses. Indeed this result would seem to be clearly indicated, in the case of Greyvan particularly, in view of the fact that the trucks bore its name, in addition to other factors including a large degree of control exercised over the trucking operations. For federal cases in point see Silent Automatic Sales Corp. v. Stayton, 45 F. 2d 471 (applying Missouri law); Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Thompson, 101 F. 2d 301 (applying Nebraska law); Young v. Wilky Carrier Corp., 54 F. Supp. 912, aff’d, 150 F. 2d 764 (applying Pennsylvania law). And see for a general collection of state cases, 9 Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice (1941) § 6056.
Certainly the question of coverage under the statute, as an employee, should not be determined more narrowly than that of employee status for purposes of imposing vicarious liability in tort upon an employer, whether by application of the control test exclusively or of the Court’s broader ruling.
In the Silk case formal findings of fact and conclusions of law by the District Court do not appear in the record. But a “Statement by the Court” recites details of the arrangements with the truckers and unloaders in the focus of whether Silk exercised control over them and concludes he did not; hence, there was no employer-employee relation. The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, though recognizing the necessity for liberal construction of the Act, treats the facts found in the same focus of control. The court was influenced by the regulations promulgated under the Act (Reg. 90, Art. 205) and also by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (Reg. 91, Art. 3). The opinion concludes: “The undisputed facts fail to establish such reasonable measure of
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Kagan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal law authorizes a court to award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party in certain civil rights cases. See 42 U. S. C. § 1988. We have held that a defendant may receive such an award if the plaintiff’s suit is frivolous. In this case, the plaintiff asserted both frivolous and non-frivolous claims. We hold today that a court may grant reasonable fees to the defendant in this circumstance, but only for costs that the defendant would not have incurred but for the frivolous claims. A trial court has wide discretion in applying this standard. But here we must vacate the judgment below because the court used a different and incorrect standard in awarding fees.
I
This case arises out of an election for chief of police in the town of Vinton, Louisiana. The candidates were petitioner Ricky Fox (the challenger) and respondent Billy Ray Vice (the incumbent). By Fox’s account, Vice resorted to an assortment of dirty tricks to try to force Fox out of the race. In particular, Vice sent an anonymous letter to Fox threatening to publish damaging charges against him if he remained a candidate. Vice also arranged for a third party to publicly accuse Fox of using racial slurs and then to file a criminal complaint against Fox repeating those allegations. And when prosecutors ignored that faux complaint, Vice leaked it to the press. Yet all of these machinations failed; Fox won the election. And Vice got an even greater comeuppance: He was subsequently convicted of criminal extortion for his election-related conduct.
Fox, however, chose not to let the matter rest; he filed this suit in Louisiana state court against Vice and the town of Vinton, also a respondent here. Fox’s complaint asserted both state-law claims, including defamation, and federal civil rights claims under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, including interference with his right to seek public office. Vice and the town (Vice, for short) removed the case to federal court on the basis of the § 1983 claims.
At the end of discovery in the suit, Vice moved for summary judgment on Fox’s federal claims. Fox conceded that the claims were "no[t] valid,” App. 169, and the District Court accordingly dismissed them with prejudice. In the same ruling, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Docket No. 2:06-cv-135 (WD La., Oct. 16, 2007), App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a~40a. The court instead remanded the now slimmed-down case to state court for adjudication. In doing so, the District Court observed that “[a]ny trial preparation, legal research, and discovery may be used by the parties in the state court proceedings.” Id., at 40a.
Vice then asked the federal court for an award of attorney’s fees under §1988, arguing that Fox’s federal claims were “baseless and without merit.” App. 198. Vice stated that his lawyers had had to participate in five lengthy depositions and review numerous records to defend against Fox’s charges. Id., at 199. In support of his fee request, Vice submitted attorney billing records estimating the time spent on the whole suit, without differentiating between the federal and state-law claims. See Supp. App. 8-67.
The District Court granted the motion for attorney’s fees on the ground that Fox’s federal claims were frivolous. Although the state-law allegations had not been found frivolous (and indeed remained live), the court did not require Vice to separate out the work his attorneys had done on the two sets of claims. Docket No. 2:06-cv-135 (WD La., Sept. 22, 2008), App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a. According to the court, such “segregation” was unnecessary because the “various claims arose out of the same transaction and were so interrelated that their prosecution or defense entailed proof or denial of essentially the same facts.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, the court declined to reduce the fee award to reflect the surviving state-law claims. “[Throughout the litigation,” the court stated, both sides “foeus[ed]” on Fox’s frivolous § 1983 claims. Id., at 32a-33a. The court therefore concluded that Vice should receive all of the fees he reasonably incurred in defending the suit — a total of $48,681. Id., at 34a.
A divided Court of Appeals affirmed. 594 F. 3d 423 (CA5 2010). The majority first rejected Fox’s contention that all claims in a suit must be frivolous for the defendant to recover any fees. That rule, the court explained, would “'allow plaintiffs to prosecute frivolous claims without consequence]’ ” so long as they added a single non-frivolous claim. Id., at 428 (quoting Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Hailey, 452 F. 3d 1055, 1064 (CA9 2006)). The Court of Appeals then turned to the District Court’s decision that Vice was entitled to fees for all time thus far spent on the case, even though state-law claims remained unadjudicated. Repeating the trial court’s view that the whole litigation had focused on the frivolous federal claims, the Fifth Circuit upheld the fee award. See 594 F. 3d, at 428.
Judge Southwick dissented. He agreed that Vice was entitled to some reimbursement for fees. Id., at 430. But he thought the District Court had erred in declining to “allocate the fees separately between the successful claims and the unsuccessful” ones just because all of them were “interrelated.” Ibid. “[W]hen some claims are dismissed as frivolous and others are not,” he stated, the defendants should receive fees only for “the legal work allocable solely or dominantly to the dismissed” claims. Id., at 431. Because in this case “almost all of the defendant^’] discovery and factual analysis would have been necessary even if no federal claims had been brought,” he concluded, the fee award should have been much smaller. Ibid.
The Fifth Circuit's decision deepened a Circuit split about whether and to what extent a court may award fees to a defendant under § 1988 when a plaintiff asserts both frivolous and non-frivolous claims. One Court of Appeals has forbidden any compensation unless all of the plaintiff's claims are frivolous. See Balmer v. HCA, Inc., 423 F. 3d 606, 617 (CA6 2005). Others have rejected this approach, but struggled with how to allocate fees in a suit that involves a mix of frivolous and non-frivolous claims. Compare, e. g., 594 F. 3d 423 (CA5 2010) (opinion below), with Colombrito v. Kelly, 764 F. 2d 122, 132 (CA2 1985) (declining to award fees when the frivolous claim “added no additional testimony or expense to the trial”). We granted certiorari to resolve these questions. 562 U. S. 1002 (2010).
H-4 h-H
Our legal system generally requires each party to bear his own litigation expenses, including attorney's fees, regardless whether he wins or loses. Indeed, this principle is so firmly entrenched that it is known as the “American Rule.” See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247 (1975). But Congress has authorized courts to deviate from this background rule in certain types of cases by shifting fees from one party to another. See Burlington v. Dague, 505 U. S. 557, 562 (1992) (listing federal fee-shifting provisions).
The statute involved here, 42 U. S. C. § 1988, allows the award of “a reasonable attorney's fee” to “the prevailing party” in various kinds of civil rights cases, including suits brought under § 1983. Most of our decisions addressing this provision have concerned the grant of fees to prevailing plaintiffs. When a plaintiff succeeds in remedying a civil rights violation, we have stated, he serves “as a 'private attorney general,’ vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.” Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402 (1968) (per curiam). He therefore “should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee” from the defendant — the party whose misconduct created the need for legal action. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 416 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). Fee-shifting in such a ease at once reimburses a plaintiff for “what it eos[t] [him] to vindicate [civil] rights,” Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U. S. 561, 577-578 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted), and holds to account “a violator of federal law,” Christiansburg, 434 U. S., at 418.
In Christiansburg, we held that § 1988 also authorizes a fee award to a prevailing defendant, but under a different standard reflecting the “quite different equitable considerations” at stake. Id., at 419. In enacting § 1988, we stated, Congress sought “to protect defendants from burdensome litigation having no legal or factual basis.” Id., at 420. Accordingly, § 1988 authorizes a district court to award attorney’s fees to a defendant “upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Id., at 421; see also Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 165, n. 9 (1985).
These standards would be easy to apply if life were like the movies, but that is usually not the case. In Hollywood, litigation most often concludes with a dramatic verdict that leaves one party fully triumphant and the other utterly prostrate. The court in such a case would know exactly how to award fees (even if that anti-climactic scene is generally left on the cutting-room floor). But in the real world, litigation is more complex, involving multiple claims for relief that implicate a mix of legal theories and have different merits. Some claims succeed; others fail. Some charges are frivolous; others (even if not ultimately successful) have a reasonable basis. In short, litigation is messy, and courts must deal with this untidiness in awarding fees.
Given this reality, we have made clear that plaintiffs may receive fees under § 1988 even if they are not victorious on every claim. A civil rights plaintiff who obtains meaningful relief has corrected a violation of federal law and, in so doing, has vindicated Congress's statutory purposes. That “result is what matters,” we explained in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 435 (1983): A court should compensate the plaintiff for the time his attorney reasonably spent in achieving the favorable outcome, even if “the plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention.” Ibid. The fee award, of course, should not reimburse the plaintiff for work performed on claims that bore no relation to the grant of relief: Such work “cannot be deemed to have been expended in pursuit of the ultimate result achieved.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). But the presence of these unsuccessful claims does not immunize a defendant against paying for the attorney’s fees that the plaintiff reasonably incurred in remedying a breach of his civil rights.
Analogous principles indicate that a defendant may deserve fees even if not all the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous. In this context, § 1988 serves to relieve a defendant of expenses attributable to frivolous charges. The plaintiff acted wrongly in leveling such allegations, and the court may shift to him the reasonable costs that those claims imposed on his adversary. See Christiansburg, 434 U. S., at 420-421. That remains true when the plaintiff’s suit also includes non-frivolous claims. The defendant, of course, is not entitled to any fees arising from these non-frivolous charges. See ibid. But the presence of reasonable allegations in a suit does not immunize the plaintiff against paying for the fees that his frivolous claims imposed.
Indeed, we have previously said exactly this much. In Hensley, we noted the possibility that a plaintiff might prevail on one contention in a suit while also asserting an unrelated frivolous claim. In this situation, we explained, a court could properly award fees to both parties — to the plaintiff, to reflect the fees he incurred in bringing the meritorious claim; and to the defendant, to compensate for the fees he paid in defending against the frivolous one. See 461 U. S., at 435, n. 10. We thus made clear that a court may reimburse a defendant for costs under § 1988 even if a plaintiff’s suit is not wholly frivolous. Fee-shifting to recompense a defendant (as to recompense a plaintiff) is not all-or-nothing: A defendant need not show that every claim in a complaint is frivolous to qualify for fees.
The question then becomes one of allocation: In a lawsuit involving a mix of frivolous and non-frivolous claims, what work may the defendant receive fees for? Vice concedes, as he must, that a defendant may not obtain compensation for work unrelated to a frivolous claim. Brief for Respondents 42, n. 13. Similarly, we think Fox would have to concede (once he has lost the argument that the presence of any non-frivolous claim precludes a fee award) that the defendant may receive reasonable fees for work related exclusively to a frivolous claim. The question in dispute concerns work that helps defend against non-frivolous and frivolous claims alike — for example, a deposition eliciting facts relevant to both allegations.
Vice proposes authorizing the trial court to award fees for work that is “fairly attributable” to the frivolous portion of the lawsuit. See, e. g., Tr. of Oral Arg. 41, 45. But that standard is in truth no standard at all. The very question under consideration is: What fees may be fairly attributed to frivolous claims under § 1988? To answer “Those that are fairly attributable to frivolous claims” is just to restate this question. And that non-response response would leave to each and every trial court not only the implementation, but also the invention, of the applicable legal standard. We do not think trial courts would appreciate that lack of guidance. And yet more important, we do not think such an empty and amorphous test would ensure that all fee awards to defendants comport with Congress's purpose in enacting § 1988.
That congressional policy points to a different and more meaningful standard: Section 1988 allows a defendant to recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred because of, but only because of, a frivolous claim. Or what is the same thing stated as a but-for test: Section 1988 permits the defendant to receive only the portion of his fees that he would not have paid but for the frivolous claim. Recall that the relevant purpose of § 1988 is to relieve defendants of the burdens associated with fending off frivolous litigation. See supra, at 833. So if a frivolous claim occasioned the attorney’s fees at issue, a court may decide that the defendant should not have to pay them. But if the defendant would have incurred those fees anyway, to defend against non-frivolous claims, then a court has no basis for transferring the expense to the plaintiff. Suppose, for example, that a defendant’s attorney conducts a deposition on matters relevant to both a frivolous and a non-frivolous claim — and more, that the lawyer would have taken and committed the same time to this deposition even if the case had involved only the non-frivolous allegation. In that circumstance, the work does not implicate Congress’s reason for allowing defendants to collect fees. The defendant would have incurred the expense in any event; he has suffered no incremental harm from the frivolous claim. In short, the defendant has never shouldered the burden that Congress, in enacting § 1988, wanted to relieve. The basic American Rule thus continues to operate.
A standard allowing more expansive fee-shifting would furnish windfalls to some defendants, making them better off because they were subject to a suit including frivolous claims. For under any more permissive test, the simple presence of a frivolous claim would allow the court to shift to the plaintiff some of the costs of defending against regular, non-frivolous charges. So two defendants (call them Vice and Rice) could face identical non-frivolous allegations, but because Vice also confronted a frivolous claim, he might end by paying less than Rice to his attorneys. The chance assertion — for Vice, the downright lucky assertion — of the frivolous claim could relieve him not only of the incremental costs of that claim but also of costs that he, like Rice, would have had to pay in its absence. Section 1988 provides no warrant for that peculiar result; that statute was “never intended to produce windfalls” for parties. See Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U. S. 103, 115 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
At the same time, the “but-for” standard we require may in some cases allow compensation to a defendant for attorney work relating to both frivolous and non-frivolous claims. Suppose, for example, that a plaintiff asserts one frivolous and one non-frivolous claim, but that only the frivolous allegation can legally result in a damages award. If an attorney performs work useful to defending against both, but did so only because of the defendant’s monetary exposure on the frivolous charge, a court may decide to shift fees. Or similarly, imagine that the frivolous claim enables removal of the case :to federal court, which in turn drives up litigation expenses. Here too, our standard would permit awarding fees for work relevant to both claims in order to reflect the increased costs (if any) of the federal forum. And frivolous claims may increase the cost of defending a suit in ways that are not reflected in the number of hours billed. If a defendant could prove, for example, that a frivolous claim involved a specialized area that reasonably caused him to hire more expensive counsel for the entire case, then the court may reimburse the defendant for the increased marginal cost. As all these examples show, the dispositive question is not whether attorney costs at all relate to a non-ffivolous claim, but whether the costs would have been incurred in the absence of the frivolous allegation. The answers to those inquiries will usually track each other, but when they diverge, it is the second that matters.
We emphasize, as we have before, that the determination of fees “should not result in a second major litigation.” Hensley, 461 U. S., at 437. The fee applicant (whether a plaintiff or a defendant) must, of course, submit appropriate documentation to meet “the burden of establishing entitlement to an award.” Ibid. But trial courts need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants. The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection. So trial courts may take into account their overall sense of a suit, and may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney’s time. And appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations, in light of “the district court’s superior understanding of the litigation.” Ibid.; see Webb v. Dyer County Bd. of Ed., 471 U. S. 234, 244 (1985). We can hardly think of a sphere of judicial decisionmaking in which appellate micromanagement has less to recommend it.
But the trial court must apply the correct standard, and the appeals court must make sure that has occurred. See Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U. S. 542, 548 (2010) (“Determining a 'reasonable attorney’s fee’ is a matter that is committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge, . . . but the judge’s discretion is not unlimited”); cf. Koon v. United States, 518 U. S. 81, 100 (1996) (“A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law”). That means the trial court must determine whether the fees requested would not have accrued but for the frivolous claim. And the appeals court must determine whether the trial court asked and answered that question, rather than some other. A trial court has wide discretion when, but only when, it calls the game by the right rules.
Ill
The task remains of applying these principles to the fee award Vice received. The District Court’s analysis suggests that Vice’s attorneys would have done much the same work even if Fox had not brought his frivolous claims. As noted earlier, see supra, at 830-831, the court acknowledged that Fox’s federal and state-law claims were “interrelated,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a (internal quotation marks omitted). The charges “arose out of the same transaction” — Vice’s conduct in the campaign — and their “defense entailed proof or denial of essentially the same facts.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). It therefore seems likely that Vice’s attorneys would at least have conducted similar fact-gathering activities — taken many of the same depositions, produced and reviewed many of the same documents, and so forth. Indeed, the District Court highlighted the usefulness of the attorneys’ work to defending against the state-law claims: In its order remanding those claims, the court noted that the “trial preparation, legal research, and discovery” done in the federal court could “be used by the parties in the state court proceedings.” Id., at 40a.
The District Court’s decision to award full attorney’s fees to Vice failed to take proper account of this overlap between - the frivolous and non-frivolous claims. Rather than apply the but-for standard we have set out, the court indicated that the paramount factor was the parties’ “focus” in the litigation. Id., at 33a. The court did not address whether the “infcerrelated[ness] ” of the claims meant that Vice would have incurred part or most of his fees even if Fox had asserted only the non-frivolous state-law claims. To the contrary, the court suggested that the close relationship between the federal and state-law claims supported Vice’s request to recover all of his attorney’s fees. See id., at 28a; supra, at 830-831. That reasoning stands the appropriate analysis on its head. It cannot be squared with the congressional policy of sparing defendants from the costs of frivolous litigation.
Nor did the Court of Appeals uphold the award of fees on the ground that we would require. The majority articulated a standard that, taken alone, might be read as consistent with our opinion; according to the court, a defendant should receive fees for “work which can be distinctly traced to a plaintiff’s frivolous claims.” 594 F. 3d, at 429. But the court seemed to think that its test permitted awarding Vice fees for any work useful to defending against a frivolous claim, even if lawyers would have done that work regardless. Indeed, this very point divided the majority and the dissent. Judge Southwick objected to the fee award on the ground that “almost all [of] the defendant^’] discovery and factual analysis would have been necessary even if no federal claims had been brought.” id, at 431. But the majority never responded to that argument or otherwise engaged this crucial question. The majority instead merely reiterated the District Court’s reasoning that the parties had principally “focus[ed]" on the § 1983 allegations. That finding, as we have explained, is irrelevant if Vice’s attorneys would have performed the same work to defend against the state-law claims.
On this record, we must return the case to the lower courts. See, e. g., Perdue, 559 U. S., at 557-560; Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U. S. 546, 566-568 (1986); Hensley, 461 U. S., at 438-440. In a suit of this kind, involving both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, a defendant may recover the reasonable attorney’s fees he expended solely because of the frivolous allegations. And that is all. Consistent with the policy underlying § 1988, the defendant may not receive compensation for any fees that he would have paid in the absence of the frivolous claims. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Vice died during the course of this litigation. Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 35.1, we substituted the executor of his estate as respondent. 562 U. S. 1282 (2011). But for the sake of clarity, we refer to the respondent as Vice.
The parties do not dispute for purposes of argument here that this case involves both kinds of claims. The District Court deemed the federal claims frivolous, and Fox has not asked us to disturb that ruling. See Brief for Petitioner 26, and n. 2. The court remanded the state-law claims to state court, and Vice has assumed in this Court that they are not frivolous. See Brief for Respondents 8, n. 5.
The test set out here differs from the one we adopted in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 435 (1983), to govern fee awards to plaintiffs in cases involving both successful and unsuccessful claims. See supra, at 834. That difference reflects the disparate legislative purposes we have recognized in the two settings. See Ckristiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 419-420 (1978); supra, at 833. Congress authorized fees to plaintiffs to compensate them for the costs of redressing civil rights violations; accordingly, a plaintiff may receive fees for all work relating to the accomplishment of that result, even if “the plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention raised.” Hensley, 461 U. S., at 435. By contrast, Congress authorized fees to defendants to remove the burden associated with fending off frivolous claims; accordingly, a defendant may recover for fees that those claims caused him to incur. In each context, the standard for allocating fees in “mixed” eases matches the relevant congressional purpose.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | F | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
When a member of the armed forces has applied for a discharge as a conscientious objector and has exhausted all avenues of administrative relief, it is now settled that he may seek habeas corpus relief in a federal district court on the ground that the denial of his application had no basis in fact. The question in this case is whether the district court must stay its hand when court-martial proceedings are pending against the serviceman.
The petitioner, Joseph Parisi, was inducted into the Army as a draftee in August 1968. Nine months later he applied for a discharge as a conscientious objector, claiming that earlier doubts about military service had crystallized into a firm conviction that any form of military activity conflicted irreconcilably with his religious beliefs. He was interviewed by the base chaplain, the base psychiatrist, and a special hearing officer. They all attested to the petitioner’s sincerity and to the religious content of his professed beliefs. In addition, the commanding general of the petitioner’s Army training center and the commander of the Army hospital recommended that the petitioner be discharged as a conscientious objector. His immediate commanding officer, an Army captain, disagreed, recommending disapproval of the application on the ground that the petitioner’s beliefs were based on essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or on a merely personal moral code.
In November 1969, the Department of the Army denied the petitioner conscientious objector status, on the grounds that his professed beliefs had become fixed prior to entering the service and that his opposition to war was not truly based upon his religious beliefs. On November 24, 1969, the petitioner applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (hereafter sometimes ABCMR) for administrative review of that determination.
Four days later the petitioner commenced the present habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming that the Army’s denial of his conscientious objector application was without basis in fact. He sought discharge from the Army and requested a preliminary injunction to prevent his transfer out of the jurisdiction of the District Court and to prohibit further training preparatory to being transferred to Vietnam. The District Court declined at that time to consider the merits of the habeas corpus petition, but it retained jurisdiction pending a decision by the ABCMR, and in the meantime enjoined Army authorities from requiring the petitioner to participate in activity or training beyond his current noncombatant duties.
Shortly thereafter the petitioner received orders to report to Fort Lewis, Washington, for deployment to Vietnam, where he was to perform noncombatant duties similar to those that had been assigned to him in this country. He sought a stay of this redeployment order pending appeal of the denial of habeas corpus, but his application was denied by the Court of Appeals, on the condition that the Army would produce him if the appeal should result in his favor. A similar stay application was subsequently denied by Mr. Justice Douglas as Ninth Circuit Justice, Parisi v. Davidson, 396 U. S. 1233. The petitioner then reported to Fort Lewis. He refused, however, to obey a military order to board a plane for Vietnam. As a result, he was charged with violating Art. 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C. § 890, and, on April 8, 1970, a court-martial convicted him of that military offense.
While the court-martial charges were pending, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records notified the petitioner that it had rejected his application for relief from the Army’s denial of his conscientious objector application. The District Court then ordered the Army to show cause why the pending writ of habeas corpus should not issue. On the Government’s motion, the District Court, on March 31, 1970, entered an order deferring consideration of the habeas corpus petition until final determination of the criminal charge then pending in the military court system. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this order, concluding that “habeas proceedings were properly stayed pending the final conclusion of Parisi’s military trial and his appeals therefrom,” 435 F. 2d 299, 302. We granted certiorari, 402 U. S. 942.
In affirming the stay of the petitioner’s federal habeas corpus proceeding until completion of the military courts’ action, the Court of Appeals relied on the related doctrines of exhaustion of alternative remedies and comity between the federal civilian courts and the military system of justice. We hold today that neither of these doctrines required a stay of the habeas corpus proceedings in this case.
With respect to available administrative remedies, there can be no doubt that the petitioner has fully met the demands of the doctrine of exhaustion — a doctrine that must be applied in each case with an “understanding of its purposes and of the particular administrative scheme involved.” McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 193. The basic purpose of the exhaustion doctrine is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence — to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies. Id., at 194-195; McGee v. United States, 402 U. S. 479, 485; K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.01 etseq. (Supp. 1970).
In this case the petitioner fully complied with Army Regulation 635-20, which dictates the procedures to be followed by a serviceman seeking classification as a conscientious objector on the basis of beliefs that develop after induction. Moreover, following a rule of the Ninth Circuit then in effect, he went further and appealed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The procedures and corrective opportunities of the military administrative apparatus had thus been wholly utilized at the time the District Court entered its order deferring consideration of the petitioner’s habeas corpus application.
It is clear, therefore, that, if the court-martial charge had not intervened, the District Court would have been wrong in not proceeding to an expeditious consideration of the merits of the petitioner’s claim. For the writ of habeas corpus has long been recognized as the appropriate remedy for servicemen who claim to be unlawfully retained in the armed forces. See, e. g., Eagles v. Samuels, 329 U. S. 304, 312; Oestereich v. Selective Service Board, 393 U. S. 233, 235; Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U. S. 487, 489. And, as stated at the outset, that writ is available to consider the plea of an in-service applicant for discharge as a conscientious objector who claims that exhaustion of military administrative procedures has led only to a factually baseless denial of his application. In re Kelly, 401 F. 2d 211 (CA5); Hammond v. Lenfest, 398 F. 2d 705 (CA2).
But since a court-martial charge was pending against the petitioner when he sought habeas corpus in March 1970, the respondents submit that the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the District Court must await the final outcome of those charges in the military judicial system before it may consider the merits of the petitioner’s habeas corpus claim. Although this argument, too, is framed in terms of “exhaustion,” it may more accurately be understood as based upon the appropriate demands of comity between two separate judicial systems. Requiring tile District Court to defer to the military courts in these circumstances serves the interests of comity, the respondents argue, by aiding the military judiciary in its task of maintaining order and discipline in the armed services and by eliminating “needless friction” between the federal civilian and military judicial systems. The respondents note that the military'constitutes a “specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian,” Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83, 94; Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U. S. 128, and that in recognition of the special nature of the military community, Congress has created an autonomous military judicial system, pursuant to Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution. They further point out that civilian courts, out of respect for the separation-of-powers doctrine and for the needs of the military, have rightly been reluctant to interfere with military judicial proceedings.
But the issue in this case does not concern a federal district court’s direct intervention in a case arising in the military court system. Cf. Gusik v. Schilder, supra; Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683. The petitioner’s application for an administrative discharge — upon which the habeas corpus petition was based — antedated and was independent of the military criminal proceedings.
The question here, therefore, is whether a federal court should postpone adjudication of an independent civil lawsuit clearly within its original jurisdiction. Under accepted principles of comity, the court should stay its hand only if the relief the petitioner seeks — discharge as a conscientious objector — would also be available to him with reasonable promptness and certainty through the machinery of the military judicial system in its processing of the court-martial charge. Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U. S. 218, 229; Davis v. Mann, 377 U. S. 678, 690-691; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S. 713, 716-717. For the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that such relief would be even potentially available, much less that it would be either prompt or certain.
Courts-martial are not convened to review and rectify administrative denials of conscientious objector claims or to release conscientious objectors from military service. They are convened to adjudicate charges of criminal violations of military law. It is true that the Court of Military Appeals has held that a soldier charged in a court-martial with refusal to obey a lawful order may, in certain limited circumstances, defend upon the ground that the order was not lawful because he had wrongfully been denied an administrative discharge as a conscientious objector. United States v. Noyd, 18 U. S. C. M. A. 483, 40 C. M. R. 195. The scope of the Noyd doctrine is narrow, United States v. Wilson, 19 U. S. C. M. A. 100, 41 C. M. R. 100, and its present vitality not wholly clear, United States v. Stewart, 20 U. S. C. M. A. 272, 43 C. M. R. 112. A Noyd defense, therefore, would be available, even arguably, only in an extremely limited category of court-martial proceedings. But even though we proceed on the assumption that Noyd offered this petitioner a potential affirmative defense to the court-martial charge brought against him, the fact remains that the Noyd doctrine offers, at best, no more than a defense to a criminal charge. Like any other legal or factual defense, it would, if successfully asserted at trial or on appeal, entitle the defendant to only an acquittal — not to the discharge from military service that he seeks in the habeas corpus proceeding.
The respondents acknowledge, as they must, the limited function of a Noyd defense in the trial and appeal of the court-martial proceeding itself. But they suggest that, if the military courts should eventually acquit the petitioner on the ground of his Noyd defense, then the petitioner may have “an available remedy by way of habeas corpus in the Court of Military Appeals.” In support of this suggestion, the respondents point to the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a), and to cases in which the Court of Military Appeals has exercised power under that Act to order servicemen released from military imprisonment pending appeals of their court-martial convictions. See Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S., at 695; Levy v. Resor, 17 U. S. C. M. A. 135, 37 C. M. R. 399; United States v. Jennings, 19 U. S. C. M. A. 88, 41 C. M. R. 88; Johnson v. United States, 19 U. S. C. M. A. 407, 42 C. M. R. 9.
But the All Writs Act only empowers courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions . . . ,” and the jurisdiction of the Court of Military Appeals is limited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to considering appeals from court-martial convictions. 10 U. S. C. § 867; United States v. Snyder, 18 U. S. C. M. A. 480, 40 C. M. R. 192. That court has been given no “jurisdiction” to consider a serviceman’s claim for discharge from the military as a conscientious objector.
Whether this conceptual difficulty might somehow be surmounted is a question for the Court of Military Appeals itself ultimately to decide. See United States v. Bevilacqua, 18 U. S. C. M. A. 10, 12, 39 C. M. R. 10, 12. But the short answer to the respondents’ suggestion in this case is the respondents’ own concession that that court has, to date, never so much as intimated that it has power to issue a writ of habeas corpus granting separation from military service to a conscientious objector. We conclude here, therefore, as in Noyd v. Bond, supra, at 698 n. 11, that the petitioner cannot “properly be required to exhaust a remedy which may not exist.” Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court with directions to give expeditious consideration to the merits of the petitioner’s habeas corpus application.
In holding as we do today that the pendency of court-martial proceedings must not delay a federal district court’s prompt determination of the conscientious objector claim of a serviceman who has exhausted all administrative remedies, we no more than recognize the historic respect in this Nation for valid conscientious objection to military service. See 50 U. S. C. App. § 456 (j); United States v. Seeger, 380 U. S. 163. As the Defense Department itself has recognized, “the Congress . . . has deemed it more essential to respect a man’s religious beliefs than to force him to serve in the Armed Forces.” Department of Defense Directive No. 1300.6 (May 10, 1968).
But our decision today should not be understood as impinging upon the basic principles of comity that must prevail between civilian courts and the military judicial system. See, e. g., Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683; Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137; Orloft v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83; Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U. S. 128. Accordingly, a federal district court, even though upholding the merits of the conscientious objector claim of a serviceman against whom court-martial charges are pending, should give careful consideration to the appropriate demands of comity in effectuating its habeas corpus decree.
The judgment is reversed.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
At the time of oral argument of the present case, an appeal from this conviction was pending in a court of military review.
The right of a person in the armed forces to be classified as a conscientious objector after induction is bottomed on Department of Defense Directive No. 1300.6 (May 10, 1968), issued by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to his authority under 10 U. S. C. § 133. The purpose of the directive is to provide “uniform procedures for the utilization of conscientious objectors in the Armed Forces and consideration of requests for discharge on the grounds of conscientious objection.” Army Regulation 635-20 was issued to effectuate the broader policies announced in DOD Directive No. 1300.6.
Under the rule of Craycroft v. Ferrall, 408 F. 2d 587 (CA9 1969), the petitioner was required to appeal the Department of the Army’s decision to the civilian Army Board for Correction of Military Records in order to exhaust military administrative remedies and have access to federal court. Current governmental policy rejects Craycroft. Compliance with Army Regulation 635-20, not perfection of an ABCMR appeal, marks the point when military administrative procedures have been exhausted. Department of Justice Memo. No. 652 (Oct. 23, 1969). In Craycroft v. Ferrall, 397 U. S. 335, this Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit that the petitioner there had to appeal to the Board for the Correction of Naval Records before proceeding in federal court. But our decision was announced on March 30, 1970, more than four months after the present petitioner had appealed to the ABCMR.
In 1946, Congress enacted legislation empowering the service secretaries, acting through boards of civilian officers of their respective departments, to alter military records when necessary to prevent injustice. Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, § 207, 60 Stat. 837, as amended by 70A Stat. 116, 10 U. S. C. § 1552 (1952 ed., Supp. IV). Pursuant to this legislation, each service established a board for the correction of military records whose function is, on application by a serviceman, to review the military record and intervene where necessary to correct error or remove injustice. 10 U. S. C. § 1552 (a).
The Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of Defense, has accepted the holdings of the Kelly and Hammond cases. Department of Justice Memo. No. 652 (Oct. 23, 1969). See United States ex rel. Brooks v. Clifford, 409 F. 2d 700, 701 (CA4). Compare Noyd v. McNamara, 378 F. 2d 538 (CA10), with Polsky v. Wetherill, 403 U. S. 916, vacating judgment in 438 F. 2d 132 (CA10).
The respondents do not contend that the military courts have a special competence in determining if a conscientious objector application has been denied without basis in fact. As they acknowledge in their brief:
“Plainly, judicial review of the factual basis for the Army’s denial of petitioner’s conscientious objector claim does not require an interpretation of ‘extremely technical provisions of the Uniform Code [of Military Justice] which have no analogs in civilian jurisprudence,’ ” quoting Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683, 696.
Thus,, it is not contended that exhaustion of military court remedies — like exhaustion of military administrative remedies- — -is required by the principles announced in McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, and McGee v. United States, 402 U. S. 479.
The concept of “exhaustion” in the context of the demands of comity between different judicial systems is closely analogous to the doctrine of abstention. For a discussion of the exhaustion and abstention doctrines in the federal-state context, see generally C. Wright, Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts 186-188, 196— 208 (2d ed. 1970).
Barker, Military Law — A Separate System of Jurisprudence, 36 U. Cin. L. Rev. 223 (1967); Warren, The Bill of Rights and the Military, 37 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 181 (1962). Military courts are legislative courts; their jurisdiction is independent of Art. Ill judicial power. Following World War II, Congress, in an attempt to reform and modernize the system of military law, created the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Act of May 5, 1950, c. 169, 64 Stat. 107. In 1968, the Code was amended by the Military Justice Act, 10 U. S. C. § 819, to improve court-martial and review procedures.
See Hammond v. Lenfest, 398 F. 2d 705, 710 (CA2 1968):
“Judicial hesitancy when faced with matters touching on military affairs is hardly surprising in view of the doctrine of separation of powers and the responsibility for national defense which the Constitution . . . places upon the Congress and the President. Moreover, the ever-present and urgent need for discipline in the armed services would alone explain the relative freedom of the military from judicial supervision.”
Army Regulation 635-20 provides that
“individuals who have submitted formal applications [for conscientious objector' status] . . . will be retained in their units and assigned duties providing the minimum practicable conflict with their asserted beliefs pending a final decision on their applications.” Noyd involved an Air Force officer who, after being denied conscientious objector status, refused to obey an order to instruct student pilots to fly a fighter plane used in Vietnam. Noyd’s commanding officer had refrained from ordering the accused to give such instruction until the application had been processed and denied. As the Court of Military Appeals said:
“The validity of the order [to instruct students], therefore, depended upon the validity of the Secretary’s decision [rejecting the conscientious objector application] ... If the Secretary’s decision was illegal, the order it generated was also illegal.” United States v. Noyd, 18 U. S. C. M. A. 483, 492, 40 C. M. R. 195, 204.
The petitioner did, in fact, interpose a Noyd defense at his court-martial trial, and it was rejected upon the military judge’s finding that “the ruling of the Secretary of the Army was not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or an abusive [sic] discretion.”
We have been referred to no reported military court decision (including Noyd itself) that has yet acquitted a defendant upon the basis of a Noyd defense.
If the military courts should ultimately acquit the petitioner on grounds other than wrongful denial of his conscientious objector application, the respondents acknowledge that he could not seek habeas corpus in the military judicial system. In this event, therefore, the petitioner could clearly not obtain the relief that he seeks in the military court system.
This result is not inconsistent with the need to maintain order and discipline in the military and to avoid needless friction between the federal civilian and military judicial systems. If the Noyd defense is available and if the order that the petitioner disobeyed was unlawful if his conscientious objector claim is valid, then allowing him to proceed in federal district court as soon as military administrative remedies have been exhausted does not affect military-discipline. For if the conscientious objector claim is valid, the Army can have no interest in punishing him for disobedience of an unlawful order. If the conscientious objector claim is invalid, then the Army can, of course, prosecute the petitioner for his alleged disobedience of a lawful order.
Correlatively, if the charges in military court would be unaffected by the validity of the conscientious objector claim, both the petitioner’s habeas corpus action and the criminal trial in military court could proceed concurrently. See n. 15, infra. Needless to say, the question whether wrongful denial of conscientious objector status may be raised as a defense against various types of military charges must remain with the military courts, as they exercise their special function of administering military law.
See generally Report of the National Advisory Commission on Selective Service, In Pursuit of Equity: Who Serves When Not All Serve? 48-51 (1967); Selective Service System Monograph No. 11, Conscientious Objection (1950); Russell, Development of Conscientious Objector Recognition in the United States, 20 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 409 (1952); Comment, God, the Army, and Judicial Review: The In-Service Conscientious Objector, 56 Calif. L. Rev. 379 (1968).
In the present case the respondents acknowledge that if the administrative denial of the petitioner’s conscientious objector claim had no basis in fact, then the court-martial charge against him is invalid. It follows that, if he should prevail in the habeas corpus proceeding, he is entitled to his immediate release from the military. At the other end of the spectrum is the hypothetical case of a court-martial charge that has no real connection with the conscientious objector claim — e. g., a charge of stealing a fellow soldier’s watch. In such a case, a district court, even though upholding the serviceman’s conscientious objector claim, might condition its order of discharge upon the completion of the court-martial proceedings and service of any lawful sentence imposed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We noted probable jurisdiction to decide whether Congress may, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, forbid all involuntarily committed former mental patients to purchase firearms while permitting some felons to do so.
In 1982 appellee attempted to purchase a firearm at Ray’s Sport Shop in North Plainfield, New Jersey. The Sport Shop gave appellee a standard questionnaire, which asked, inter alia: “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?” Appellee had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for a period of several days in 1971, and accordingly answered “yes” to this question. The store then refused to sell him a gun by reason of 18 U. S. C. § 922(d)(4), which makes it unlawful for a licensed dealer in firearms “to sell . . . any firearm ... to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person. . . has been adjudicated as a mental defective or had been committed to any mental institution.” Federal firearms laws also forbid “any person. . . who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution... to ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce,” 18 U. S. C. § 922(g), or to “receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,” § 922(h). Partially overlapping provisions of 18 U. S. C. App. §§ 1202(a)(1) and (3) prohibit any person who has “been adjudged by a court ... of being mentally incompetent” from receiving, possessing, or transporting firearms.
After unsuccessfully seeking a special exemption from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, appellee brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, challenging the constitutionality of the firearms legislation. The District Court concluded that those portions of the federal firearms statutes that deprived appellee of his ability to purchase a firearm were constitutionally infirm. 602 F. Supp. 682, 683 (1985). Both felons and persons who have been committed to mental institutions, inter alia, are subject to the firearms disabilities contained in 18 U. S. C. § 922(d). Under 18 U. S. C. § 925(c), however, felons who have committed crimes not involving firearms may apply to the Bureau for administrative relief from these disabilities. No such relief is permitted for former mental patients.
Section 925(c) provides in relevant part:
“A person who has been convicted for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (other than a crime involving the use of a firearm or other weapon or a violation of this chapter or of the National Firearms Act) may make application to the Secretary for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, or possession of firearms and incurred by reason of such conviction, and the Secretary may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the conviction, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”
The District Court held that this scheme violated equal protection principles because, in its view, “[t]here is no rational basis for thus singling out mental patients for permanent disabled status, particularly as compared to convicts.” 602 F. Supp., at 689. The court also concluded that the statutory scheme was unconstitutional because it “in effect creates an irrebuttable presumption that one who has been committed, no matter the circumstances, is forever mentally ill and dangerous. ” Id., at 690. We noted probable jurisdiction over the Government’s appeal, 474 U. S. 943 (1985), and the case was argued on March 26, 1986.
Meanwhile, Congress came to the conclusion, as a matter of legislative policy, that the firearms statutes should be redrafted. On May 19, 1986, while this case was under consideration here, the President signed into law Pub. L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449. Section 105 of the statute amends the provision providing for administrative relief from firearms disabilities, 18 U. S. C. § 925(c), by striking out the language limiting the provision to certain felons and changing the statute to read that any person who “is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition” may apply to the Secretary of the Treasury for relief. Section 110 of the statute provides that the amendment made by § 105 “shall be applicable to any action, petition, or appellate proceeding pending on the date of the enactment of this Act.”
This enactment significantly alters the posture of this case. The new statutory scheme permits the Secretary to grant relief in some circumstances to former involuntarily committed mental patients such as appellee. The new approach affords an administrative remedy to former mental patients like that Congress provided for others prima facie ineligible to purchase firearms. Thus, it can no longer be contended that such persons have been “singled out.” Also, no “irrebutta-ble presumption” now exists since a hearing is afforded to anyone subject to firearms disabilities. Accordingly, the equal protection and “irrebuttable presumption” issues discussed by the District Court are now moot. See United Building and Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U. S. 208, 213 (1984).
In such circumstances, “it is the duty of the appellate court to set aside the decree below . . . .” Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 299 U. S. 259, 267 (1936); see also United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39-40 (1950). We therefore vacate the judgment of the District Court. However, since appellee’s complaint appears to raise other issues best addressed in the first instance by the District Court, we also remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari, 558 U. S. 969 (2009), on the question whether a federal court exercising habeas jurisdiction has the power to order the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay “where the Executive detention is indefinite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy,” Pet. for Cert. i. By now, however, each of the detainees at issue in this case has received at least one offer of resettlement in another country. Most of the detainees have accepted an offer of resettlement; five detainees, however, have rejected two such offers and are still being held at Guantanamo Bay.
This change in the underlying facts may affect the legal. issues presented. No court has yet ruled in this case in light of the new facts, and we decline to be the first to do so. See, e. g., Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005) (“[W]e are a court of review, not of first view”).
Under these circumstances, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It should determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developments.
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 Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The six petitioners and eight others were indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on a charge of violating the general conspiracy-statute, 18 U. S. C. § 371 (1964 ed.). The single-count indictment alleged a conspiracy fraudulently to obtain the services of the National Labor Relations Board on behalf of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, by filing false affidavits in purported satisfaction of the requirements of § 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 146.
Section 9 (h), which was later repealed, provided that labor unions could not secure Labor Board investigation of employee representation or the issuance of a complaint unless there was on file with the Board so-called non-Communist affidavits of each officer of the union and its parent organization. The statute required that these affidavits attest that the officer is not a member of the Communist Party or “affiliated with such party, and that he does not believe in, and is not a member of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods.”
Four of, the six petitioners — Dennis, Dichter, Travis and Wilson — were officers of the union. Each is alleged to have filed false non-Communist affidavits. Petitioners Sanderson and Skinner were, at relevant times, union members but not officers. They are charged with participation in the conspiracy. All were alleged to be “members of and affiliated with the Communist Party.”
The indictment was returned in 1956. At the first trial, petitioners and others were convicted. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sustained the validity of the indictment, but reversed the judgments on the ground that prejudicial hearsay evidence had been admitted in evidence. 302 F. 2d 5.
On retrial, the petitioners were again convicted and each was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and fined $2,000. This time, the Court of Appeals affirmed. 346 F. 2d 10. We granted certiorari (382 U. S. 915) limited to three questions:
“1. Whether the indictment states the offense of conspiracy to defraud the United States;
“2. Whether, in the comparative light of American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, and United States v. Archie Brown, 381 U. S. 437, Section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act is constitutional;
“3. Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioners’ motions for the production, to the defense or the Court, of grand jury testimony of prosecution witnesses.”
Essentially, the Government’s case is that, prior to June 1949, the union and the Communist Party opposed compliance with § 9 (h); that in 1949 the Communist Party and the union, as a consequence of discussions participated in by petitioners and others, determined that preservation of the Party’s allegedly dominating position in the union, and the union’s welfare itself, required that the union officials take steps to secure the Board’s services for the union; and that, in order to accomplish this purpose, the union’s officers were nominally to resign from the. Communist Party and to file the non-Communist affidavits required by § 9 (h). Pursuant to this plan, it is alleged, the union leadership voted to comply with § 9 (h). Those officers who were Party members, including four of the petitioners herein, purported to resign from the Party. They then proceeded, at various dates between August 1949 and February 1955, to file with the Labor Board the required non-Communist affidavits. This action, it is contended, was cynical and fraudulent, and petitioners’ affidavits were false. In reality, it is claimed, petitioners’ Communist Party affiliations remained unaffected as did the Party’s domination of the union’s affairs. The union thereafter proceeded, on several occasions, to utilize the Board’s services, a privilege which it had obtained as a result of these assertedly fraudulent acts.
I.
We first discuss the question, considered both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals, whether the indictment properly charged a conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U. S. C. § 371. We agree that indictments under the broad language of the general conspiracy statute must be scrutinized carefully as to each of the charged defendants because of the possibility, inherent in a criminal conspiracy charge, that its wide net may ensnare the innocent as well as the culpable. See Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U. S. 440, 445-458 (concurring opinion); United States v. Bufalino, 285 F. 2d 408, 417-418 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1960). But in the present case we conclude that the indictment for conspiracy was proper as to each of the petitioners.
Four of the petitioners — those who filed the affidavits alleged to be false — presumably could have been indicted for the substantive offense of making false statements as to a “matter within the jurisdiction of” the Board, a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1001 (1964 ed.). But the essence of their alleged conduct was not merely the individual filing of false affidavits. It was also the alleged concert of action — the common decision and common activity for a common purpose. The conspiracy was not peripheral or incidental. It lay at the core of the alleged offense. It is the entire conspiracy, and not merely the filing of false affidavits, which is the gravamen of the charge. This conspiratorial program included, as prime factors, not only those who themselves filed the false statements, but others who were equally interested in the conspiratorial purpose and who were directly and culpably involved in the alleged scheme. The Government sought to fasten culpability upon all of the conspirators. The indictment properly charges a conspiracy, and with the required specificity alleges the culpable role of each of the petitioners.
Nor can it be concluded that a conspiracy of the described nature and objective is outside the condemnation of the specific clause of § 371 relied upon in the indictment, which charges a conspiracy “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.” It has long been established that this statutory language is not confined to fraud as that term has been defined in the common law. It reaches “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government,” Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479, quoted in United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172. See also, Lutwak v. United States, 344 U. S. 604; Glosser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 66; Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U. S. 182, 188. Cf. Goldstein, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, 68 Yale L. J. 405, 414-441, 455-458 (1959). In the present case, it is alleged that petitioners, unable to secure for their union the benefit of Labor Board process except by submitting non-Communist affidavits, coldly and deliberately concocted a fraudulent scheme; and in furtherance of that scheme, some of the petitioners did in fact submit false affidavits and the union did thereafter use the Labor Board facilities made available to them. This Court’s decisions foreclose the argument that these allegations do not properly charge a conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Petitioners argue, however, that their conduct cannot be considered as fraudulent for purposes of § 371 because the Labor Board is required to certify the compliance of any union whose officers have filed non-Communist affidavits — without regard to the veracity thereof. Leedom v. International Union, 352 U. S. 145, and Meat Cutters v. Labor Board, 352 U. S. 153. The claim is that since the Board’s action in making its services available to the union was not and could not lawfully have been predicated upon the truthfulness of the affidavits, the element of reliance is missing and there is no conspiracy to defraud. It is true that Congress, in order to free the Board of the delays that would be attendant upon testing the bona fides of controverted affidavits, did relegate to the criminal law the responsibility for dealing with false filings. This allocation of responsibility relating to the sanctions attached to false affidavits does not alter the character or legal consequences of petitioners’ alleged actions. It is beyond argument that Congress unmistakably regarded the filing of truthful affidavits — and not merely affidavits true or false — as of the essence of the privilege of using Board facilities. Congress made this doubly clear by expressly providing that certain criminal statutes, such as 18 U. S. C. § 1001 relating to the filing of false statements, shall be applicable in respect of § 9 (h) affidavits.
The facts are, according to the indictment, that petitioners and their co-conspirators could not have obtained the Board’s services and facilities without 'filing non-Communist affidavits; that the affidavits were submitted as part of a scheme to induce the Board to act; that the Board acted in reliance upon the fact that affidavits were filed; and that these affidavits were false. Within the meaning of § 371, this was a conspiracy to defraud the United States or an agency thereof.
Still another argument is advanced to defeat the. indictment. Petitioners submit that this case does not involve a conspiracy to defraud, but rather, under the alternative clause of § 371, a conspiracy to commit the substantive offense of filing false statements in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1001. It is their contention that Bridges v. United States, 346 U. S. 209, compels the conclusion that a conspiracy to file false statements may not properly be laid under the conspiracy-to-defraud clause of § 371. Bridges is not in point. The decision there did not turn upon construction of § 371. The question before the Court was whether a prosecution, otherwise time-barred, could be revived by reference to the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3287 (1964 ed.). The Suspension Act applies to “any offense... involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof....” The indictment in Bridges charged both the filing of false statements and a conspiracy to defraud, in order to obtain a certificate of naturalization. The Court held that the Suspension Act did not apply to these offenses. The Act, the Court ruled, was to be construed narrowly and to be applied “only where the fraud is of a pecuniary nature or at least of a nature concerning property.” 346 U. S., at 215. The Court characterized the charge that Bridges and his collaborators had conspired to defraud the United States as a “cloak,” the sole purpose of which was to revive a stale prosecution.
In the present case, on the other hand, the allegation as to conspiracy to defraud, as we have discussed, properly reflects the essence of the alleged offense. It does not involve an attempt by prosecutorial sleight of hand to overcome a time bar. The fact that the events in-elude the filing of false statements does not, in and of itself, make the conspiracy-to-defraud clause of § 371 unavailable to the prosecution. Cf. Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 66-67; United States v. Manton, 107 F. 2d 834, 839 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1939), cert. denied, 309 U. S. 664.
We conclude, therefore, that the indictment properly charged a violation of the conspiracy-to-defraud clause of § 371.
II.
Petitioners next urge that we set aside their convictions on the ground that § 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act is unconstitutional. In particular, they rely upon United States v. Brown, 381 U. S. 437, in which the Court held unconstitutional as a bill of attainder the statute enacted by Congress in 1959 to replace § 9 (h). The new statute made it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to hold office or any other substantial employment in a labor union. They contend that Brown in effect overruled American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, which sustained the validity of § 9 (h), and they ask that we now reconsider Douds.
We need not reach this question, for petitioners are in no position to attack the constitutionality of § 9 (h). They were indicted for an alleged conspiracy, cynical and fraudulent, to circumvent the statute. Whatever might be the result where the constitutionality of a statute is challenged by those who of necessity violate its provisions and seek relief in the courts is not relevant here. This is not such a case. The indictment here alleges an effort to circumvent the law and not to challenge it — a purported compliance with the statute designed to avoid the courts, not to invoke their jurisdiction.
It is no defense to a. charge based upon this sort of enterprise that the statutory scheme sought to be evaded is somehow defective. Ample opportunities exist in this country to seek and obtain judicial protection. There is no reason for this Court to consider the constitutionality of a statute at the behest of petitioners who have been indicted for conspiracy by means of falsehood and deceit to circumvent the law which they now seek to challenge. This is the teaching of the cases.
In Kay v. United States, 303 U. S. 1, this Court upheld a conviction for making false statements in connection with the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933, without passing upon the claim that the Act was invalid. The Court said, “When one undertakes to cheat the Government or to mislead its officers, or those acting under its authority, by false statements, he has no standing to assert that the operations of the Government in which the effort to cheat or mislead is made are without constitutional sanction.” 303 U. S., at 6. See also United States v. Kapp, 302 U. S. 214, involving a false claim for money under the subsequently invalidated Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Analogous are those cases in which prosecutions for perjury have been permitted despite the fact that the trial at which the false testimony was elicited was upon an indictment stating no federal offense (United States v. Williams, 341 U. S. 58, 65-69); that the testimony was before a grand jury alleged to have been tainted by governmental misconduct (United States v. Remington, 208 F. 2d 567, 569 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 347 U. S. 913); or that the defendant testified without having been advised of his constitutional rights (United States v. Winter, 348 F. 2d 204, 208-210 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 955, and cases cited therein).
Petitioners seek to distinguish these cases on the ground that in the present case the constitutional challenge is to the propriety of the very question — Communist Party membership and affiliation — which petitioners are accused of answering falsely. We regard this distinction as without force. The governing principle is that a claim of unconstitutionality will not be heard to excuse a voluntary, deliberate and calculated course of fraud and deceit. One who elects such a course as a means of self-help may not escape the consequences by urging that his conduct be excused because the statute which he sought to evade is unconstitutional. This is a prosecution directed at petitioners’ fraud. It is not an action to enforce the statute claimed to be unconstitutional.
It is argued in dissent, see pp. 876-880, post, that we cannot avoid passing upon petitioners’ constitutional claim because it bears upon whether they may be charged with defrauding the Government of a “lawful function.” At the time of some of the allegedly fraudulent acts of the conspirators, this Court’s decision in Douds had been handed down. It was flouted, not overlooked. This position loses sight of the distinction between appropriate and inappropriate ways to challenge acts of government thought to be unconstitutional. Moreover, this view assumes that for purposes of § 371, a governmental function may be said to be “unlawful” even though it is required by statute and carries the fresh imprimatur of this Court. Such a function is not immune to judicial challenge. But, in circumstances like those before us, it may not be circumvented by a course of fraud and falsehood, with the constitutional attack being held for use only if the conspirators are discovered.
Because the claimed invalidity of § 9 (h) would be no defense to the crime of conspiracy charged in this indictment, we find it unnecessary to reconsider Douds.
III.
We turn now to petitioners’ contention that the trial court committed reversible error by denying their motion to require production for petitioners’ examination of the grand jury testimony of four government witnesses. Alternatively, petitioners sought in camera inspection by the trial judge to be followed by production to petitioners in the event the judge found inconsistencies between trial testimony and that before the grand jury.
The trial judge denied the motions, made at the conclusion of the direct examination of each of the witnesses, on the ground that no “particularized need” had been shown. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U. S. 395, 400. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the denial of the motions was not reversible error. The court recognized “the inherent power and the inescapable duty of the trial court to lift the lid of secrecy on grand jury proceedings in aid of the search for truth,” and that its obligation was “not [to] hesitate to inspect and to disclose any inconsistencies if it is likely to aid the fair administration of criminal justice through proper cross-examination and impeachment.” 346 P. 2d, at 17. It went so far as to express the view that “it would have been safer to have inspected the grand jury testimony.” Id., at 18. But because “the witnesses were thoroughly and competently cross-examined on numerous other relevant judicial and extra-judicial statements without manifest inconsistency,” the court thought it “safe to assume that the grand jury proceedings would not have disclosed anything of impeaching significance.” Ibid.
In his brief in this Court, the Solicitor General concedes that “there is substantial force to petitioners’ claims that the interest in secrecy was minimal in light of the oft-repeated testimony of the witnesses and that the arguments they now advance, if made at trial, might have suggested in camera inspection as an appropriate course.” Brief for the United States, p. 51. But the Government argues that it was not error for the trial judge to have denied petitioners’ motions. With this latter proposition we disagree, and we reverse.
This Court has recognized the “long-established policy that maintains the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the federal courts.” United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S. 677, 681. And it has ruled that, when disclosure is permitted, it is to be done “discretely and limitedly.” Id., at 683. Accordingly, the Court has refused in a civil case to permit pretrial disclosure of an entire grand jury transcript where the sole basis for discovery was that the transcript had been available to the Government in preparation of its case. Procter & Gamble, supra. And, in Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, supra, the Court sustained a trial court’s refusal to order disclosure of a witness’ grand jury testimony where the defense made no showing of need, but insisted upon production of the minutes as a matter of right, and where there was “overwhelming” proof of the offense charged without reference to the witness’ trial testimony.
In general, however, the Court has confirmed the trial court’s power under Rule 6 (e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to direct disclosure of grand jury testimony “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” In United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150, 234, the Court acknowledged that “after the grand jury’s functions are ended, disclosure is wholly proper where the ends of justice require it.” In Procter & Gamble, supra, the Court stated that “problems concerning the use of the grand jury transcript at the trial to impeach a witness, to refresh his recollection, to test his credibility...” are “cases of particularized need where the secrecy of the proceedings is lifted discretely and limitedly.” 356 U. S., at 683. And in Pittsburgh Plate Glass, supra, where four members of the Gourt concluded that even on the special facts of that case the witness’ grand jury testimony should have been supplied to the defense, the entire Court was agreed that upon a showing of “particularized need” defense counsel might have access to relevant portions of the grand jury testimony of a trial witness, 360 U. S., at 400, 405. In a variety of circumstances, the lower federal courts, too, have made grand jury testimony available to defendants.
These developments are entirely consonant with the growing realization that disclosure, rather than suppression, of relevant materials ordinarily promotes the proper administration of criminal justice. This realization is reflected in the enactment of the so-called Jencks Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3500 (1964 ed.), responding to this Court’s decision in Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657, which makes available to the defense a trial witness’ pretrial statements insofar as they relate to his trial testimony. It is also reflected in the expanding body of materials, judicial and otherwise, favoring disclosure in criminal cases analogous to the civil practice.
Certainly in the context of the present case, where the Government concedes that the importance of preserving the secrecy of the grand jury minutes is minimal and also admits the persuasiveness of the arguments advanced in favor of disclosure, it cannot fairly be said that the defense has failed to make out a “particularized need.” The showing made by petitioners, both in the trial court and here, goes substantially beyond the minimum required by Rule 6 (e) and the prior decisions of this Court. The record shows the following circumstances:
1. The events as to which the testimony in question related occurred between 1948 and 1955. The grand jury testimony was taken in 1956, while these events were relatively fresh. The trial testimony which petitioners seek to compare with the 1956 grand jury testimony was not taken until 1963. Certainly, there was reason to assay the latter testimony, some of which is 15 years after the event, against the much fresher testimony before the grand jury.
2. The motions in question involved the testimony of four of the eight government witnesses. They were key witnesses. The charge could not be proved on the basis of evidence exclusive of that here involved.
3. The testimony of the four witnesses concerned conversations and oral statements made in meetings. It was largely uncorroborated. Where the question of guilt or innocence may turn on exactly what was said, the defense is clearly entitled to all relevant aid which is reasonably available to ascertain the precise substance of the statements.
4. Two of the witnesses were accomplices, one of these being also a paid informer. A third had separated from the union and had reasons for hostility toward petitioners.
5. One witness admitted on cross-examination that he had in earlier statements been mistaken about significant dates.
A conspiracy case carries with it the inevitable risk of wrongful attribution of responsibility to one or more of the multiple defendants. See, e. g., United States v. Bufalino, 285 F. 2d 408, 417-418 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1960). Under these circumstances, it is especially important that the defense, the judge and the jury should have the assurance that the doors that may lead to truth have been unlocked. In our adversary system for determining guilt or innocence, it is rarely justifiable for the prosecution to have exclusive access to a storehouse of relevant fact. Exceptions to this are justifiable only by the clearest and most compelling considerations. For this reason, we cannot accept the view of the Court of Appeals' that it is “safe to assume” no inconsistencies would have come to light if the grand jury testimony had been examined. There is no justification for relying upon “assumption.”
In Pittsburgh Plate Glass, supra, the Court reserved decision on the question whether in camera inspection by the trial judge is an appropriate or satisfactory measure when there is a showing of a “particularized need” for disclosure. 360 U. S., at 401. This procedure, followed by production to defense counsel in the event the trial judge finds inconsistencies, has been adopted in some of the Courts of Appeals. In the Second Circuit it is available as a matter of right. While this practice may be useful in enabling the trial court to rule on a defense motion for production to it of grand jury testimony — and we do not disapprove it for that purpose — it by no means disposes of the matter. Trial judges ought not to be burdened with the task or the responsibility of examining sometimes voluminous grand jury testimony in order to ascertain inconsistencies with trial testimony. In any event, “it will be extremely difficult for even the most able and experienced trial judge under the pressures of conducting a trial to pick out all of the grand jury testimony that would be useful in impeaching a witness.” Pittsburgh Plate Glass, 360 U. S., at 410 (dissenting opinion). Nor is it realistic to assume that the trial court’s judgment as to the utility of material for impeachment or other legitimate purposes, however conscientiously made, would exhaust the possibilities. In our adversary system, it is enough for judges to judge. The determination of what may be useful to the defense can properly and effectively be made only by an advocate. The trial judge’s function in this respect is limited to deciding whether a case has been made for production, and to supervise the process: for example, to cause the elimination of extraneous matter and to rule upon applications by the Government for protective orders in unusual situations, such as those involving the Nation’s security or clearcut dangers to individuals who are identified by the testimony produced. Cf. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16 (e), as amended in 1966; 18 U. S. C. § 3500 (c).
Because petitioners were entitled to examine the grand jury minutes relating to trial testimony of the four government witnesses, and to do so while those witnesses were available for cross-examination, we reverse the judgment below and remand for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas, while joining the opinion of Mr. Justice Black, also joins Part III of the majority opinion.
The statute reads: “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both...
Congress substituted for §9(h), legislation making it a crime for a Communist Party member to hold office or any other substantial position of employment in any labor union. 73 Stat. 536, 29 U. S. C. §504 (1964 ed.). See note 9, infra. In United States v. Brown, 381 U. S. 437, this successor statute was held unconstitutional as a bill of attainder.
One of the petitioners, Travis, made a public announcement of his resignation. The other officers of the union sent purported letters of resignation from the Party to local Party offices.
The opinion of the District Court sustaining the indictment is reported in United States v. Pezzati, 160 F. Supp. 787 (D. C. D. Colo. 1958). On this issue, the Court of Appeals affirmed. United States v. Dennis, 302 F. 2d 5 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1962).
In Johnson, the allegation that the defendants had conspired to defraud the United States was upheld although they were not charged with “any false statement, misrepresentation or deceit.” See United States v. Johnson, 337 F. 2d 180, 185-186 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1964), aff’d as to that issue, 383 U. S. 169, 172.
See the legislative materials set out in Leedom v. International Union, 352 U. S., at 149-150.
The indictment in Bridges was in three counts. Two charged substantive violations of false statement provisions of the Nationality Act of 1940, formerly 8 U. S. C. §§ 746 (a) (1) and 746 (a) (5) (1940 ed.), now 18 U. S. C. §§ 1015 and 1425 (1964 ed.). The third count alleged a conspiracy to defraud the United States or an agency thereof, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §371.
Petitioners suggest that in this case, too, the Government resorted to the conspiracy-to-defraud clause of § 371 in order to avoid a time bar. The claim is that this was necessary to bring the 1949 filings (defendant Van Camp, acquitted at trial, made no filings after 1949) within the applicable statute of limitations. But the events of 1949 are properly within the time span of the indictment and provable at trial, not because it charges a conspiracy to defraud, but because it charges a conspiracy, and because at least one overt act is alleged to fall within the applicable period. See Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 396-397; Fiswick v. United States, 329 U. S. 211, 216; Brown v. Elliott, 225 U. S. 392, 400-401. Had the indictment charged a conspiracy to violate § 1001 — which charge would be unaffected by Bridges — the same result would obtain; that is, the Government was enabled to reach back to 1949 by reason of the conspiracy charge. Whether it charged a conspiracy to commit an offense or one to defraud is immaterial for this purpose. Unlike the situation in Bridges, the Government here secured no advantage with respect to limitations by charging under one clause of § 371 rather than the other.
The statute, 73 Stat. 536, 29 U. S. C. §504 (1964 ed.), provides: “(a) No person who is or has been a member of the Communist Party... shall serve—
“(1) as an officer, director, trastee, member of any executive board or similar governing body, business agent, manager, organizer, or other employee (other than as an employee performing exclusively clerical or custodial duties) of any labor organization... during or for five years after the termination of his membership in the Communist Party....
“(b) Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”
Petitioners also rely upon Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, where the Court invalidated a statute denying passports to members of any Communist organization.
We note that petitioners are alleged to have entered upon the conspiracy and to have filed the first set of false affidavits during the pendency in this Court of a case raising precisely the constitutional issue now raised by them. Probable jurisdiction was noted in Douds on November 8, 1948, and certiorari was granted in the companion case, United Steelworkers v. Labor Board, 335 U. S. 910, on January 17, 1949. Petitioners are charged with commencing to conspire in June 1949 and with filing false affidavits in August 1949. Despite this Court’s decision in Douds, announced on May 8, 1950 (339 U. S. 382), sustaining the validity of §9 (h), the indictment charges that petitioner Dennis and one Van Camp signed a Board election agreement less than two weeks later, and in December 1950 new affidavits were filed. In short, petitioners chose not only to evade the statute, but to ignore judicial proceedings likely to clarify their rights and then to flout an adverse decision of this Court. In this context, any claim that it is too burdensome to test these statutes in the courts is not entitled to consideration.
Indeed, petitioners’ own union successfully prevented the National Labor Relations Board from withholding benefits on the basis of petitioner Travis’ allegedly false §9(h) affidavit. Leedom v. International Union, 352 U. S. 145.
Three of the witnesses in question testified at the second trial. A fourth, Mason, died in the interval between the two trials. At the first trial, the petitioners had moved for production or in camera inspection of his grand jury testimony. This was denied. At the second trial, they objected to use of his testimony at the first trial on the ground that they had not been permitted to examine, or to have the trial judge examine, the transcript of his grand jury testimony. Since the omission to require production of Mason’s grand jury testimony with a view to impeachment can no longer be remedied, his trial testimony, under our holding herein, is no longer available to the Government in the event petitioners are retried.
Because there had been no request for in camera judicial inspection of the grand jury minutes, the Court in Pittsburgh Plate Glass did not pass upon the adequacy of that technique for protecting a defendant’s interests. 360 U. S., at 401.
See, e. g., United States v. Remington, 191 F. 2d 246, 250-251 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 343 U. S. 907 (defendant charged with commission of perjury before the grand jury); Atlantic City Electric Co. v. A. B. Chance Co., 313 F. 2d 431 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1963) (use by private plaintiff in antitrust suit of witness’ grand jury testimony); and cases cited in note 21, infra.
18 U. S. C. §3500 (b) (1964 ed.) reads in part: “After a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to produce any statement... of the witness in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified....” Subsection (e) defines “statement” for purposes of the Act.
See, e. g., the Amendments to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, approved by this Court on February 28, 1966, and transmitted to Congress, which authorize discovery and inspection of a defendant’s own statements, the results of various tests, and the recorded testimony of the defendant before, the grand jury (and see the Advisory Committee’s Note thereon). See also, cases anticipating this broadening
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Cohens v. Virginia, Chief Justice Marshall famously cautioned: “It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should.... We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821). Among longstanding limitations on federal jurisdiction otherwise properly exercised are the so-called “domestic relations” and “probate” exceptions. Neither is compelled by the text of the Constitution or federal statute. Both are judicially created doctrines stemming in large measure from misty understandings of English legal history. See, e. g., Atwood, Domestic Relations Cases in Federal Court: Toward a Principled Exercise of Jurisdiction, 35 Hastings L. J. 571, 584-588 (1984); Spindel v. Spindel, 283 F. Supp. 797, 802 (EDNY 1968) (collecting cases and commentary revealing vulnerability of historical explanation for domestic relations exception); Winkler, The Probate Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, 14 Probate L. J. 77, 125-126, and n. 256 (1997) (describing historical explanation for probate exception as “an exercise in mythography”). In the years following Marshall’s 1821 pronouncement, courts have sometimes lost sight of his admonition and have rendered decisions expansively interpreting the two exceptions. In Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U. S. 689 (1992), this Court reined in the “domestic relations exception.” Earlier, in Markham v. Allen, 326 U. S. 490 (1946), the Court endeavored similarly to curtail the “probate exception.”
Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit in the instant case read the probate exception broadly to exclude from the federal courts’ adjudicatory authority “not only direct challenges to a will or trust, but also questions which would ordinarily be decided by a probate court in determining the validity of the decedent’s estate planning instrument.” 392 F. 3d 1118, 1133 (2004). The Court of Appeals further held that a State’s vesting of exclusive jurisdiction over probate matters in a special court strips federal courts of jurisdiction to entertain any “probate related matter,” including claims respecting “tax liability, debt, gift, [or] tort.” Id., at 1136. We hold that the Ninth Circuit had no warrant from Congress, or from decisions of this Court, for its sweeping extension of the probate exception.
I
Petitioner, Vickie Lynn Marshall (Vickie), also known as Anna Nicole Smith, is the surviving widow of J. Howard Marshall II (J. Howard). Vickie and J. Howard met in October 1991. After a courtship lasting more than two years, they were married on June 27,1994. J. Howard died on August 4, 1995. Although he lavished gifts and significant sums of money on Vickie during their courtship and marriage, J. Howard did not include anything for Vickie in his will. According to Vickie, J. Howard intended to provide for her financial security through a gift in the form of a “catchall” trust.
Respondent, E. Pierce Marshall (Pierce), one of J. Howard’s sons, was the ultimate beneficiary of J. Howard’s estate plan, which consisted of a living trust and a “pourover” will. Under the terms of the will, all of J. Howard’s assets not already included in the trust were to be transferred to the trust upon his death.
Competing claims regarding J. Howard’s fortune ignited proceedings in both state and federal courts. In January 1996, while J. Howard’s estate was subject to ongoing proceedings in Probate Court in Harris County, Texas, Vickie filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq., in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. See 275 B. R. 5, 8 (CD Cal. 2002). In June 1996, Pierce filed a proof of claim in the federal bankruptcy proceeding, id., at 9; see 11 U. S. C. § 501, alleging that Vickie had defamed him when, shortly after J. Howard’s death, lawyers representing Vickie told members of the press that Pierce had engaged in forgery, fraud, and overreaching to gain control of his father’s assets, 275 B. R., at 9. Pierce sought a declaration that the debt he asserted in that claim was not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Ibid. Vickie answered, asserting truth as a defense. She also filed counterclaims, among them a claim that Pierce had tortiously interfered with a gift she expected. Ibid.; see App. 23-25. Vickie alleged that Pierce prevented the transfer of his father’s intended gift to her by, among other things: effectively imprisoning J. Howard against his wishes; surrounding him with hired guards for the purpose of preventing personal contact between him and Vickie; making misrepresentations to J. Howard; and transferring property against J. Howard’s expressed wishes. Id., at 24.
Vickie’s tortious interference counterclaim turned her objection to Pierce’s claim into an adversary proceeding. Id., at 39; see Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 3007. In that proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment in favor of Vickie on Pierce’s claim and, after a trial on the merits, entered judgment for Vickie on her tortious interference counterclaim. See 253 B. R. 550, 558-559 (2000). The Bankruptcy Court also held that both Vickie’s objection to Pierce’s claim and Vickie’s counterclaim qualified as “core proceedings” under 28 U. S. C. § 157, which meant that the court had authority to enter a final judgment disposing of those claims. See 257 B. R. 35, 39-40 (2000). The court awarded Vickie compensatory damages of more than $449 million — less whatever she recovered in the ongoing probate action in Texas — as well as $25 million in punitive damages. Id., at 40.
Pierce filed a post-trial motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that Vickie’s tortious interference claim could be tried only in the Texas probate proceedings. Id., at 36. The Bankruptcy Court held that “the ‘probate exception’ argument was waived” because it was not timely raised. Id., at 39. Relying on this Court’s decision in Markham, the court observed that a federal court has jurisdiction to “adjudicate rights in probate property, so long as its final judgment does not undertake to interfere with the state court’s possession of the property.” 257 B. R., at 38 (citing Markham, 326 U. S., at 494).
Meanwhile, in the Texas Probate Court, Pierce sought a declaration that the living trust and his father’s will were valid. 392 F. 3d, at 1124-1125. Vickie, in turn, challenged the validity of the will and filed a tortious interference claim against Pierce, ibid., but voluntarily dismissed both claims once the Bankruptcy Court entered its judgment, id., at 1128. Following a jury trial, the Probate Court declared the living trust and J. Howard’s will valid. Id., at 1129.
Back in the federal forum, Pierce sought district-court review of the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment. While rejecting the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that Pierce had forfeited any argument based on the probate exception, the District Court held that the exception did not reach Vickie’s claim. 264 B. R. 609, 619-625 (CD Cal. 2001). The Bankruptcy Court “did not assert jurisdiction generally over the probate proceedings... or take control over [the] estate’s assets,” the District Court observed, id., at 621, “[t]hus, the probate exception would bar federal jurisdiction over Vickie’s counterclaim only if such jurisdiction would ‘interfere’ with the probate proceedings,” ibid. (quoting Markham, 326 U. S., at 494). Federal jurisdiction would not “interfere” with the probate proceedings, the District Court concluded, because: (1) success on Vickie’s counterclaim did not necessitate any declaration that J. Howard’s will was invalid, 264 B. R., at 621; and (2) under Texas law, probate courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain claims of the kind asserted in Vickie’s counterclaim, id., at 622-625.
The District Court also held that Vickie’s claim did not qualify as a “core proceeding] arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11.” 28 U. S. C. § 157(b)(1); see 264 B. R., at 625-632. A bankruptcy court may exercise plenary power only over “core proceedings.” See § 157(b)-(c). In noncore matters, a bankruptcy court may not enter final judgment; it has authority to issue only proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are reviewed de novo by the district court. See § 157(c)(1). Accordingly, the District Court treated the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment as “proposed[,j rather than final,” and undertook a “comprehensive, complete, and independent review of” the Bankruptcy Court’s determinations. Id., at 633.
Adopting and supplementing the Bankruptcy Court’s findings, the District Court determined that Pierce had tortiously interfered with Vickie’s expectancy. Specifically, the District Court found that J. Howard directed his lawyers to prepare an inter vivos trust for Vickie consisting of half the appreciation of his assets from the date of their marriage. See 275 B. R., at 25-30, 51-53. It further found that Pierce conspired to suppress or destroy the trust instrument and to strip J. Howard of his assets by backdating, altering, and otherwise falsifying documents, arranging for surveillance of J. Howard and Vickie, and presenting documents to J. Howard under false pretenses. See id., at 36-50, 57-58; see also 253 B. R., at 554-556, 559-560. Based on these findings, the District Court awarded Vickie some $44.3 million in compensatory damages. 275 B. R., at 53-57. In addition, finding “overwhelming” evidence of Pierce’s “willfulness, maliciousness, and fraud,” the District Court awarded an equal amount in punitive damages. Id., at 57-58.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The appeals court recognized that Vickie’s claim “does not involve the administration of an estate, the probate of a will, or any other purely probate matter.” 392 F. 3d, at 1133. Nevertheless, the court held that the probate exception bars federal jurisdiction in this case. In the Ninth Circuit’s view, a claim falls within the probate exception if it raises “questions which would ordinarily be decided by a probate court in determining the validity of the decedent’s estate planning instrument,” whether those questions involve “fraud, undue influence!, or] tortious interference with the testator’s intent.” Ibid.
The Ninth Circuit was also of the view that state-court delineation of a probate court’s exclusive adjudicatory authority could control federal subject-matter jurisdiction. In this regard, the Court of Appeals stated: “Where a state has relegated jurisdiction over probate matters to a special court and [the] state’s trial courts of general jurisdiction do not have jurisdiction to hear probate matters, then the federal courts also lack jurisdiction over probate matters.” Id., at 1136. Noting that “[t]he [P]robate [C]ourt ruled it had exclusive jurisdiction over all of Vickie[’s] claims,” the Ninth Circuit held that “ruling... binding on the United States [District [C]ourt.” Ibid. (citing Durfee v. Duke, 375 U. S. 106, 115-116 (1963)).
We granted certiorari, 545 U. S. 1165 (2005), to resolve the apparent confusion among federal courts concerning the scope of the probate exception. Satisfied that the instant case does not fall within the ambit of the narrow exception recognized by our decisions, we reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.
II
In Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U. S. 689 (1992), we addressed both the derivation and the limits of the “domestic relations exception” to the exercise of federal jurisdiction. Carol Ankenbrandt, a citizen of Missouri, brought suit in Federal District Court on behalf of her daughters, naming as defendants their father (Ankenbrandt’s former husband) and his female companion, both citizens of Louisiana. Id., at 691. Ankenbrandt’s complaint sought damages for the defendants’ alleged sexual and physical abuse of the children. Ibid. Federal jurisdiction was predicated on diversity of citizenship. Ibid. (citing 28 U. S. C. § 1332). The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that Ankenbrandt’s suit fell within “the ‘domestic relations’ exception to diversity jurisdiction.” 504 U. S., at 692. The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed. Ibid. We reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment. Id., at 706-707.
Holding that the District Court improperly refrained from exercising jurisdiction over Ankenbrandt’s tort claim, id., at 704, we traced explanation of the current domestic relations exception to Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 (1859). See Ankenbrandt, 504 U. S., at 693-695. In Barber, the Court upheld federal-court authority, in a diversity case, to enforce an alimony award decreed by a state court. In dicta, however, the Barber Court announced — without citation or discussion — that federal courts lack jurisdiction over suits for divorce or the allowance of alimony. 21 How., at 584-589; see Ankenbrandt, 504 U. S., at 693-695.
Finding no Article III impediment to federal-court jurisdiction in domestic relations cases, id., at 695-697, the Court in Ankenbrandt anchored the exception in Congress’ original provision for diversity jurisdiction, id., at 698-701. Beginning at the beginning, the Court recalled:
“The Judiciary Act of 1789 provided that ‘the circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and... an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State.’ ” Id., at 698 (quoting Act of Sept. 24, 1789, § 11, 1 Stat. 78; emphasis added in Ankenbrandt).
The defining phrase, “all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity,” the Court stressed, remained in successive statutory provisions for diversity jurisdiction until 1948, when Congress adopted the more economical phrase, “all civil actions.” 504 U. S., at 698; 1948 Judicial Code and Judiciary Act, 62 Stat. 930, 28 U. S. C. § 1332.
The Barber majority, we acknowledged in Ankenbrandt, did not expressly tie its announcement of a domestic relations exception to the text of the diversity statute. 504 U. S., at 698. But the dissenters in that case made the connection. They stated that English courts of chancery lacked authority to issue divorce and alimony decrees. Because “the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in chancery is bounded by that of the chancery in England,” Barber, 21 How., at 605 (opinion of Daniel, J.), the dissenters reasoned, our federal courts similarly lack authority to decree divorces or award alimony, ibid. Such relief, in other words, would not fall within the diversity statute’s original grant of jurisdiction over “all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity.” We concluded in Ankenbrandt that “it may be inferred fairly that the jurisdictional limitation recognized by the [Barber] Court rested on th[e] statutory basis” indicated by the dissenters in that case. 504 U. S., at 699.
We were “content” in Ankenbrandt “to rest our conclusion that a domestic relations exception exists as a matter of statutory construction not on the accuracy of the historical justifications on which [the exception] was seemingly based.” Id., at 700. “[R]ather,” we relied on “Congress’ apparent acceptance of this construction of the diversity jurisdiction provisions in the years prior to 1948, when the statute limited jurisdiction to ‘suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity.’” Ibid. (quoting 1 Stat. 78). We further determined that Congress did not intend to terminate the exception in 1948 when it “replace[d] the law/equity distinction with the phrase ‘all civil actions.’ ” 504 U. S., at 700. Absent contrary indications, we presumed that Congress meant to leave undisturbed “the Court’s nearly century-long interpretation” of the diversity statute “to contain an exception for certain domestic relations matters.” Ibid.
We nevertheless emphasized in Ankenbrandt that the exception covers only “a narrow range of domestic relations issues.” Id., at 701. The Barber Court itself, we reminded, “sanctioned the exercise of federal jurisdiction over the enforcement of an alimony decree that had been properly obtained in a state court of competent jurisdiction.” 504 U. S., at 702. Noting that some lower federal courts had applied the domestic relations exception “well beyond the circumscribed situations posed by Barber and its progeny,” id., at 701, we clarified that only “divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees” remain outside federal jurisdictional bounds, id., at 703, 704. While recognizing the “special proficiency developed by state tribunals... in handling issues that arise in the granting of [divorce, alimony, and child custody] decrees,” id., at 704, we viewed federal courts as equally equipped to deal with complaints alleging the commission of torts, ibid.
Ill
Federal jurisdiction in this case is premised on 28 U. S. C. § 1334, the statute vesting in federal district courts jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases and related proceedings. Decisions of this Court have recognized a “probate exception,” kin to the domestic relations exception, to otherwise proper federal jurisdiction. See Markham, 326 U. S., at 494; see also Sutton v. English, 246 U. S. 199 (1918); Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co., 215 U. S. 33 (1909). Like the domestic relations exception, the probate exception has been linked to language contained in the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Markham, the Court’s most recent and pathmarking pronouncement on the probate exception, stated that “the equity jurisdiction conferred by the Judiciary Act of 1789..., which is that of the English Court of Chancery in 1789, did not extend to probate matters.” 326 U. S., at 494. See generally Nicolas, Fighting the Probate Mafia: A Dissection of the Probate Exception to Federal Court Jurisdiction, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1479 (2001). As in Ankenbrandt, so in this case, “[w]e have no occasion... to join the historical debate” over the scope of English chancery jurisdiction in 1789, 504 U. S., at 699, for Vickie Marshall’s claim falls far outside the bounds of the probate exception described in Markham. We therefore need not consider in this case whether there exists any uncodified probate exception to federal bankruptcy jurisdiction under § 1334.
In Markham, the plaintiff Alien Property Custodian commenced suit in Federal District Court against an executor and resident heirs to determine the Custodian’s asserted rights regarding a decedent’s estate. 326 U. S., at 491-492. Jurisdiction was predicated on §24(1) of the Judicial Code, now 28 U. S. C. § 1345, which provides for federal jurisdiction over suits brought by an officer of the United States. At the time the federal suit commenced, the estate was undergoing probate administration in a state court. The Custodian had issued an order vesting in himself all right, title, and interest of German legatees. He sought and gained in the District Court a judgment determining that the resident heirs had no interest in the estate, and that the Custodian, substituting himself for the German legatees, was entitled to the entire net estate, including specified real estate passing under the will.
Reversing the Ninth Circuit, which had ordered the case dismissed for want of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court held that federal jurisdiction was properly invoked. The Court first stated:
“It is true that a federal court has no jurisdiction to probate a will or administer an estate.... But it has been established by a long series of decisions of this Court that federal courts of equity have jurisdiction to entertain suits ‘in favor of creditors, legatees and heirs’ and other claimants against a decedent’s estate ‘to establish their claims’ so long as the federal court does not interfere with the probate proceedings or assume general jurisdiction of the probate or control of the property in the custody of the state court.” 326 U. S., at 494 (quoting Waterman, 215 U. S., at 43).
Next, the Court described a probate exception of distinctly limited scope:
“[Wjhile a federal court may not exercise its jurisdiction to disturb or affect the possession of property in the custody of a state court,... it may exercise its jurisdiction to adjudicate rights in such property where the final judgment does not undertake to interfere with the state court’s possession save to the extent that the state court is bound by the judgment to recognize the right adjudicated by the federal court.” 326 U. S., at 494.
The first of the above-quoted passages from Markham is not a model of clear statement. The Court observed that federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits to determine the rights of creditors, legatees, heirs, and other claimants against a decedent’s estate, “so long as the federal court does not interfere with the probate proceedings” Ibid. (emphasis added). Lower federal courts have puzzled over the meaning of the words “interfere with the probate proceedings,” and some have read those words to block federal jurisdiction over a range of matters well beyond probate of a will or administration of a decedent’s estate. See, e. g., Mangieri v. Mangieri, 226 F. 3d 1, 2-3 (CA1 2000) (breach of fiduciary duty by executor); Golden ex rel. Golden v. Golden, 382 F. 3d 348, 360-362 (CA3 2004) (same); Lepard v. NBD Bank, Div. of Bank One, 384 F. 3d 232, 234-237 (CA6 2004) (breach of fiduciary duty by trustee); Storm v. Storm, 328 F. 3d 941, 943-945 (CA7 2003) (probate exception bars claim that plaintiff’s father tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s inheritance by persuading trust grantor to amend irrevocable inter vivos trust); Rienhardt v. Kelly, 164 F. 3d 1296, 1300-1301 (CA10 1999) (probate exception bars claim that defendants exerted undue influence on testator and thereby tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s expected inheritance).
We read Markham’s enigmatic words, in sync with the second above-quoted passage, to proscribe “disturb[ing] or affect[ing] the possession of property in the custody of a state court.” 326 U. S., at 494. True, that reading renders the first-quoted passage in part redundant, but redundancy in this context, we do not doubt, is preferable to incoherence. In short, we comprehend the “interference” language in Markham as essentially a reiteration of the general principle that, when one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a res, a second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res. See, e. g., Penn General Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania ex rel. Schnader, 294 U. S. 189, 195-196 (1935); Waterman, 215 U. S., at 45-46. Thus, the probate exception reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent’s estate; it also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. But it does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction.
A
As the Court of Appeals correctly observed, Vickie’s claim does not “involve the administration of an estate, the probate of a will, or any other purely probate matter.” 392 F. 3d, at 1133. Provoked by Pierce’s claim in the bankruptcy proceedings, Vickie’s claim, like Carol Ankenbrandt’s, alleges a widely recognized tort. See King v. Acker, 725 S. W. 2d 750, 754 (Tex. App. 1987); 4 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 774B (1977) (“One who by fraud, duress or other tortious means intentionally prevents another from receiving from a third person an inheritance or gift, that [s]he would otherwise have received is subject to liability to the other for loss of the inheritance or gift.”). Vickie seeks an in personam judgment against Pierce, not the probate or annulment of a will. Cf. Sutton, 246 U. S., at 208 (suit to annul a will found “supplemental to the proceedings for probate of the will” and therefore not cognizable in federal court). Nor does she seek to reach a res in the custody of a state court. See Markham, 326 U. S., at 494.
Furthermore, no “sound policy considerations” militate in favor of extending the probate exception to cover the case at hand. Cf. Ankenbrandt, 504 U. S., at 703. Trial courts, both federal and state, often address conduct of the kind Vickie alleges. State probate courts possess no “special proficiency... in handling [such] issues.” Cf. id., at 704.
B
The Court of Appeals advanced an alternate basis for its conclusion that the federal courts lack jurisdiction over Vickie’s claim. Noting that the Texas Probate Court “ruled it had exclusive jurisdiction over all of Vickie Lynn Marshall’s claims against E. Pierce Marshall,” the Ninth Circuit held that “ruling... binding on the United States [District [C]ourt.” 392 F. 3d, at 1136. We reject that determination.
Texas courts have recognized a state-law tort action for interference with an expected inheritance or gift, modeled on the Restatement formulation. See King, 725 S. W. 2d, at 754; Brandes v. Rice Trust, Inc., 966 S. W. 2d 144, 146-147 (Tex. App. 1998). It is clear, under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), that Texas law governs the substantive elements of Vickie’s tortious interference claim. It is also clear, however, that Texas may not reserve to its probate courts the exclusive right to adjudicate a transitory tort. We have long recognized that “a State cannot create a transitory cause of action and at the same time destroy the right to sue on that transitory cause of action in any court having jurisdiction.” Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. George, 233 U. S. 354, 360 (1914). Jurisdiction is determined “by the law of the court’s creation and cannot be defeated by the extraterritorial operation of a [state] statute..., even though it created the right of action.” Ibid. Directly on point, we have held that the jurisdiction of the federal courts, “having existed from the beginning of the Federal government, [can]not be impaired by subsequent state legislation creating courts of probate.” McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 281 (1910) (upholding federal jurisdiction over action by heirs of decedent, who died intestate, to determine their rights in the estate (citing Waterman, 215 U. S. 33)).
Our decision in Durfee v. Duke, 375 U. S. 106 (1963), relied upon by the Ninth Circuit, 392 F. 3d, at 1136, is not to the contrary. Durfee stands only for the proposition that a state court’s final judgment determining its own jurisdiction ordinarily qualifies for full faith and credit, so long as the jurisdictional issue was fully and fairly litigated in the court that rendered the judgment. See 375 U. S., at 111, 115. At issue here, however, is not the Texas Probate Court’s jurisdiction, but the federal courts’ jurisdiction to entertain Vickie’s tortious interference claim. Under our federal system, Texas cannot render its probate courts exclusively competent to entertain a claim of that genre. We therefore hold that the District Court properly asserted jurisdiction over Vickie’s counterclaim against Pierce.
IV
After determining that Vickie’s claim was not a “core proceeding,” the District Court reviewed the case de novo and entered its final judgment on March 7, 2002. 275 B. R., at 5-8. The Texas Probate Court’s judgment became final on February 11, 2002, nearly one month earlier. App. to Pet. for Cert. 41. The Court of Appeals considered only the issue of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. It did not address the question whether Vickie’s claim was “core”; nor did it address Pierce’s arguments concerning claim and issue preclusion. 392 F. 3d, at 1137. These issues remain open for consideration on remand.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Among debts not dischargeable in bankruptcy, see 11 U. S. C. § 523(a), are those arising from “willful and malicious injury by the debtor,” § 523(a)(6).
“Core proceedings include, but are not limited to—
“(A) matters concerning the administration of the estate;
“(B) allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate or exemptions from property of the estate, and estimation of claims or interests for the purposes of confirming a plan under chapter 11, 12, or 13 of title 11 but not the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution in a case under title 11;
“(C) counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate;
“(D) orders in respect to obtaining credit;
“(E) orders to turn over property of the estate;
“(F) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences;
“(G) motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay;
“(H) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances;
“(I) determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts;
“(J) objections to discharges;
“(K) determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens;
“(L) confirmations of plans;
“(M) orders approving the use or lease of property, including the use of cash collateral;
“(N) orders approving the sale of property other than property resulting from claims brought by the estate against persons who have not filed claims against the estate;
“(0) other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship, except personal injury tort or wrongful death claims; and
“(P) recognition of foreign proceedings and other matters under chapter 15 of title 11.” 28 U. S. C. § 157(b)(2) (2000 ed. and Supp. V).
We note that the broad grant of jurisdiction conferred by § 1334(b) is' subject to a mandatory abstention provision applicable to certain state-law claims. Section 1334(c)(2) provides:
“Upon timely motion of a party in a proceeding based upon a State law claim or State law cause of action, related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which an action could not have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under this section, the district court shall abstain from hearing such proceeding if an action is commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate jurisdiction.”
That provision is, in turn, qualified: “Non-core proceedings under section 157(b)(2)(B) of title 28, United States Code, shall not be subject to the mandatory abstention provisions of section 1334(c)(2).” § 157(b)(4). Because the Bankruptcy Court rejected Pierce’s motion for mandatory abstention as untimely, 257 B. R. 35, 39 (CD Cal. 2000), we need not consider whether these provisions might have required abstention upon a timely motion.
Section 6 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 415, 50 U. S. C. App., authorizes the President to appoint an official known as the “alien property custodian,” who is responsible for “receiving,]... holding], administering], and accounting] for” “all money and property in the United States due or belonging to an enemy, or ally of enemy....” The Act was originally enacted during World War I “to permit, under careful safeguards and restrictions, certain kinds of business to be carried on” among warring nations, and to “provid[e] for the care and administration of the property and property rights of enemies and their allies in this country pending the war.” Markham v. Cabell, 326 U. S. 404, 414, n. 1 (1945) (Burton, J., concurring) (quoting S. Rep. No. 113, 65th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1917)).
Texas appellate courts have on occasion held claims of tortious interference with an expected inheritance “barred” by a prior probate court judgment, apparently applying ordinary principles of preclusion. See, e. g.,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, seeks naturalization pursuant to the provisions of .an Act of Congress, passed in 1953, designed to facilitate the naturalization of aliens who served in our armed forces during the general period of the Korean hostilities. The statute provides for the naturalization of aliens serving at least 00 days in the armed forces after June 24,1950, and not later than July 1, 1955:
“(1) having been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, or (2) having been lawfully admitted to the United States, and having been physically present within the United States for a single period of at least one year at the time of entering the Armed Forces . . . .”
Petitioner first entered the United States on August 24, 1951, at Honolulu on a seaman’s 29-day pass, and departed from the country with his ship. On January 27, 1952, petitioner again entered the United States at Newport News, where the vessel on which he was employed was then touching. The exact circumstances of this entry are disputed, but it is conceded on all sides that it was unlaw-. ful. Petitioner did not depart with his ship, but remained within the United States. He was apprehended in June 1952 and deportation proceedings were commenced against him; but the proceedings were halted when it became known that on May 4,1953, he had béen inducted into the Army. He served honorably until his discharge on May 3,1955, and on December 22, 1955, instituted the present proceedings based on the statute to which we have referred. The District Court granted his petition for naturalization, but the Court of Appeals reversed. 254 F. 2d 4. We granted certiorari. 358 U. S. 811.
Congress has shown varying degrees of liberality in granting special naturalization rights to aliens serving in our armed forces at various times. For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows such rights to those having served honorably in World War I or during the period September 1, 1939, to December 31, 1.946, if at the time of their induction or enlistment they simply were physically present in the United States or certain named outlying territories. On the other hand, that Act’s general provision allowing aliens with three years’ armed service at any time to be naturalized free of certain residence requirements provides no exemption from the requirement that they have been “lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.” We must examine the extent to which Congress has made these rights available here; in this statute aimed at service during the Korean hostilities. Petitioner contends that, under clause (2), one year’s presence in the United States at the time of. induction entitles him to them if at any time theretofore he had been lawfully admitted to the country. He relies on his lawful admittance and brief stay in the country at Honolulu in 1951 as providing this. The Government contends that the lawful admittance must have been the means whereby the alien commenced his year’s presence in the country, and that accordingly the lawful Honolulu entry is irrelevant. We are in agreement with the Government’s view of the statute.
While perhaps a verbal construction of the statute can be made as not implying any connection between the required lawful admittance and the required year’s presence, we think the only fair and natural construction of the words is that one is implied. As distinguished from its policy toward World War I and II service, Congress was not prepared to allow special naturalization rights to aliens serving at . the time of Korea simply if they entered the service while physically, for any length of time and lawfully or unlawfully, within the United States. Nor was it prepared to make one year’s residence alone the condition; it also imposed the requirement of lawful admittance. It would not be a meaningful requirement to attribute to Congress if it could have been satisfied by a lawful entry, followed by departure, before and unconnected with the commencement of the year’s presence. We believe that Congress must have been referring to the last entry before the year’s presence — the entry into the country which provided the occasion for that presence. Cf. Bonetti v. Rogers, 356 U. S. 691. Under this construction, clause (2) of the statute requires a “single- period” of residence commencing with a lawful admission and continuing for a year thereafter. It does not demand that the alien’s continuing status in the country be lawful, but it does make that requirement of the entry which gives rise to his presence.
Such legislative history as is relevant to the meaning of the statute bears out this construction. The Act was passed in the First Session of the Eighty-third Congress, and when the bill that became the Act was first brought to the House floor after Committee consideration during that Session, the member reporting it stated that it was identical with the law that existed during “the war” (presumably World War II) with the exception that it applied only to aliens who were “legally and lawfully in the United' States.” 99 Cong. Rec. 2639. This must be read in the context of the House Committee Report’s statement that “lawful admission” was a prerequisite to the bill’s benefits, and its explanation that it had rejected a proposal'of the Justice Department that would have required the presence of the alien at the time of entrance into the armed services also be lawful- The Committee had' felt that the alien should not be saddled with “the technicalities involved in connection with the continuance of such [lawful] status at the time of entering the Armed Forces.” H. R. Rep. No. 223, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4. The House bill required only lawful admission and physical presence at the time of entering the service; later the Senate inserted the one year’s presence requirement, but we do not perceive any change in the distinction we have set forth above. To us, this indicates that Congress desired that the alien’s presence in the country be the consequence of a lawful admission, even though the continuance of his stay be beyond the terms on which he was admitted. It is true that the present statute does not in terms state the nexus between admission and the required period of residence as positively as did a 1932 alien veterans’ statute which petitioner, urges on us for comparison, and which required that the alien have “resided continuously within the United States for at least two years, in pursuance of a legal admission for permanent residence.” § 1, Act of May 25, 1932, c. 203, 47 Stat. 165. But, as we have explained, Congress did not wish this Act to imply a requirement that the continuance of the alien’s presence here be lawful, and such language might have done so. We find the language it in fact used was apt to draw the lines we' have indicated above.
Of course, we must be receptive to the purpose implicit in legislation of this sort, to express the gratitude of the country toward aliens who render service in its armed forces in its defense. But that does not warrant our rationalizing to an ambiguity where fairly considered none exists, or extending the generosity of the legislation past the limits to which Congress was willing to go. The service, petitioner has rendered this country might inspire legislative relief in his behalf; but here we take the statute as it stands, and under it the judgment of the Court of Appeals was correct.
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, . and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent. •
§ 1 of the Act of June 30, 1953, c. 162, 67 Stat. 108, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 1440a.
The statute requires that petitions for naturalization filed under it be filed not later than December 31, 1955.
§ 329, 66 Stat. 250, 8 U. S. C. § 1440. See also note 7, infra.
§ 328, 66 Stat. 249,. 8 U. S. C. § 1439.
§ 318, 66 Stat. 244, 8 Ü. S. C. § 1429. The 1953 Act explicitly exempts those who can qualify under its terms from the requirements <?f § 318.
There had been activity withm Congress in this direction during the Eighty-second Congress, but no bill was passed. See H. R. Rep. No. 1176, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 1713, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.
The statute actually in effect during World War II was § 701 of the Nationality Act of 1940, added by Title X of the Second War-Powers Act, 1942, 56 Stat. 182. The requirement of lawful admittance, at first made by the Act, was substantially dispensed with through an amendment by the Act of December 22, 1944, e. 662, 58 Stat. 886.
The bill tfien extended to “any person, not a citizen, who,' after June 24, 1950, and not later than July 1, 1955, has actively served or actively sérves, honorably, in the Armed Forces of the United States for a period or periods totaling not less than 30 days- and who, having been lawfully admitted to the United States . . . shall, have been at the time of entering the Armed Forces within such area . . . .” See 99 Cong. Rec. 2639.
See S. Rep. No. 378, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4. The alternative now found in clause (1), admission for permanent residence, was also introduced in the Senate.
The provision relates to the period before filing the naturalization petition,, rather than before entrance into the service, but this difference does not affect the comparison asserted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Pursuant to a 20-year lease with the City of Gary, Indiana, petitioners are. the operators of Gary Municipal Airport, one of the airports included in the National Airport Plan. They seek review of a decision invalidating the city’s airport zoning ordinance, which, with regard to buildings and other structures in the immediate vicinity of the airport, prescribes height limitations based upon a 40-to-l glide angle for approaching aircraft (i. e., at a distance of 40 feet from the end of the planned runway, structures may not exceed one foot in height). After passage of the'ordinance, respondent,, the Indiana Toll Road Commission, constructed a toll road parallel to the south side of the airport and 443 feet from the end of the. planned runway. Contending that at that location the ordinance prescribes a maximum height of 18.08 feet above the surrounding land and that respondent’s toll road (which is raised 29.8 feet above the surrounding land surface) violates the ordinance, petitioners brought suit in the Indiana Courts for injunctive relief and damages. Although it refused to grant an injunction, the trial court awarded petitioners damages of $164,000 and costs. That judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of Indiana, which concluded that “the ordinance purported to authorize an unlawful and unconstitutional appropriation of property rights without payment of compensation.” 244 Ind. 574, 584, 193 N. E. 2d 237, 242. Because it appeared that the. case involved the validity of airport zoning regulations under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and therefore presented important questions affecting the National Airport Plan not previously considered by this Court, we granted certiorari. 377 U. S. 942.
Respondent suggests, however, that we are without jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Indiana because that judgment was based on an independent and adequate state ground. It is undoubtedly
“ ‘the settled rule that where the judgment of a state court rests upon two grounds, one of which is federal and the other non-federal in character, our jurisdiction fails if the non-federal ground is independent of the federal ground and adequate to support the judgment.’ Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207, 210.” Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. S. 278, 281.
As we have concluded that respondent is correct in its contention that the judgment sought to be reviewed is supported by an independent and adequate state ground, we dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
In the Indiana Supreme Court respondent relied on the just compensation requirement of the.Indiana Constitution as well as on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Indiana Supreme Court stated the issue for decision as whether “the ordinance purport [s] to effect a taking of private property for public use in violation of the provisions of Article 1, § 21 of the Indiana Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” 244 Ind., at 577, 193 N. E. 2d, at 238. In resolving that issue, however, the Indiana Supreme Court, quite understandably, did not analyze separately the effect of the two provisions but considered them together. From that fact petitioners would have us. conclude that the state ground of decision — invalidity of the zoning ordinance under Art. 1, § 21, of the Indiana Constitution — “is so interwoven with the other as not to be an independent matter . . . .” Enterprise Irrig. District v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 164 (dictum). (Emphasis added.) We cannot agree.
Quoting both Art. 1, § 21, of the Indiana Constitution and § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and citing both a decision of this Court, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, and one of its own decisions, General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. City of Indianapolis, 202 Ind. 85, 172 N. E. 309 (1930), the Indiana Supreme Court began its analysis with the proposition that private property may not be taken for public use without compensation. Two issues were singled out as determinative of whether the ordinance under consideration violated that constitutional protection: “(1) Whether air space above land is a constitutionally protected property right, and (2) whether in the instant case there has been a constitutionally proscribed taking.” 244 Ind., at 578, 193 N. E. 2d, at 239.
In holding that landowners did have a protected property interest in the airspace above their land, the court first discussed an Indiana statute, Acts 1927, c. 43, § 3, Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 14-103 (1950 Repl.) (“The ownership of the space above the lands and waters of this state is declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath, . . and a prior interpretation, of state law, Capitol Airways, Inc. v. Indianapolis P. & L. Co., 215 Ind. 462, 466, 18 N. E. 2d 776, 778 (1939) (airport operator has no right to damages from public utility whose power .line obstructs flight into and out of airport). In addition, the Indiana Supreme Court cited and discussed two cases of this Court holding low altitude overflights to constitute a taking of an air easement requiring just compensation under the United States Constitution. Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U. S. 84; United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256. But nothing in the court’s opinion suggests that its conclusion that “[i]n the light of the above authorities . . . the reasonable and ordinary use of air space above land is a property right which cannot be taken without the payment of compensation,” 244 Ind., at 581, 193 N. E. 2d, at 240, flows from a federal rather than a state source. Indeed, the organization and language of the opinion indicates that, at the least, state law is an equal ground of decision.
The discussion of the second question — whether the ordinance effects a proscribed taking, as opposed to a reasonable regulation under the police power — similarly interlaces Indiana and federal decisions, as well as decisions of other state courts. Again there is no intimation that the conclusion that the ordinance entails “an unlawful and unconstitutional appropriation of property rights without payment of compensation,” 244 Ind., at 584, 193 N. E. 2d, at 242, is based less forcefully on the Indiana Constitution than on the Fourteenth Amendment.
In such circumstances, even though a state court’s opinion relies on similar provisions in both the State and Federal Constitutions, the state constitutional provision has been held to provide an independent and adequate ground of decision depriving this Court of jurisdiction to review the state judgment. New York City v. Central Savings Bank, 306 U. S. 661, explained in Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551, 556-557; Lynch v. New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 U. S. 52. This is not á case like those cited by petitioners where the lower court opinion as a whole “leaves the impression that the court probably felt constrained to rule as it did because of [decisions applying the Fourteenth Amendment],” Minnesota v. National Tea Co., supra, at 554-555, or “because it felt under compulsion of federal law as enunciated by this Court so to hold,” Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v. Mayfield, 340 U. S. 1, 5, with the result that the state and federal grounds are “so interwoven that we are unable to conclude that the judgment rests upon an independent interpretation of the state law,” State Tax Comm’n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511, 514. See also Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U. S. 437, 443, 448-449; Enterprise Irrig. District v. Canal Co., supra. Under our settled decisions the state ground in this case must be regarded as an independent and adequate ground of decision, and we so hold.
Petitioners nevertheless contend that the state ground of decision is not adequate because it is inconsistent with the policy of the Federal Airport Act, 60 Stat. 170, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq. (1958 ed. and Supp. V), and therefore founders on the Supremacy Clause. The premises underlying petitioners’ argument are that the Federal Airport Act is predicated on a determination by Congress that airport zoning is essential to assure compatible land use in the vicinity of airports without prohibitive cost and that the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in this case signifies the total nullification of airport zoning. We think the second premise is* unfounded. The Indiana Supreme ‘Court had before it a case in which the effect of the ordinance was to establish a maximum height of 18 feet for structures on respondent’s land. Although it recognized that zoning regulations may be upheld as a reasonable exercise of the police power “where the owner of property is merely restricted in the use and enjoyment of his property,” 244 Ind., at 581, 193 N. E. 2d, at 240-241, the court held that a taking requiring compensation — rather than mere regulation — was effected here because “the City of Gary has attempted, by the passage of the ordinance under consideration, to take and appropriate to its own use the ordinarily usable air space of property adjacent to the Gary Airport . . . .” 244 Ind., at 582, 193 N. E. 2d, at 241. (Emphasis added.) As we read the opinion of the Indiana Supreme Court, it certainly does not portend the wholesale invalidation of all airport • zoning laws. And no substantial claim can be made that Congress intended to preclude such an application of state law as is involved in the present case. On March 11 of last year Congress did indicate its interest in furthering airport zoning when it amended § 11 of the Federal Airport Act to require as an additional condition of approval of an airport project seeking federal aid that:
“(4) appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws, has been or will be taken, to the extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations including landing and take-off of aircraft.” P. L. 88-280, 1964 U. S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 514. (Emphasis added.)
That requirement, however, is presently implemented by the Federal Aviation Agency by obtaining an assurance from the project sponsor that he will prevent the construction of obstructions to air navigation, “either by the acquisition and retention of easements or other interests in or rights for the use of land or airspace or by the adoption and enforcement of zoning regulations.” Form FAA-1624, Part III 7, Sponsor Assurances. And amounts expended to acquire “land or interests therein or easements through or other interests in air space” are among “the allowable project costs” that may be recompensed under § 13 of the Federal Airport Act, 60 Stat. 177, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 1112 (a) (2) (1958 ed., Supp. V),. Appearing as amicus curiae, the United States affirms that “[t]here is no basis for a contention that federal law removes State law restrictions on the exercise of the zoning power or defeats any State law right to compensation.” We conclude that the decision of the Supreme Court of Indiana in this case is compatible with the congressional policy embodied in the Federal Airport Act.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Art. 1, §21, Ind. Const.:
“No man’s particular services shall be demanded, without just compensation. No,man’s property shall be taken by law, without just compensation; nor, except in case of the State, without such compensation first assessed and tendered.”
Petitioners’ pre-emption argument is not pressed in their petition for certiorari as a separate issue for review but only as bearing on the adequacy of the state ground of decision.. Nor have petitioners demonstrated that this issue was presented to the Indiana Supreme Court. In this regard petitioners quote that court’s statement that “[t]he federal government has recognized the requirement that easements for the glide angle needed for landing and take-off must be .acquired by condemnation proceedings and payment of just compensation,” 244 Ind., at 584, 193 N. E. 2d, at 242, but that conclusion was based on two cases condemning easements over property adjoining federal bases that were decided several years before the recent amendment to the Federal Airport Act, United States v. 48.10 Acres of Land, 144 F. Supp. 258 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1956); United States v. 443 Acres of Land, 137 F. Supp. 567 (D. C. N. D. Tex. 1956), not on any assessment of the policy of that Act. These circumstances of course bar petitioners from seeking reversal of the judgment below on the basis of their pre-emption claim, and it is therefore questionable whether petitioners may advance the same argument under the guise of an attack on the adequacy of the state ground of decision. We need not consider this problem further, however, because, as is explained in the text, infra, the pre-emption claim is insubstantial.
Needless to say, we express no opinion in this case regarding the validity under the United States Constitution of the city’s airport zoning ordinance.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1978 Congress decided to overrule our decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), by amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “to prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.” On the effective date of the Act, petitioner amended its health insurance plan to provide its female employees with hospitalization benefits for pregnancy-related conditions to the same extent as for other medical conditions. The plan continued, however, to provide less favorable pregnancy benefits for spouses of male employees. The question presented is whether the amended plan complies with the amended statute.
Petitioner’s plan provides hospitalization and medical-surgical coverage for a defined category of employees and a defined category of dependents. Dependents covered by the plan include employees’ spouses, unmarried children between 14 days and 19 years of age, and some older dependent children. Prior to April 29, 1979, the scope of the plan’s coverage for eligible dependents was identical to its coverage for employees. All covered males, whether employees or dependents, were treated alike for purposes of hospitalization coverage. All covered females, whether employees or dependents, also were treated alike. Moreover, with one relevant exception, the coverage for males and females was identical. The exception was a limitation on hospital coverage for pregnancy that did not apply to any other hospital confinement.
After the plan was amended in 1979, it provided the same hospitalization coverage for male and female employees themselves for all medical conditions, but it differentiated between female employees and spouses of male employees in its provision of pregnancy-related benefits. In a booklet describing the plan, petitioner explained the amendment that gave rise to this litigation in this way:
“B. Effective April 29, 1979, maternity benefits for female employees will be paid the same as any other hospital confinement as described in question 16. This applies only to deliveries beginning on April 29, 1979 and thereafter.
“C. Maternity benefits for the wife of a male employee will continue to be paid as described in part ‘A’ of this question.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a.
In turn, Part A stated: “The Basic Plan pays up to $500 of the hospital charges and 100% of reasonable and customary for delivery and anesthesiologist charges.” Ibid. As the Court of Appeals observed: “To the extent that the hospital charges in connection with an uncomplicated delivery may exceed $500, therefore, a male employee receives less complete coverage of spousal disabilities than does a female employee.” 667 F. 2d 448, 449 (CA4 1982).
After the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and before the amendment to petitioner’s plan became effective, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued “interpretive guidelines” in the form of questions and answers. Two of those questions, numbers 21 and 22, made it clear that the EEOC would consider petitioner’s amended plan unlawful. Number 21 read as follows:
“21. Q. Must an employer provide health insurance coverage for the medical expenses of pregnancy-related conditions of the spouses of male employees? Of the dependents of all employees?
“A. Where an employer provides no coverage for dependents, the employer is not required to institute such coverage. However, if an employer’s insurance program covers the medical expenses of spouses of female employees, then it must equally cover the medical expenses of spouses of male employees, including those arising from pregnancy-related conditions.
“But the insurance does not have to cover the pregnancy-related conditions of non-spouse dependents as long as it excludes the pregnancy-related conditions of such non-spouse dependents of male and female employees equally.” 44 Fed. Reg. 23807 (Apr. 20, 1979).
On September 20, 1979, one of petitioner’s male employees filed a charge with the EEOC alleging that petitioner had unlawfully refused to provide full insurance coverage for his wife’s hospitalization caused by pregnancy; a month later the United Steelworkers filed a similar charge on behalf of other individuals. App. 15-18. Petitioner then commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, challenging the Commission’s guidelines and seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint named the EEOC, the male employee, and the United Steelworkers of America as defendants. Id., at 5-14. Later the EEOC filed a civil action against petitioner alleging discrimination on the basis of sex against male employees in the company’s provision of hospitalization benefits. Id., at 28-31. Concluding that the benefits of the new Act extended only to female employees, and not to spouses of male employees, the District Court held that petitioner’s plan was lawful and enjoined enforcement of the EEOC guidelines relating to pregnancy benefits for employees’ spouses. 510 F. Supp. 66 (1981). It also dismissed the EEOC’s complaint. App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a. The two cases were consolidated on appeal.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, reasoning that since “the company’s health insurance plan contains a distinction based on pregnancy that results in less complete medical coverage for male employees with spouses than for female employees with spouses, it is impermissible under the statute.” 667 F. 2d, at 451. After rehearing the case en banc, the court reaffirmed the conclusion of the panel over the dissent of three judges who believed the statute was intended to protect female employees “in their ability or inability to work,” and not to protect spouses of male employees. 682 F. 2d 113 (1982). Because the important question presented by the case had been decided differently by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, EEOC v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 680 F. 2d 1243 (1982), we granted certiorari. 459 U. S. 1069 (1982).
Ultimately the question we must decide is whether petitioner has discriminated against its male employees with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their sex within the meaning of § 703(a)(1) of Title VII. Although the Pregnancy Discrimination Act has clarified the meaning of certain terms in this section, neither that Act nor the underlying statute contains a definition of the word “discriminate.” In order to decide whether petitioner’s plan discriminates against male employees because of their sex, we must therefore go beyond the bare statutory language. Accordingly, we shall consider whether Congress, by enacting the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not only overturned the specific holding in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), but also rejected the test of discrimination employed by the Court in that case. We believe it did. Under the proper test petitioner’s plan is unlawful, because the protection it affords to married male employees is less comprehensive than the protection it affords to married female employees.
1-H
At issue in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert was the legality of a disability plan that provided the company’s employees with weekly compensation during periods of disability resulting from nonoccupational causes. Because the plan excluded disabilities arising from pregnancy, the District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that it discriminated against female employees because of their sex. This Court reversed.
After noting that Title VII does not define the term “discrimination,” the Court applied an analysis derived from cases construing the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Id., at 133. The Gilbert opinion quoted at length from a footnote in Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U. S. 484 (1974), a case which had upheld the constitutionality of excluding pregnancy coverage under California’s disability insurance plan. “Since it is a finding of sex-based discrimination that must trigger, in a case such as this, the finding of an unlawful employment practice under § 703(a)(1),” the Court added, “Geduldig is precisely in point in its holding that an exclusion of pregnancy from a disability-benefits plan providing general coverage is not a gender-based discrimination at all.” 429 U. S., at 136.
The dissenters in Gilbert took issue with the majority’s assumption “that the Fourteenth Amendment standard of discrimination is coterminous with that applicable to Title VII.” Id., at 154, n. 6 (Brennan, J., dissenting); id., at 160-161 (Stevens, J., dissenting). As a matter of statutory interpretation, the dissenters rejected the Court’s holding that the plan’s exclusion of disabilities caused by pregnancy did not constitute discrimination based on sex. As Justice Brennan explained, it was facially discriminatory for the company to devise “a policy that, but for pregnancy, offers protection for all risks, even those that are ‘unique to’ men or heavily male dominated.” Id., at 160. It was inaccurate to describe the program as dividing potential recipients into two groups, pregnant women and nonpregnant persons, because insurance programs “deal with future risks rather than historic facts.” Rather, the appropriate classification was “between persons who face a risk of pregnancy and those who do not.” Id., at 161-162, n. 5 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The company’s plan, which was intended to provide employees with protection against the risk of uncompensated unemployment caused by physical disability, discriminated on the basis of sex by giving men protection for all categories of risk but giving women only partial protection. Thus, the dissenters asserted that the statute had been violated because conditions of employment for females were less favorable than for similarly situated males.
When Congress amended Title VII in 1978, it unambiguously expressed its disapproval of both the holding and the reasoning of the Court in the Gilbert decision. It incorporated a new subsection in the “definitions” applicable “[f]or the purposes of this subchapter.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e (1976 ed., Supp. V). The first clause of the Act states, quite simply: “The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” §2000e-(k). The House Report stated: “It is the Committee’s view that the dissenting Justices correctly interpreted the Act.” Similarly, the Senate Report quoted passages from the two dissenting opinions, stating that they “correctly express both the principle and the meaning of title VII.” Proponents of the bill repeatedly emphasized that the Supreme Court had erroneously interpreted congressional intent and that amending legislation was necessary to reestablish the principles of Title VII law as they had been understood prior to the Gilbert decision. Many of them expressly agreed with the views of the dissenting Justices.
As petitioner argues, congressional discussion focused on the needs of female members of the work force rather than spouses of male employees. This does not create a “negative inference” limiting the scope of the Act to the specific problem that motivated its enactment. See United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 591 (1981). Cf. McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273, 285-296 (1976). Congress apparently assumed that existing plans that included benefits for dependents typically provided no less pregnancy-related coverage for the wives of male employees than they did for female employees. When the question of differential coverage for dependents was addressed in the Senate Report, the Committee indicated that it should be resolved “on the basis of existing title VII principles.” The legislative context makes it clear that Congress was not thereby referring to the view of Title VII reflected in this Court’s Gilbert opinion. Proponents of the legislation stressed throughout the debates that Congress had always intended to protect all individuals from sex discrimination in employment — including but not limited to pregnant women workers. Against this background we review the terms of the amended statute to decide whether petitioner has unlawfully discriminated against its male employees.
II
Section 703(a) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer 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... 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a) (1). Health insurance and other fringe benefits are “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Male as well as female employees are protected against discrimination. Thus, if a private employer were to provide complete health insurance coverage for the dependents of its female employees, and no coverage at all for the dependents of its male employees, it would violate Title VII. Such a practice would not pass the simple test of Title VII discrimination that we enunciated in Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 711 (1978), for it would treat a male employee with dependents “ ‘in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be different.’” The same result would be reached even if the magnitude of the discrimination were smaller. For example, a plan that provided complete hospitalization coverage for the spouses of female employees but did not cover spouses of male employees when they had broken' bones would violate Title VII by discriminating against male employees.
Petitioner’s practice is just as unlawful. Its plan provides limited pregnancy-related benefits for employees’ wives, and affords more extensive coverage for employees’ spouses for all other medical conditions requiring hospitalization. Thus the husbands of female employees receive a specified level of hospitalization coverage for all conditions; the wives of male employees receive such coverage except for pregnancy-related conditions. Although Gilbert concluded that an otherwise inclusive plan that singled out pregnancy-related benefits for exclusion was nondiscriminatory on its face, because only women can become pregnant, Congress has unequivocally rejected that reasoning. The 1978 Act makes clear that it is discriminatory to treat pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other medical conditions. Thus petitioner’s plan unlawfully gives married male employees a benefit package for their dependents that is less inclusive than the dependency coverage provided to married female employees.
There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that the prohibitions of Title VII do not extend to discrimination against pregnant spouses because the statute applies only to discrimination in employment. A two-step analysis demonstrates the fallacy in this contention. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act has now made clear that, for all Title VII purposes, discrimination based on a woman’s pregnancy is, on its face, discrimination because of her sex. And since the sex of the spouse is always the opposite of the sex of the employee, it follows inexorably that discrimination against female spouses in the provision of fringe benefits is also discrimination against male employees. Cf. Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U. S. 142, 147 (1980). By making clear that an employer could not discriminate on the basis of an employee’s pregnancy, Congress did not erase the original prohibition against discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sex.
In short, Congress’ rejection of the premises of General Electric Co. v. Gilbert forecloses any claim that an insurance program excluding pregnancy coverage for female beneficiaries and providing complete coverage to similarly situated male beneficiaries does not discriminate on the basis of sex. Petitioner’s plan is the mirror image of the plan at issue in Gilbert. The pregnancy limitation in this case violates Title VII by discriminating against male employees.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Pub. L. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076 (quoting title of 1978 Act). The new statute (the Pregnancy Discrimination Act) amended the “Definitions” section of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e, to add a new subsection (k) reading in pertinent part as follows:
“The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise....” §2000e(k) (1976 ed., Supp. V).
The amendment to Title VII became effective on the date of its enactment, October 31, 1978, but its requirements did not apply to any then-existing fringe benefit program until 180 days after enactment — April 29, 1979. 92 Stat. 2076. The amendment to petitioner’s plan became effective on April 29, 1979.
On the first day following three months of continuous service, every active, full-time, production, maintenance, technical, and clerical area bargaining unit employee becomes a plan participant. App. to Pet. for Cert. 29a.
For example, unmarried children up to age 23 who are full-time college students solely dependent on an employee and certain mentally or physically handicapped children are also covered. Id., at 30a.
An amount payable under the plan for medical expenses incurred by a dependent does, however, take into account any amounts payable for those expenses by other group insurance plans. An employee’s personal coverage is not affected by his or her spouse’s participation in a group health plan. Id., at 34a-36a.
For hospitalization caused by uncomplicated pregnancy, petitioner’s plan paid 100% of the reasonable and customary physicians’ charges for delivery and anesthesiology, and up to $500 of other hospital charges. For all other hospital confinement, the plan paid in full for a semiprivate room for up to 120 days and for surgical procedures; covered the first $750 of reasonable and customary charges for hospital services (including general nursing care, X-ray examinations, and drugs) and other necessary services during hospitalization; and paid 80% of the charges exceeding $750 for such services up to a maximum of 120 days. Id., at 31a-32a (question 16); see id., at 44a-45a (same differentiation for coverage after the employee’s termination).
Thus, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found after its investigation, “the record reveals that the present disparate impact on male employees had its genesis in the gender-based distinction accorded to female employees in the past.” App. 37.
Interim interpretive guidelines were published for comment in the Federal Register on March 9,1979. 44 Fed. Reg. 13278-13281. Final guidelines were published in the Federal Register on April 20, 1979. Id., at 23804-23808. The EEOC explained: “It is the Commission’s desire... that all interested parties be made aware of EEOC’s view of their rights and obligations in advance of April 29,1979, so that they may be in compliance by that date.” Id., at 23804. The questions and answers are reprinted as an appendix to 29 CFR § 1604 (1982).
Question 22 is equally clear. It reads:
“22. Q. Must an employer provide the same level of health insurance coverage for the pregnancy-related medical conditions of the spouses of male employees as it provides for its female employees?
“A. No. It is not necessary to provide the same level of coverage for the pregnancy-related medical conditions of spouses of male employees as for female employees. However, where the employer provides coverage for the medical conditions of the spouses of its employees, then the level of coverage for pregnancy-related medical conditions of the spouses of male employees must be the same as the level of coverage for all other medical conditions of the spouses of female employees. For example, if the employer covers employees for 100 percent of reasonable and customary expenses sustained for a medical condition, but only covers dependent spouses for 50 percent of reasonable and customary expenses for their medical conditions, the pregnancy-related expenses of the male employee’s spouse must be covered at the 50 percent level.” 44 Fed. Reg., at 23807-28808.
Subsequently the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the Ninth Circuit. EEOC v. Joslyn Mfg. & Supply Co., 706 F. 2d 1469 (1983).
Section 703(a), 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a), provides in pertinent part:
“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
“(1) to fail or refuse to hire or 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....”
Although the 1978 Act makes clear that this language should be construed to prohibit discrimination against a female employee on the basis of her own pregnancy, it did not remove or limit Title VH’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of the sex of the employee — male or female — which was already present in the Act. As we explain infra, at 682-685, petitioner’s plan discriminates against male employees on the basis of their sex.
“ ‘While it is true that only women can become pregnant, it does not follow that every legislative classification concerning pregnancy is a sex-based classification like those considered in Reed [v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971)], and Frontiero [v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973)]. Normal pregnancy is an objectively identifiable physical condition with unique characteristics. Absent a showing that distinctions involving pregnancy are mere pretexts designed to effect an invidious discrimination against the members of one sex or the other, lawmakers are constitutionally free to include or exclude pregnancy from the coverage of legislation such as this on any reasonable basis, just as with respect to any other physical condition.
“ ‘The lack of identity between the excluded disability and gender as such under this insurance program becomes clear upon the most cursory analysis. The program divides potential recipients into two groups — pregnant women and nonpregnant persons. While the first group is exclusively female, the second includes members of both sexes.’ [417 U. S.], at 496-497, n. 20.” 429 U. S., at 134-135.
The principal emphasis in the text of the Geduldig opinion, unlike the quoted footnote, was on the reasonableness of the State’s cost justifications for the classification in its insurance program. See n. 13, infra.
As the text of the Geduldig opinion makes clear, in evaluating the constitutionality of California’s insurance program, the Court focused on the “non-invidious” character of the State’s legitimate fiscal interest in excluding pregnancy coverage. 417 U. S., at 496. This justification was not relevant to the statutory issue presented in Gilbert. See n. 25, infra.
The meaning of the first clause is not limited by the specific language in the second clause, which explains the application of the general principle to women employees.
H. R. Rep. No. 95-948, p. 2 (1978), Legislative History of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (Committee Print prepared for the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources), p. 148 (1979) (hereinafter Leg. Hist.).
S. Rep. No. 95-331, pp. 2-3 (1977), Leg. Hist., at 39-40.
Id., at 7-8 (“the bill is merely reestablishing the law as it was understood prior to Gilbert by the EEOC and by the lower courts”); H. R. Rep. No. 95-948, supra, at 8 (same); 123 Cong. Rec. 10581 (1977) (remarks of Rep. Hawkins) (“H. R. 5055 does not really add anything to title VII as I and, I believe, most of my colleagues in Congress when title VII was enacted in 1964 and amended in 1972, understood the prohibition against sex discrimination in employment. For, it seems only commonsense, that since only women can become pregnant, discrimination against pregnant people is necessarily discrimination against women, and that forbidding discrimination based on sex therefore clearly forbids discrimination based on pregnancy”); id., at 29387 (remarks of Sen. Javits) (“this bill is simply corrective legislation, designed to restore the law with respect to pregnant women employees to the point where it was last year, before the Supreme Court’s decision in Gilbert.. id., at 29647; id., at 29655 (remarks of Sen. Javits) (“What we are doing is leaving the situation the way it was before the Supreme Court decided the Gilbert case last year”); 124 Cong. Rec. 21436 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Sarasin) (“This bill would restore the interpretation of title VII prior to that decision”).
For statements expressly approving the views of the dissenting Justices that pregnancy discrimination is discrimination on the basis of sex, see Leg. Hist., at 18 (remarks of Sen. Bayh, Mar. 18, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 8144); 24 (remarks of Rep. Hawkins, Apr. 5, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 10582); 67 (remarks of Sen. Javits, Sept. 15, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 29387); 73 (remarks of Sen. Bayh, Sept. 16, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 29641); 134 (remarks of Sen. Mathias, Sept. 16, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 29663-29664); 168 (remarks of Rep. Sarasin, July 18, 1978, 124 Cong. Rec. 21436). See also Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy, 1977, Hearings on S. 995 before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Human Resources, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 13 (1977) (statement of Sen. Bayh); id., at 37, 51 (statement of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Drew S. Days).
In McDonald, the Court held that 42 U. S. C. § 1981, which gives “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States... the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts... as is enjoyed by white citizens,” protects whites against discrimination on the basis of race even though the “immediate impetus for the bill was the necessity for further relief of the constitutionally emancipated former Negro slaves.” 427 U. S., at 289.
This, of course, was true of petitioner’s plan prior to the enactment of the statute. See supra, at 672. See S. Rep. No. 95-331, supra n. 16, at 6, Leg. Hist., at 43 (“Presumably because plans which provide comprehensive medical coverage for spouses of women employees but not spouses of male employees are rare, we are not aware of any Title VII litigation concerning such plans. It is certainly not this committee’s desire to encourage the institution of such plans”); 123 Cong. Rec. 29663 (1977) (remarks of Sen. Cranston); Brief for Respondent 31-33, n. 31.
“Questions were raised in the committee’s deliberations regarding how this bill would affect medical coverage for dependents of employees, as opposed to employees themselves. In this context it must be remembered that the basic purpose of this bill is to protect women employees, it does not alter the basic principles of title VII law as regards sex discrimination. Rather, this legislation clarifies the definition of sex discrimination for title VII purposes. Therefore the question in regard to dependents’ benefits would be determined on the basis of existing title VII principles.” S. Rep. No. 95-331, supra n. 16, at 5-6, Leg. Hist., at 42-43.
This statement does not imply that the new statutory definition has no applicability; it merely acknowledges that the new definition does not itself resolve the question.
The dissent quotes extensive excerpts from an exchange on the Senate floor between Senators Hatch and Williams. Post, at 692-693. Taken in context, this colloquy clearly deals only with the second clause of the bill, see n. 14, supra, and Senator Williams, the principal sponsor of the legislation, addressed only the bill’s effect on income maintenance plans. Leg. Hist., at 80. Senator Williams first stated, in response to Senator Hatch: “With regard to more maintenance plans for pregnancy-related disabilities, I do not see how this language could be misunderstood.” Upon further inquiry from Senator Hatch, he replied: “If there is any ambiguity, with regard to income maintenance plans, I cannot see it.” At the end of the same response, he stated: “It is narrowly drawn and would not give any employee the right to obtain income maintenance as a result of the pregnancy of someone who is not an employee.” Ibid. These comments, which clearly limited the scope of Senator Williams’ responses, are omitted from the dissent’s lengthy quotation, post, at 692-693.
Other omitted portions of the colloquy make clear that it was logical to discuss the pregnancies of employees’ spouses in connection with income maintenance plans. Senator Hatch asked, “what about the status of a woman eoworker who is not pregnant but rides with a pregnant woman and cannot get to work once the pregnant female commences her maternity leave or the employed mother who stays home to nurse her pregnant daughter?” Leg. Hist., at 80. The reference to spouses of male employees must be understood in light of these hypothetical questions; it seems to address the situation in which a male employee wishes to take time off from work because his wife is pregnant.
See, e. g., 123 Cong. Rec. 7539 (1977) (remarks of Sen. Williams) (“the Court has ignored the congressional intent in enacting title VII of the Civil Rights Act — that intent was to protect all individuals from unjust employment discrimination, including pregnant workers”); id., at 29385, 29652. In light of statements such as these, it would be anomalous to hold that Congress provided that an employee’s pregnancy is sex-based, while a spouse’s pregnancy is gender-neutral.
During the course of the Senate debate on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Senator Bayh and Senator Cranston both expressed the belief that the new Act would prohibit the exclusion of pregnancy coverage for spouses if spouses were otherwise fully covered by an insurance plan. See id., at 29642, 29663. Because our holding relies on the 1978 legislation only to the extent that it unequivocally rejected the Gilbert decision, and ultimately we rely on our understanding of general Title VII principles, we attach no more significance to these two statements than to the many other comments by both Senators and Congressmen disapproving the Court’s reasoning and conclusion in Gilbert. See n. 17, supra.
Consistently since 1970 the EEOC has considered it unlawful under Title VII for an employer to provide different insurance coverage for spouses of male and female employees. See Guidelines On Discrimination Because of Sex, 29 CFR § 1604.9(d) (1982); Commission Decision No. 70-510, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶6132 (1970) (accident and sickness insurance); Commission Decision No. 70-513, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6114 (1970) (death benefits to surviving spouse); Commission Decision No. 70-660, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶6133 (1970) (health insurance); Commission Decision No. 71-1100, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6197 (1970) (group insurance).
Similarly, in our Equal Protection Clause cases we have repeatedly held that, if the spouses of female employees receive less favorable treatment in the provision of benefits, the practice discriminates not only against the spouses but also against the female employees on the basis of sex. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 688 (1973) (opinion of Brennan, J.) (increased quarters allowances and medical and dental benefits); id., at 691 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636, 645 (1975) (Social Security benefits for surviving spouses); see also id., at 654-655 (Powell, J., concurring); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199, 207-208 (1977) (opinion of BRENNAN, J.) (Social Security benefits for surviving spouses); Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U. S. 142, 147 (1980) (workers’ compensation death benefits for surviving spouses).
The Manhart case was decided several months before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed. Although it was not expressly discussed in the legislative history, it set forth some of the “existing title VII principles” on which Congress relied. Cf. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 696-698 (1979). In Manhart the Court struck down the employer’s policy of requiring female employees to make larger contributions to its pension fund than male employees, because women as a class tend to live longer than men.
“An employment practice that requires 2,000 individuals to contribute more money into a fund than 10,000 other employees simply because each of them is a woman, rather than a man, is in direct conflict with both the language and the policy of the Act. Such a practice does not pass the simple test of whether the evidence shows ‘treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be different.’ It constitutes discrimination and is unlawful unless exempted by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 or some other affirmative justification.” 435 U. S., at 711.
The internal quotation was from Developments in the Law, Employment Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 1109, 1170 (1971).
This policy is analogous to the exclusion of broken bones for the wives of male employees, except that both employees’ wives and employees’ husbands may suffer broken bones, but only employees’ wives can become pregnant.
See n. 22, supra. This reasoning does not require that a medical insurance plan treat the pregnancies of employees’ wives the same as the pregnancies of female employees. For example, as the EEOC recognizes, see n. 9, supra (Question 22), an employer might provide full coverage for employees and no coverage at all for dependents. Similarly, a disability plan covering employees’ children may exclude or limit maternity benefits. Although the distinction between pregnancy and other conditions is, according to the 1978 Act, discrimination “on the basis of sex,” the exclusion affects male and female employees equally since both may have pregnant dependent daughters. The EEOC’s guidelines permit differential treatment of the pregnancies of dependents who are not spouses. See 44 Fed. Reg. 23804, 23805, 23807 (1979).
Because the 1978 Act expressly states that exclusion of pregnancy coverage is gender-based discrimination on its face, it eliminates any need to consider the average monetary value of the plan’s coverage to male and female employees. Cf. Gilbert, 429 U. S., at 137-140.
The cost of providing complete health insurance coverage for the dependents of male employees, including pregnant wives, might exceed the cost of providing such coverage for the dependents of female employees. But although that type of cost differential may properly be analyzed in passing on the constitutionality of a State’s health insurance
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Agreements to arbitrate that fall within the scope and coverage of the Federal Arbitration Act (Act), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., must be enforced in state and federal courts. State courts, then, “have a prominent role to play as enforcers of agreements to arbitrate.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U. S. 49, 59 (2009).
The Act has been interpreted to require that if a dispute presents multiple claims, some arbitrable and some not, the former must be sent to arbitration even if this will lead to piecemeal litigation. See Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U. S. 213, 217 (1985). From this it follows that state and federal courts must examine with care the complaints seeking to invoke their jurisdiction in order to separate arbitrable from nonarbitrable claims. A court may not issue a blanket refusal to compel arbitration merely on the grounds that some of the claims could be resolved by the court without arbitration. See ibid.
In this case the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida upheld a trial court’s refusal to compel arbitration of respondents’ claims after determining that two of the four claims in a complaint were nonarbitrable. Though the matter is not altogether free from doubt, a fair reading of the opinion indicates a likelihood that the Court of Appeal failed to determine whether the other two claims in the complaint were arbitrable. For this reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Respondents are 19 individuals and entities who bought limited partnership interests in one of three limited partnerships, all known as the Rye Funds. The Rye Funds were managed by Tremont Group Holding, Inc., and Tremont Partners, Inc., both of which were audited by KPMG. The Rye Funds were invested with financier Bernard Madoff and allegedly lost millions of dollars as a result of a scheme to defraud. Respondents sued the Rye Funds, the Tremont defendants, and Tremont’s auditing firm, KPMG.
Only the claims against KPMG are at issue in this case. Against KPMG, respondents alleged four causes of action: negligent misrepresentation; violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. §501.201 et seq. (2010); professional malpractice; and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. Respondents’ basic theory was that KPMG failed to use proper auditing standards with respect to the financial statements of the partnerships. These improper audits, respondents contend, led to “substantial misrepresentations” about the health of the funds and resulted in respondents’ investment losses. 51 So. 3d 1165, 1168 (Fla. App. 2010).
KPMG moved to compel arbitration based on the audit services agreement that existed between it and the Tremont defendants. That agreement provided that “[a]ny dispute or claim arising out of or relating to . . . the services provided [by KPMG]... (including any dispute or claim involving any person or entity for whose benefit the services in question are or were provided) shall be resolved” either by mediation or arbitration. App. to Pet. for Cert. 63a. The Florida Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Palm Beach County denied the motion.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that “[n]one of the -plaintiffs . . . expressly assented in any fashion to [the audit services agreement] or the arbitration provision.” 51 So. 3d, at 1168. Thus, the court found, the arbitration clause could only be enforced if respondents’ claims were derivative in that they arose from the services KPMG performed for the Tremont defendants pursuant to the audit services agreement. Applying' Delaware law, which both parties agreed was applicable, the Court of Appeal concluded that the negligent misrepresentation and the violation of FDUTPA claims were direct rather than derivative. A fair reading of the opinion reveals nothing to suggest that the court came to the same conclusion about the professional malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims. Indeed, the court said nothing about those claims at all. Finding “the arbitral agreement upon which KPMG relied would not apply to the direct claims made by the individual plaintiffs,” id., at 1167, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to arbitrate.
Respondents have since amended their complaint to add a fifth claim. Citing the Court of Appeal’s decision, the trial court again denied KPMG’s motion to compel arbitration.
The Act reflects an “emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 631 (1985); Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 24-25 (1983) (noting that “questions of arbitrability [must] ... be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration”). This policy, as contained within the Act, “requires courts to enforce the bargain of the parties to arbitrate,” Dean Witter, supra, at 217, and “cannot possibly require the disregard of state law permitting arbitration by or against nonparties to the written arbitration agreement,” Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U. S. 624, 630, n. 5 (2009) (emphasis deleted). Both parties agree that whether the claims in the complaint are arbitrable turns on the question whether they must be deemed direct or derivative under Delaware law. That question of state law is not at issue here. What is at issue is the Court of Appeal’s apparent refusal to compel arbitration on any of the four claims based solely on a finding that two of them, the claim of negligent misrepresentation and the alleged violation of the FDUTPA, were nonarbitrable.
In Dean Witter, the Court noted that the Act “provides that written agreements to arbitrate controversies arising out of an existing contract ‘shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.’ ” 470 U. S., at 218 (quoting 9 U. S. C. §2). The Court found that by its terras, “the Act leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.” 470 U. S., at 218 (emphasis in original). Thus, when a complaint contains both arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims, the Act requires courts to “compel arbitration of pendent arbitrable claims when one of the parties files a motion to compel, even where the result would be the possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums.” Id., at 217. To implement this holding, courts must examine a complaint with care to assess whether any individual claim must be arbitrated. The failure to do so is subject to immediate review. See Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1, 6-7 (1984).
The Court of Appeal listed all four claims, found that two were direct, and then refused to compel arbitration on the complaint as a whole because the arbitral agreement “would not apply to the direct claims.” 51 So. 3d, at 1167. By not addressing the other two claims in the complaint, the Court of Appeal failed to give effect to the plain meaning of the Act and to the holding of Dean Witter. The petition for cer-tiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is vacated, and the case is remanded. On remand, the Court of Appeal should examine the remaining two claims to determine whether either requires arbitration.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court is asked once again to consider whether the race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.
I
The University of Texas at Austin (or University) relies upon a complex system of admissions that has undergone significant evolution over the past two decades. Until 1996, the University made its admissions decisions primarily based on a measure called "Academic Index" (or AI), which it calculated by combining an applicant's SAT score and academic performance in high school. In assessing applicants, preference was given to racial minorities.
In 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated this admissions system, holding that any consideration of race in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause. See Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932, 934-935, 948.
One year later the University adopted a new admissions policy. Instead of considering race, the University began making admissions decisions based on an applicant's AI and his or her "Personal Achievement Index" (PAI). The PAI was a numerical score based on a holistic review of an application. Included in the number were the applicant's essays, leadership and work experience, extracurricular activities, community service, and other "special characteristics" that might give the admissions committee insight into a student's background. Consistent with Hopwood, race was not a consideration in calculating an applicant's AI or PAI.
The Texas Legislature responded to Hopwood as well. It enacted H.B. 588, commonly known as the Top Ten Percent Law. Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 51.803 (West Cum. Supp. 2015). As its name suggests, the Top Ten Percent Law guarantees college admission to students who graduate from a Texas high school in the top 10 percent of their class. Those students may choose to attend any of the public universities in the State.
The University implemented the Top Ten Percent Law in 1998. After first admitting any student who qualified for admission under that law, the University filled the remainder of its incoming freshman class using a combination of an applicant's AI and PAI scores-again, without considering race.
The University used this admissions system until 2003, when this Court decided the companion cases of Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304, and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 123 S.Ct. 2411, 156 L.Ed.2d 257. In Gratz, this Court struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate system of admissions, which at the time allocated predetermined points to racial minority candidates. See 539 U.S., at 255, 275-276, 123 S.Ct. 2411. In Grutter, however, the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's system of holistic review-a system that did not mechanically assign points but rather treated race as a relevant feature within the broader context of a candidate's application. See 539 U.S., at 337, 343-344, 123 S.Ct. 2325. In upholding this nuanced use of race, Grutter implicitly overruled Hopwood's categorical prohibition.
In the wake of Grutter, the University embarked upon a year-long study seeking to ascertain whether its admissions policy was allowing it to provide "the educational benefits of a diverse student body... to all of the University's undergraduate students." App. 481a-482a (affidavit of N. Bruce Walker ¶ 11 (Walker Aff.)); see also id., at 445a-447a. The University concluded that its admissions policy was not providing these benefits. Supp. App. 24a-25a.
To change its system, the University submitted a proposal to the Board of Regents that requested permission to begin taking race into consideration as one of "the many ways in which [an] academically qualified individual might contribute to, and benefit from, the rich, diverse, and challenging educational environment of the University." Id., at 23a. After the board approved the proposal, the University adopted a new admissions policy to implement it. The University has continued to use that admissions policy to this day.
Although the University's new admissions policy was a direct result of Grutter, it is not identical to the policy this Court approved in that case. Instead, consistent with the State's legislative directive, the University continues to fill a significant majority of its class through the Top Ten Percent Plan (or Plan). Today, up to 75 percent of the places in the freshman class are filled through the Plan. As a practical matter, this 75 percent cap, which has now been fixed by statute, means that, while the Plan continues to be referenced as a "Top Ten Percent Plan," a student actually needs to finish in the top seven or eight percent of his or her class in order to be admitted under this category.
The University did adopt an approach similar to the one in Grutter for the remaining 25 percent or so of the incoming class. This portion of the class continues to be admitted based on a combination of their AI and PAI scores. Now, however, race is given weight as a subfactor within the PAI. The PAI is a number from 1 to 6 (6 is the best) that is based on two primary components. The first component is the average score a reader gives the applicant on two required essays. The second component is a full-file review that results in another 1-to-6 score, the "Personal Achievement Score" or PAS. The PAS is determined by a separate reader, who (1) rereads the applicant's required essays, (2) reviews any supplemental information the applicant submits (letters of recommendation, resumes, an additional optional essay, writing samples, artwork, etc.), and (3) evaluates the applicant's potential contributions to the University's student body based on the applicant's leadership experience, extracurricular activities, awards/honors, community service, and other "special circumstances."
"Special circumstances" include the socioeconomic status of the applicant's family, the socioeconomic status of the applicant's school, the applicant's family responsibilities, whether the applicant lives in a single-parent home, the applicant's SAT score in relation to the average SAT score at the applicant's school, the language spoken at the applicant's home, and, finally, the applicant's race. See App. 218a-220a, 430a.
Both the essay readers and the full-file readers who assign applicants their PAI undergo extensive training to ensure that they are scoring applicants consistently. Deposition of Brian Breman 9-14, Record in No. 1: 08-CV-00263, (WD Tex.), Doc. 96-3. The Admissions Office also undertakes regular "reliability analyses" to "measure the frequency of readers scoring within one point of each other." App. 474a (affidavit of Gary M. Lavergne ¶ 8); see also id., at 253a (deposition of Kedra Ishop (Ishop Dep.)). Both the intensive training and the reliability analyses aim to ensure that similarly situated applicants are being treated identically regardless of which admissions officer reads the file.
Once the essay and full-file readers have calculated each applicant's AI and PAI scores, admissions officers from each school within the University set a cutoff PAI/AI score combination for admission, and then admit all of the applicants who are above that cutoff point. In setting the cutoff, those admissions officers only know how many applicants received a given PAI/AI score combination. They do not know what factors went into calculating those applicants' scores. The admissions officers who make the final decision as to whether a particular applicant will be admitted make that decision without knowing the applicant's race. Race enters the admissions process, then, at one stage and one stage only-the calculation of the PAS.
Therefore, although admissions officers can consider race as a positive feature of a minority student's application, there is no dispute that race is but a "factor of a factor of a factor" in the holistic-review calculus. 645 F.Supp.2d 587, 608 (W.D.Tex.2009). Furthermore, consideration of race is contextual and does not operate as a mechanical plus factor for underrepresented minorities. Id., at 606 ("Plaintiffs cite no evidence to show racial groups other than African-Americans and Hispanics are excluded from benefitting from UT's consideration of race in admissions. As the Defendants point out, the consideration of race, within the full context of the entire application, may be beneficial to any UT Austin applicant-including whites and Asian-Americans"); see also Brief for Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (the contention that the University discriminates against Asian-Americans is "entirely unsupported by evidence in the record or empirical data"). There is also no dispute, however, that race, when considered in conjunction with other aspects of an applicant's background, can alter an applicant's PAS score. Thus, race, in this indirect fashion, considered with all of the other factors that make up an applicant's AI and PAI scores, can make a difference to whether an application is accepted or rejected.
Petitioner Abigail Fisher applied for admission to the University's 2008 freshman class. She was not in the top 10 percent of her high school class, so she was evaluated for admission through holistic, full-file review. Petitioner's application was rejected.
Petitioner then filed suit alleging that the University's consideration of race as part of its holistic-review process disadvantaged her and other Caucasian applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 1 (no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"). The District Court entered summary judgment in the University's favor, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
This Court granted certiorari and vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 570 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2411, 186 L.Ed.2d 474 (2013) (Fisher I ), because it had applied an overly deferential "good-faith" standard in assessing the constitutionality of the University's program. The Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to assess the parties' claims under the correct legal standard.
Without further remanding to the District Court, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the entry of summary judgment in the University's favor. 758 F.3d 633 (C.A.5 2014). This Court granted certiorari for a second time, 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2888, 192 L.Ed.2d 923 (2015), and now affirms.
II
Fisher I set forth three controlling principles relevant to assessing the constitutionality of a public university's affirmative-action program. First, "because racial characteristics so seldom provide a relevant basis for disparate treatment," Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 505, 109 S.Ct. 706, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989), "[r]ace may not be considered [by a university] unless the admissions process can withstand strict scrutiny," Fisher I, 570 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2418. Strict scrutiny requires the university to demonstrate with clarity that its " 'purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is necessary... to the accomplishment of its purpose.' " Ibid.
Second, Fisher I confirmed that "the decision to pursue 'the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity'... is, in substantial measure, an academic judgment to which some, but not complete, judicial deference is proper." Id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2419. A university cannot impose a fixed quota or otherwise "define diversity as'some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin.' " Ibid. Once, however, a university gives "a reasoned, principled explanation" for its decision, deference must be given "to the University's conclusion, based on its experience and expertise, that a diverse student body would serve its educational goals." Ibid. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Third, Fisher I clarified that no deference is owed when determining whether the use of race is narrowly tailored to achieve the university's permissible goals. Id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2419-2420. A university, Fisher I explained, bears the burden of proving a "nonracial approach" would not promote its interest in the educational benefits of diversity "about as well and at tolerable administrative expense." Id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2420 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though "[n]arrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative" or "require a university to choose between maintaining a reputation for excellence [and] fulfilling a commitment to provide educational opportunities to members of all racial groups," Grutter, 539 U.S., at 339, 123 S.Ct. 2325 it does impose "on the university the ultimate burden of demonstrating" that "race-neutral alternatives" that are both "available" and "workable" "do not suffice." Fisher I, 570 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2420.
Fisher I set forth these controlling principles, while taking no position on the constitutionality of the admissions program at issue in this case. The Court held only that the District Court and the Court of Appeals had "confined the strict scrutiny inquiry in too narrow a way by deferring to the University's good faith in its use of racial classifications." Id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2421 The Court remanded the case, with instructions to evaluate the record under the correct standard and to determine whether the University had made "a showing that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve" the educational benefits that flow from diversity. Id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2421. On remand, the Court of Appeals determined that the program conformed with the strict scrutiny mandated by Fisher I. See 758 F.3d, at 659-660. Judge Garza dissented.
III
The University's program is sui generis. Unlike other approaches to college admissions considered by this Court, it combines holistic review with a percentage plan. This approach gave rise to an unusual consequence in this case: The component of the University's admissions policy that had the largest impact on petitioner's chances of admission was not the school's consideration of race under its holistic-review process but rather the Top Ten Percent Plan. Because petitioner did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class, she was categorically ineligible for more than three-fourths of the slots in the incoming freshman class. It seems quite plausible, then, to think that petitioner would have had a better chance of being admitted to the University if the school used race-conscious holistic review to select its entire incoming class, as was the case in Grutter.
Despite the Top Ten Percent Plan's outsized effect on petitioner's chances of admission, she has not challenged it. For that reason, throughout this litigation, the Top Ten Percent Plan has been taken, somewhat artificially, as a given premise.
Petitioner's acceptance of the Top Ten Percent Plan complicates this Court's review. In particular, it has led to a record that is almost devoid of information about the students who secured admission to the University through the Plan. The Court thus cannot know how students admitted solely based on their class rank differ in their contribution to diversity from students admitted through holistic review.
In an ordinary case, this evidentiary gap perhaps could be filled by a remand to the district court for further factfinding. When petitioner's application was rejected, however, the University's combined percentage-plan/holistic-review approach to admission had been in effect for just three years. While studies undertaken over the eight years since then may be of significant value in determining the constitutionality of the University's current admissions policy, that evidence has little bearing on whether petitioner received equal treatment when her application was rejected in 2008. If the Court were to remand, therefore, further factfinding would be limited to a narrow 3-year sample, review of which might yield little insight.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the University lacks any authority to alter the role of the Top Ten Percent Plan in its admissions process. The Plan was mandated by the Texas Legislature in the wake of Hopwood, so the University, like petitioner in this litigation, has likely taken the Plan as a given since its implementation in 1998. If the University had no reason to think that it could deviate from the Top Ten Percent Plan, it similarly had no reason to keep extensive data on the Plan or the students admitted under it-particularly in the years before Fisher I clarified the stringency of the strict-scrutiny burden for a school that employs race-conscious review.
Under the circumstances of this case, then, a remand would do nothing more than prolong a suit that has already persisted for eight years and cost the parties on both sides significant resources. Petitioner long since has graduated from another college, and the University's policy-and the data on which it first was based-may have evolved or changed in material ways.
The fact that this case has been litigated on a somewhat artificial basis, furthermore, may limit its value for prospective guidance. The Texas Legislature, in enacting the Top Ten Percent Plan, cannot much be criticized, for it was responding to Hopwood, which at the time was binding law in the State of Texas. That legislative response, in turn, circumscribed the University's discretion in crafting its admissions policy. These circumstances refute any criticism that the University did not make good-faith efforts to comply with the law.
That does not diminish, however, the University's continuing obligation to satisfy the burden of strict scrutiny in light of changing circumstances. The University engages in periodic reassessment of the constitutionality, and efficacy, of its admissions program. See Supp. App. 32a; App. 448a. Going forward, that assessment must be undertaken in light of the experience the school has accumulated and the data it has gathered since the adoption of its admissions plan.
As the University examines this data, it should remain mindful that diversity takes many forms. Formalistic racial classifications may sometimes fail to capture diversity in all of its dimensions and, when used in a divisive manner, could undermine the educational benefits the University values. Through regular evaluation of data and consideration of student experience, the University must tailor its approach in light of changing circumstances, ensuring that race plays no greater role than is necessary to meet its compelling interest. The University's examination of the data it has acquired in the years since petitioner's application, for these reasons, must proceed with full respect for the constraints imposed by the Equal Protection Clause. The type of data collected, and the manner in which it is considered, will have a significant bearing on how the University must shape its admissions policy to satisfy strict scrutiny in the years to come. Here, however, the Court is necessarily limited to the narrow question before it: whether, drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she was denied equal treatment at the time her application was rejected.
IV
In seeking to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, petitioner makes four arguments. First, she argues that the University has not articulated its compelling interest with sufficient clarity. According to petitioner, the University must set forth more precisely the level of minority enrollment that would constitute a "critical mass." Without a clearer sense of what the University's ultimate goal is, petitioner argues, a reviewing court cannot assess whether the University's admissions program is narrowly tailored to that goal.
As this Court's cases have made clear, however, the compelling interest that justifies consideration of race in college admissions is not an interest in enrolling a certain number of minority students. Rather, a university may institute a race-conscious admissions program as a means of obtaining "the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity." Fisher I, 570 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2419 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Grutter, 539 U.S., at 328, 123 S.Ct. 2325. As this Court has said, enrolling a diverse student body "promotes cross-racial understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes, and enables students to better understand persons of different races." Id., at 330, 123 S.Ct. 2325 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Equally important, "student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Increasing minority enrollment may be instrumental to these educational benefits, but it is not, as petitioner seems to suggest, a goal that can or should be reduced to pure numbers. Indeed, since the University is prohibited from seeking a particular number or quota of minority students, it cannot be faulted for failing to specify the particular level of minority enrollment at which it believes the educational benefits of diversity will be obtained.
On the other hand, asserting an interest in the educational benefits of diversity writ large is insufficient. A university's goals cannot be elusory or amorphous-they must be sufficiently measurable to permit judicial scrutiny of the policies adopted to reach them.
The record reveals that in first setting forth its current admissions policy, the University articulated concrete and precise goals. On the first page of its 2004 "Proposal to Consider Race and Ethnicity in Admissions," the University identifies the educational values it seeks to realize through its admissions process: the destruction of stereotypes, the " 'promot[ion of] cross-racial understanding,' " the preparation of a student body " 'for an increasingly diverse workforce and society,' " and the " 'cultivat[ion of] a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry.' " Supp. App. 1a; see also id., at 69a; App. 314a-315a (deposition of N. Bruce Walker (Walker Dep.)), 478a-479a (Walker Aff. ¶ 4) (setting forth the same goals). Later in the proposal, the University explains that it strives to provide an "academic environment" that offers a "robust exchange of ideas, exposure to differing cultures, preparation for the challenges of an increasingly diverse workforce, and acquisition of competencies required of future leaders." Supp. App. 23a. All of these objectives, as a general matter, mirror the "compelling interest" this Court has approved in its prior cases.
The University has provided in addition a "reasoned, principled explanation" for its decision to pursue these goals. Fisher I, supra, at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2419. The University's 39-page proposal was written following a year-long study, which concluded that "[t]he use of race-neutral policies and programs ha[d] not been successful" in "provid[ing] an educational setting that fosters cross-racial understanding, provid[ing] enlightened discussion and learning, [or] prepar[ing] students to function in an increasingly diverse workforce and society." Supp. App. 25a; see also App. 481a-482a (Walker Aff. ¶¶ 8-12) (describing the "thoughtful review" the University undertook when it faced the "important decision... whether or not to use race in its admissions process"). Further support for the University's conclusion can be found in the depositions and affidavits from various admissions officers, all of whom articulate the same, consistent "reasoned, principled explanation." See, e.g., id., at 253a (Ishop Dep.), 314a-318a, 359a (Walker Dep.), 415a-416a (Defendant's Statement of Facts), 478a-479a, 481a-482a (Walker Aff. ¶¶ 4, 10-13). Petitioner's contention that the University's goal was insufficiently concrete is rebutted by the record.
Second, petitioner argues that the University has no need to consider race because it had already "achieved critical mass" by 2003 using the Top Ten Percent Plan and race-neutral holistic review. Brief for Petitioner 46. Petitioner is correct that a university bears a heavy burden in showing that it had not obtained the educational benefits of diversity before it turned to a race-conscious plan. The record reveals, however, that, at the time of petitioner's application, the University could not be faulted on this score. Before changing its policy the University conducted "months of study and deliberation, including retreats, interviews, [and] review of data," App. 446a, and concluded that "[t]he use of race-neutral policies and programs ha[d] not been successful in achieving" sufficient racial diversity at the University, Supp. App. 25a. At no stage in this litigation has petitioner challenged the University's good faith in conducting its studies, and the Court properly declines to consider the extrarecord materials the dissent relies upon, many of which are tangential to this case at best and none of which the University has had a full opportunity to respond to. See, e.g., post, at 2240 (opinion of ALITO, J.) (describing a 2015 report regarding the admission of applicants who are related to "politically connected individuals").
The record itself contains significant evidence, both statistical and anecdotal, in support of the University's position. To start, the demographic data the University has submitted show consistent stagnation in terms of the percentage of minority students enrolling at the University from 1996 to 2002. In 1996, for example, 266 African-American freshmen enrolled, a total that constituted 4.1 percent of the incoming class. In 2003, the year Grutter was decided, 267 African-American students enrolled-again, 4.1 percent of the incoming class. The numbers for Hispanic and Asian-American students tell a similar story. See Supp. App. 43a. Although demographics alone are by no means dispositive, they do have some value as a gauge of the University's ability to enroll students who can offer underrepresented perspectives.
In addition to this broad demographic data, the University put forward evidence that minority students admitted under the Hopwood regime experienced feelings of loneliness and isolation. See, e.g., App. 317a-318a.
This anecdotal evidence is, in turn, bolstered by further, more nuanced quantitative data. In 2002, 52 percent of undergraduate classes with at least five students had no African-American students enrolled in them, and 27 percent had only one African-American student. Supp. App. 140a. In other words, only 21 percent of undergraduate classes with five or more students in them had more than one African-American student enrolled. Twelve percent of these classes had no Hispanic students, as compared to 10 percent in 1996. Id., at 74a, 140a. Though a college must continually reassess its need for race-conscious review, here that assessment appears to have been done with care, and a reasonable determination was made that the University had not yet attained its goals.
Third, petitioner argues that considering race was not necessary because such consideration has had only a "'minimal impact' in advancing the [University's] compelling interest." Brief for Petitioner 46; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 23:10-12; 24:13-25:2, 25:24-26:3. Again, the record does not support this assertion. In 2003, 11 percent of the Texas residents enrolled through holistic review were Hispanic and 3.5 percent were African-American. Supp. App. 157a. In 2007, by contrast, 16.9 percent of the Texas holistic-review freshmen were Hispanic and 6.8 percent were African-American. Ibid. Those increases-of 54 percent and 94 percent, respectively-show that consideration of race has had a meaningful, if still limited, effect on the diversity of the University's freshman class.
In any event, it is not a failure of narrow tailoring for the impact of racial consideration to be minor. The fact that race consciousness played a role in only a small portion of admissions decisions should be a hallmark of narrow tailoring, not evidence of unconstitutionality.
Petitioner's final argument is that "there are numerous other available race-neutral means of achieving" the University's compelling interest. Brief for Petitioner 47. A review of the record reveals, however, that, at the time of petitioner's application, none of her proposed alternatives was a workable means for the University to attain the benefits of diversity it sought. For example, petitioner suggests that the University could intensify its outreach efforts to African-American and Hispanic applicants. But the University submitted extensive evidence of the many ways in which it already had intensified its outreach efforts to those students. The University has created three new scholarship programs, opened new regional admissions centers, increased its recruitment budget by half-a-million dollars, and organized over 1,000 recruitment events. Supp. App. 29a-32a; App. 450a-452a (citing affidavit of Michael Orr ¶¶ 4-20). Perhaps more significantly, in the wake of Hopwood, the University spent seven years attempting to achieve its compelling interest using race-neutral holistic review. None of these efforts succeeded, and petitioner fails to offer any meaningful way in which the University could have improved upon them at the time of her application.
Petitioner also suggests altering the weight given to academic and socioeconomic factors in the University's admissions calculus. This proposal ignores the fact that the University tried, and failed, to increase diversity through enhanced consideration of socioeconomic and other factors. And it further ignores this Court's precedent making clear that the Equal Protection Clause does not force universities to choose between a diverse student body and a reputation for academic excellence. Grutter, 539 U.S., at 339, 123 S.Ct. 2325.
Petitioner's final suggestion is to uncap the Top Ten Percent Plan, and admit more-if not all-the University's students through a percentage plan. As an initial matter, petitioner overlooks the fact that the Top Ten Percent Plan, though facially neutral, cannot be understood apart from its basic purpose, which is to boost minority enrollment. Percentage plans are "adopted with racially segregated neighborhoods and schools front and center stage." Fisher I, 570 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2433 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting). "It is race consciousness, not blindness to race, that drives such plans." Ibid. Consequently, petitioner cannot assert simply that increasing the University's reliance on a percentage plan would make its admissions policy more race neutral.
Even if, as a matter of raw numbers, minority enrollment would increase under such a regime, petitioner would be hard-pressed to find convincing support for the proposition that college admissions would be improved if they were a function of class rank alone. That approach would sacrifice all other aspects of diversity in pursuit of enrolling a higher number of minority students. A system that selected every student through class rank alone would exclude the star athlete or musician whose grades suffered because of daily practices and training. It would exclude a talented young biologist who struggled to maintain above-average grades in humanities classes. And it would exclude a student whose freshman-year grades were poor because of a family crisis but who got herself back on track in her last three years of school, only to find herself just outside of the top decile of her class.
These are but examples of the general problem. Class rank is a single metric, and like any single metric, it will capture certain types of people and miss others. This does not imply that students admitted through holistic review are necessarily more capable or more desirable than those admitted through the Top Ten Percent Plan. It merely reflects the fact that privileging one characteristic above all others does not lead to a diverse student body. Indeed, to compel universities to admit students based on class rank alone is in deep tension with the goal of educational diversity as this Court's cases have defined it. See Grutter, supra, at 340, 123 S.Ct. 2325 (explaining that percentage plans "may preclude the university from conducting the individualized assessments necessary to assemble a student body that is not just racially diverse, but diverse along all the qualities valued by the university"); 758 F.3d, at 653 (pointing out that the Top Ten Percent Law leaves out students "who fell outside their high school's top ten percent but excelled in unique ways that would enrich the diversity of [the University's] educational experience" and "leaves a gap in an admissions process seeking to create the multi-dimensional diversity that [Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978),] envisions"). At its center, the Top Ten Percent Plan is a blunt instrument that may well compromise the University's own definition of the diversity it seeks.
In addition to these fundamental problems, an admissions policy that relies exclusively on class rank creates perverse incentives for applicants. Percentage plans "encourage parents to keep their children in low-performing segregated schools, and discourage students from taking challenging classes that might lower their grade point averages." Gratz, 539 U.S., at 304, n. 10, 123 S.Ct. 2411 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting).
For all these reasons, although it may be true that the Top Ten Percent Plan in some instances may provide a path out of poverty for those who excel at schools lacking in resources, the Plan cannot serve as the admissions solution that petitioner suggests. Wherever the balance between percentage plans and holistic review should rest, an effective admissions policy cannot prescribe, realistically, the exclusive use of a percentage plan.
In short, none of petitioner's suggested alternatives-nor other proposals considered or discussed in the course of this litigation-have been shown to be "available" and "workable" means through which the University could have met its educational goals, as it understood and defined them in 2008. Fisher I, supra, at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2420. The University has thus met its burden of showing that the admissions policy it used at the time it rejected petitioner's application was narrowly tailored.
* * *
A university is in large part defined by those intangible "qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness." Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 634, 70 S.Ct. 848, 94 L.Ed. 1114 (1950). Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission. But still, it remains an enduring challenge to our Nation's education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.
In striking this sensitive balance, public universities, like the States themselves, can serve as "laboratories for experimentation." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 581, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (KENNEDY, J., concurring); see also New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311, 52 S.Ct. 371, 76 L.Ed. 747 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). The University of Texas at Austin has a special opportunity to learn and to teach. The University now has at its disposal valuable data about the manner in which different approaches to admissions may foster diversity or instead dilute it. The University must continue to use this data to scrutinize the fairness of its admissions program; to assess whether changing demographics have undermined the need for a race-conscious policy; and to identify the effects, both positive and negative, of the affirmative-action measures it deems necessary.
The Court's affirmance of the University's admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University's ongoing obligation to engage
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
More than a century after their passage, the Civil Rights Acts of the Reconstruction Era continue to present difficult problems of statutory construction. Cf. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U. S. 600. In the case now before us, we consider the scope of 42 U. S. C. § 1985 (3) (1976 ed., Supp. II), the surviving version of § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
The respondent, John R. Novotny, began his career with the Great American Federal Savings and Loan Association (hereinafter Association) in Allegheny County, Pa., in 1950. By 1975, he was secretary of the Association, a member of its board of directors, and a loan officer. According to the allegations of the complaint in this case the Association “intentionally and deliberately embarked upon and pursued a course of conduct the effect of which was to deny to female employees equal employment opportunity . . . When Novotny expressed support for the female employees at a meeting of the board of directors, his connection with the Association abruptly ended. He was not re-elected as secretary; he was not reelected to the board; and he was fired. His support for the Association’s female employees, he alleges, was the cause of the termination of his employment.
Novotny filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title VII of the Civil Eights Act of 1964. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, he brought this lawsuit against the Association and its directors in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He claimed damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1985 (3) (1976 ed., Supp. II), contending that he had been injured as the result of a conspiracy to deprive him of equal protection of and equal privileges and immunities under the laws. The District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It held that § 1985 (3) could not be invoked because the directors of a single corporation could not, as a matter of law and fact, engage in a conspiracy. 430 F. Supp. 227, 230.
Novotny appealed. After oral argument before a three-judge panel, the case was reargued before the en banc Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which unanimously reversed the District Court’s judgment. 584 F. 2d 1235. The Court of Appeals ruled that Novotny had stated a cause of action under § 1985 (3). It held that conspiracies motivated by an invidious animus against women fall within § 1985 (3), and that Novotny, a male allegedly injured as a result of such a conspiracy, had standing to bring suit under that statutory provision. It ruled that Title VII could be the source of a right asserted in an action under § 1985 (3), and that intra-corporate conspiracies come within the intendment of the section. Finally, the court concluded that its construction of § 1985 (3) did not present any serious constitutional problem.
We granted certiorari, 439 U. S. 1066, to consider the applicability of § 1985 (3) to the facts alleged in Novotny’s complaint.
II
The legislative history of § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, of which § 1985 (3) was originally a part, has been reviewed many times in this Court. The section as first enacted authorized both criminal and civil actions against those who have conspired to deprive others of federally guaranteed rights. Before the 19th century ended, however, the Court found the criminal provisions of the statute unconstitutional because they exceeded the scope of congressional power, United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629; Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 678, and the provisions thus invalidated were later formally repealed by Congress. The civil action provided by the Act remained, but for many years was rarely, if ever, invoked.
The provisions of what is now § 1985 (3) were not fully considered by this Court until 1951, in the case of Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U. S. 651. There the Court concluded that the section protected citizens only from injuries caused by conspiracies “under color of state law.” Twenty years later, in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88, the Court unanimously concluded that the Collins Court had accorded to the provisions of § 1985 (3) too narrow a scope. The fears concerning congressional power that had motivated the Court in the Collins case had been dissolved by intervening cases. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, supra, at 96-97, 104-106. Therefore, the Court found that § 1985 (3) did provide a cause of action for damages caused by purely private conspiracies.
The Court’s opinion in Griffin discerned the following criteria for measuring whether a complaint states a cause of action under § 1985 (3):
“To come within the legislation a complaint must allege that the defendants did (1) ‘conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another’ (2) ‘for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.’ It must then assert that one or more of the conspirators (3) did, or caused to be done, ‘any act in furtherance of the object of [the] conspiracy,’ whereby another was (4a) ‘injured in his person or property’ or (4b) ‘deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.’ ” 403 U. S., at 102-103.
Section 1985 (3) provides no substantive rights itself; it merely provides a remedy for violation of the rights it designates. The primary question in the present case, therefore, is whether a person injured by a conspiracy to violate § 704 (a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is deprived of “the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws” within the meaning of § 1985 (3).
Under Title VII, cases of alleged employment discrimination are subject to a detailed administrative and judicial process designed to provide an opportunity for nonjudicial and nonadversary resolution of claims. As the Court explained in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 44:
“Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seg., to assure equality of employment opportunities by eliminating those practices and devices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin .... Cooperation and voluntary compliance were selected as the preferred means for achieving this goal. To this end, Congress created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and established a procedure whereby existing state and local employment opportunity agencies, as well as the Commission, would have an opportunity to settle disputes through conference, conciliation, and persuasion before the aggrieved party was permitted to file a lawsuit.”
As part of its comprehensive plan, Congress provided that a complainant in a State or locality with a fair employment commission must first go to that commission with his claim. Alternatively, an employee who believes himself aggrieved must first file a charge with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The time limitations for administrative and judicial filing are controlled by express provisions of the statute. At several different points, the statutory plan prevents immediate filing of judicial proceedings in order to encourage voluntary conciliation. The EEOC has the power to investigate and to prosecute a civil action in a complainant's case. The Act provides for injunctive relief, specifically including backpay relief. The majority of the federal courts have held that the Act does not allow a court to award general or punitive damages. The Act expressly allows the prevailing party to recover his attorney’s fees, and, in some cases, provides that a district court may appoint counsel for a plaintiff. Because the Act expressly authorizes only equitable remedies, the courts have consistently held that neither party has a right to a jury trial.
If a violation of Title VII could be asserted through § 1985 (3), a complainant could avoid most if not all of these detailed and specific provisions of the law. Section 1985 (3) éxpressly authorizes compensatory damages; punitive damages might well follow. The plaintiff or defendant might demand a jury trial. The short and precise time limitations of Title VII would be grossly altered. Perhaps most importantly, the complainant could completely bypass the administrative process, which plays such a crucial role in the scheme established by Congress in Title VII.
The problem in this case is closely akin to that in Brown v. GSA, 425 U. S. 820. There, we held that § 717 of Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination claims of those federal employees that it covers. Our conclusion was based on the proposition that
“[t]he balance, completeness, and structural integrity of § 717 are inconsistent with the petitioner’s contention that the judicial remedy afforded by § 717 (c) was designed merely to supplement other putative judicial relief.” 425 U. S., at 832.
Here, the case is even more compelling. In Brown, the Court concluded that § 717 displaced other causes of action arguably available to .assert substantive rights similar to those granted by § 717. Section 1985 (3), by contrast, creates no rights. It is a purely remedial statute, providing a civil cause of action when some otherwise defined federal right — to equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities under the laws — is breached by a conspiracy in the manner defined by the section. Thus, we are not faced in this case with a question of implied repeal. The right Novotny claims under § 704 (a) did not even arguably exist before the passage of Title VII. The only question here, therefore, is whether the rights created by Title VII may be asserted within the remedial framework of § 1985 (3).
This case thus differs markedly from the cases recently decided by this Court that have related the substantive provisions of last century’s Civil Rights Acts to contemporary legislation conferring similar substantive rights. In those cases we have held that substantive rights conferred in the 19th century were not withdrawn, sub silentio, by the subsequent passage of the modern statutes. Thus, in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 413-417, we considered the effect of the fair housing provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 on the property rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, now codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1982. And in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454, 457-461, we held that the passage of Title VII did not work an implied repeal of the substantive rights to contract conferred by the same 19th-century statute and now codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1981. See also Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229, 237-238; Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 174-175.
Somewhat similarly, in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, the Court upheld an employee’s invocation of two alternative remedies for alleged employment discrimination: arbitration under a collective-bargaining agreement, and litigation under Title VII. As the Court pointed out:
“In submitting his grievance to arbitration, an employee seeks to vindicate his contractual right under a collective bargaining agreement. By contrast, in filing a lawsuit under Title VII, an employee asserts independent statutory rights accorded by Congress. The distinctly separate nature of these contractual and statutory rights is not vitiated merely because both were violated as a result of the same factual occurrence. And certainly no inconsistency results from permitting both rights to be enforced in their respectively appropriate forums.” Id., at 49-50.
This case, by contrast, does not involve two “independent” rights, and for the same basic reasons that underlay the Court’s decision in Brown v. GSA, supra, reinforced by the other considerations discussed in this opinion,.we conclude that § 1985 (3) may not be invoked to redress violations of Title VII. It is true that a § 1985 (3) remedy would not be coextensive with Title VII, since a plaintiff in an action under § 1985 (3) must prove both a conspiracy and a group animus that Title VII does not require. While this incomplete congruity would limit the damage that would be done to Title VII, it would not eliminate it. Unimpaired effectiveness can be given to the plan put together by Congress in Title VII only by holding that deprivation of a right created by Title VII cannot be the basis for a cause of action under § 1985 (3).
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Title 42 U. S. C. §1985 (3) (1976 ed., Supp. II), Rev. Stat. § 1980, provides:
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws; or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”
42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq.
42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (f)(1).
His complaint also alleged, as a second cause .of action, that his discharge was in retaliation for his efforts on behalf of equal employment opportunity, and thus violated § 704 (a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 257, as amended, 86 Stat. 109. Section 704 (a), as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-3 (a), reads in relevant part:
“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees .. . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subehapter.”
As to the Title VII claim, the District Court held that Novotny was not a proper plaintiff under § 704 (a).
The Court of Appeals ruled that Novotny had also stated a valid cause of action under Title YII. It held that § 704 (a) applies to retaliation for both formal and informal actions taken to advance the purposes of the Act. That holding is not now before this Court.
We note the relative narrowness of the specific issue before the Court. It is unnecessary for us to consider whether a plaintiff would have a cause of action under § 1985 (3) where the defendant was not subject to suit under Title VII or a comparable statute. Cf. United, States v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 563. Nor do we think it necessary to consider whether § 1985 (3) creates a remedy for statutory rights other than those fundamental rights derived from the Constitution. Cf. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88.
A partial list of the opinions in this Court that have discussed the Act’s legislative history includes Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U. S. 600, 608-612 (opinion of the Court); id., at 650-658 (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 627-640 (Powell, J., concurring); Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658, 665-689; District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U. S. 418, 423, 425-429; Griffin v. Breckenridge, supra, at 99-101; Adickes v. S. H. Kress Co., 398 U. S. 144, 162-166 (opinion of the Court); id., at 215-231 (BrenNAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 172-185 (opinion of the Court); id., at 194-198 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 225-236 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
At least two earlier cases in this Court involved causes of action based upon what is now § 1985 (3). In Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, the plaintiff had stated claims based on the predecessors of both § 1985 (3) and 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The opinions of Mr. Justice Roberts and Mr. Justice Stone both discussed the § 1983 cause of action, but neither discussed the conspiracy claim. In Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1, the plaintiff had also stated claims under the predecessors of both sections. The Court held that no constitutional violation had been shown, and did not consider whether the statutes could have been utilized if such a showing had been made.
Mr. Justice Burton dissented, joined by Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas. 341 U. S., at 663.
Mr. Justice Harlan concurred, with one reservation. He found it unnecessary to rely, as the Court did in part, on the defendants’ alleged interference with the right of interstate travel. 403 U. S., at 107.
For the purposes of this question, we assume but certainly do not decide that the directors of a single corporation can form a conspiracy within the meaning of § 198.5 (3).
Title 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (b) provides for filing charges with the federal Commission. When a State or locality has a “State or local law prohibiting the unlawful employment practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto,” filing a complaint with that authority is a predicate for assertion of the federal rights involved. 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (c). If a member of the EEOC files a charge alleging violations in such a State or locality, the federal Commission must notify the state or local authority of the charge before taking any action. 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(d). Cf. Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S. 522.
The statute requires that a complaint be filed with the federal agency within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred . . . If the complainant has filed a charge with a state or local agency, the time is extended to 300 days from the event, or 30 days from the end of state or local proceedings, whichever is sooner. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (e). After a “right to sue” letter issues from the EEOC, the complainant is given another 90 days to bring a civil action in a federal district court. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1). Cf. United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U. S. 553.
Within 10 days of the Commission’s receipt of a complaint, it must notify the employer of the charge, including the date, place, and circumstances of the alleged violation. 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000&-5 (b), (e). Only if the Commission has been unable to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement from the employer within 30 days of the filing of the charge may it bring a civil action against the employer. 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(f)(1). The complainant must await notice from the Commission of his right to bring a suit. This notice is provided if (1) the Commission dismisses his charge, (2) neither the Commission nor the Attorney General has filed a civil action in his case within 180 days of the filing of the charge, or (3) the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which he is a party. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f)(1). Cf. Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355.
42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-5 (a), (b), (f)(1). See Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, supra.
Section 706 (g) of the Act, as amended, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (g), provides:
“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. Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable. No order of the court shall require the admission or reinstatement of an individual as a member of a union, or the hiring, reinstatement, or promotion of an individual as an employee, or the payment to him of any back pay, if such individual was refused admission, suspended, or expelled, or was refused employment or advancement or was suspended or discharged for any reason other than discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin or in violation of section 2000e-3 (a) of this title.”
See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405.
See EEOC v. Detroit Edison Co., 515 F. 2d 301, 308-310 (CA6 1975); Richerson v. Jones, 551 F. 2d 918, 926-928 (CA3 1977); cases collected in id., at 926 n. 13.
Title 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (k) provides:
“In any action or proceeding under this subchapter the court in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, and the Commission and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.”
See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412.
Title 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (f)(1) provides that “[u]pon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.”
See Slack v. Havens, 522 F. 2d 1091, 1094 (CA9 1975); EEOC v. Detroit Edison Co., supra, at 308; Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 417 F. 2d 1122, 1125 (CA5 1969); Smith v. Hampton Training School for Nurses, 360 F. 2d 577, 581 (CA4 1966) (en bane). See also Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, supra, at 441-445 (RehNQüist, J., concurring).
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently applied a 6-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations to employment discrimination claims brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1981. Davis v. United States Steel Supply, 681 F. 2d 335, 337 (1978). See also Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454, 462-466.
Another difference between those cases and this one is to be found in the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. As the Court noted in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, supra, and Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871 were explicitly discussed during the course of the legislative debates on both the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the 1972 amendments t’o the 1964 Act, and the view was consistently expressed that the earlier statutes would not be implicitly repealed. See Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, supra, at 457-459; Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., supra, at 413-417. Specific references were made to §§ 1981 and 1983, but, significantly, no notice appears to have been taken of § 1985. See case below, 584 F. 2d 1235, 1252 n. 86.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
American railroads have always largely depended upon income from the long-distance transportation of heavy freight for economic survival. During the early years of their existence, they had virtually no competition in this aspect of their business, but, as early as the 1920’s, the growth of the trucking industry in this country began to bring about changes in this situation. For the truckers found, just as the railroads had learned earlier, that a very profitable part of the transportation business was the long hauling of heavy freight. As the trucking industry became more and more powerful, the competition between it and the railroads for this business became increasingly intense until, during the period following the conclusion of World War II, at least the railroads, if not both of the competing groups, came to view the struggle as one of economic life or death for their method of transportation. The present litigation is an outgrowth of one part of that struggle.
The case was commenced by a complaint filed in the United States District Court in Pennsylvania on behalf of 41 Pennsylvania truck operators and their trade association, the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association. This complaint, which named as' defendants 24 Eastern railroads, an association of the presidents of those railroads known as the Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference, and a public relations firm, Carl Byoir & Associates, Inc., charged that the defendants had conspired to restrain trade in and monopolize the long-distance freight business in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The gist of the conspiracy alleged was that the railroads had engaged Byoir to conduct a publicity campaign against the truckers designed to foster the adoption and retention of laws and law enforcement practices destructive of the trucking business, to create an atmosphere of distaste for the truckers among the general public, and to impair the relationships existing between the truckers and their customers. The campaign so conducted was described in the complaint as “vicious, corrupt, and fraudulent,first, in that the sole motivation behind it was the desire on the part of the railroads to injure the truckers and eventually to destroy them as competitors in the long-distance freight business, and, secondly, in that the defendants utilized the so-called third-party technique, that is, the publicity matter circulated in the campaign was made to appear as spontaneously expressed views of independent persons and civic groups when, in fact, it was largely prepared and produced by Byoir. and paid for by the railroads. The complaint then went on to supplement these more or less general allegations with specific charges as to particular instances in which the railroads had attempted to influence legislation by means of their publicity campaign. One of several such charges was that the defendants had succeeded in persuading the Governor of Pennsylvania to veto a measure known as the “Fair Truck Bill,” which would have permitted truckers to carry heavier loads over Pennsylvania roads.
The prayer of the complaint was for treble damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act and an injunction restraining the defendants from further acts in pursuance of the conspiracy. Insofar as the prayer for damages was concerned, a stipulation was entered that the only damages suffered by the individual truck operators was the loss of business that resulted from the veto of the “Fair Truck Bill” by the Governor of Pennsylvania, and accordingly the claim for damages was limited to an amount based upon the loss of profits as a result of this veto plus the expenses incurred by the truckers’ trade association for the purpose of combatting the railroads’ publicity campaign. The prayer for injunctive relief was much broader, however, asking that the defendants be restrained from disseminating any disparaging information about the truckers without disclosing railroad participation, from attempting to exert any pressure upon the legislature or Governor of Pennsylvania through the medium of front organizations, from paying any private or public organizations to propagate the arguments of the railroads against the truckers or their business, and from doing “any other act or thing to further . . . the objects and purposes” of the conspiracy.
In their answer to this complaint, the railroads admitted that they had conducted a publicity campaign designed to influence the passage of state laws relating to truck weight limits and tax rates on heavy trucks, and to encourage a more rigid enforcement of state laws penalizing trucks for overweight loads and other traffic violations, but they denied that their campaign was motivated either by a desire to destroy the trucking business as a competitor or to interfere with the relationships between the truckers and their customers. Rather, they insisted, the campaign was conducted in furtherance of their rights “to inform the public and the legislatures of the several states of the truth with regard to the enormous damage done to the roads by the operators of heavy and especially of overweight trucks, with regard to their repeated and deliberate violations of the law limiting the weight and speed of big trucks,, with regard to their failure to pay their fair share of the cost of constructing, maintaining and repairing the roads, and with regard to the driving hazards they create . . . .” Such a campaign, the defendants maintained, did not constitute a violation of the Sherman Act, presumably because that Act could not properly be interpreted to apply either to restraints of trade or monopoliza-tions that result from the passage or enforcement of laws or to efforts of individuals to bring about the passage or enforcement of laws.
Subsequently, defendants broadened the scope of the litigation by filing a counterclaim in which they charged that the truckers had themselves violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to destroy the railroads’ competition in the long-distance freight business and to monopolize that business for heavy trucks. The means of the conspiracy alleged in the counterclaim were much the same as those with which the truckers had charged the railroads in the original complaint, including allegations of the conduct of a malicious publicity campaign designed to destroy the railroads’ business by law, to create an atmosphere hostile to the railroads among the general public, and to interfere with relationships existing between the railroads and their customers. The prayer for relief of the counterclaim, like that of the truckers’ original complaint, was for treble damages and an injunction restraining continuance of the allegedly unlawful practices. In their reply to this counterclaim, the truckers denied each of the allegations that charged a violation of the Sherman Act and, in addition, interposed a number of affirmative defenses, none of which are relevant here.
In this posture, the case went to trial. After hearings, the trial court entered a judgment, based úpon extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, that the railroads’ publicity campaign had violated the Sherman Act while that of the truckers had not. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court expressly disclaimed any purpose to condemn as illegal mere efforts on the part of the railroads to influence the passage of new legislation or the enforcement of existing law. Instead, it rested its judgment upon findings, first,, that the railroads’ publicity campaign, insofar as it was actually directed at lawmaking and law enforcement authorities, was malicious and fraudulent — malicious in that its only purpose was to destroy the truckers as competitors, and fraudulent in that it was predicated upon the deceiving of those authorities through the use of the third-party technique; and, secondly, that the railroads’ campaign also had as an important, if not overriding, purpose the destruction of the truckers’ goodwill, among both the general public and the truckers’ existing customers, and thus injured the truckers in ways unrelated to the passage or enforcement of law. In line with its theory that restraints of trade and monopoliza-tions resulting from valid laws are hot actionable under the Sherman Act, however, the trial court awarded only nominal damages to the individual truckers, holding that no damages were recoverable for loss of business due to the veto of the Pennsylvania “Fair Truck Bill.” The judgment did, however, award-substantial damages to the truckers’ trade association as well as the broad injunction asked for in the complaint.
The conclusion that the truckers’ publicity campaign had not violated the Sherman Act was reached despite findings that the truckers also had engaged in a publicity campaign designed to influence legislation, as charged in the counterclaim, and despite findings that the truckers had utilized the third-party technique in this campaign. Resting largely upon the fact that the efforts of the truckers were directed, at least for the most part, at trying to get legislation passed that was beneficial to them rather than harmful to the railroads, the trial court found that the truckers’ campaign was purely defensive in purpose and concluded that the truckers’ campaign differed from that of the railroads in that the truckers were not trying to destroy a competitor. Accordingly, it held that the truckers’ campaign, though technically in restraint of trade, was well within the rule of reason which governs the interpretation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and consequently dismissed the counterclaim.
The railroads appealed from this judgment, both as to the conclusion that they had violated the Sherman Act as charged in the original complaint and as to the conclusion that the truckers had not violated the Act as charged in the counterclaim. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, one judge dissenting in part, upheld the judgment of the District Court in every respect, stating that the findings amply support the judgment and that there was sufficient evidence to support all of the findings. This was followed by a petition for certiorari filed on behalf of the railroads and Byoir limited to the question of the correctness of the judgment insofar as it held that they had violated the Sherman Act. Because the case presents a new and unusual application of the Sherman Act and involves severe restrictions upon the rights of these railroads and others to seek the passage or defeat of legislation when deemed desirable, we granted that petition.
We accept, as the starting point for our consideration of the case, the same basic construction of the Sherman Act adopted by the courts below — that no violation of the Act can be predicated upon mere attempts to influence the passage or enforcement of laws. It has been recognized, at least since the landmark decision of this Court in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, that the Sherman Act forbids only those trade restraints and monopolizations that are created, or attempted, by the acts of “individuals or combinations of individuals or corporations.” Accordingly, it has been held that where a restraint upon trade or monopolization is the result of valid governmental action, as opposed to private action, no violation of the Act can be made out. These decisions rest upon the fact that under our form of government the question whether a law of that kind should pass, or if passed be enforced, is the responsibility of the appropriate legislative or executive branch of government so long as the law itself does not violate some provision of the Constitution.
We think it equally clear that the Sherman Act does not prohibit two or more persons from associating together in an attempt to persuade the legislature or the executive to take particular action with respect to a law that would produce a restraint or a monopoly. Although such associations could perhaps, through a process of expansive construction, be brought within the general proscription of “combination [s] ... in restraint of trade,” they bear very little if any resemblance to the combinations normally held violative of the Sherman Act, combinations ordinarily characterized by an express or implied agreement or understanding that the participants will jointly give up their trade freedom, or help one another to take away the trade freedom of others through the use of such devices as price-fixing agreements, boycotts, market-division agreements, and other similar arrangements. This essential dissimilarity between an agreement jointly to seek legislation or law enforcement and the agreements traditionally condemned by § 1 of the Act, even if not itself conclusive on the question of the applicability of the Act, does constitute a warning against treating the defendants’ conduct as though it amounted to a common-law trade restraint. And we do think that the question is conclusively settled, against the application of the Act, when this factor of essential dissimilarity is considered along with the other difficulties that would be presented by a holding that the Sherman Act forbids associations for the purpose of influencing the passage or enforcement of laws.
In the first place, such a holding would substantially impair the power of government to take actions through its legislature and executive that operate to restrain trade. In a representative democracy such as this, these branches of government act on behalf of the people and, to a very large extent, the whole concept of representation depends upon the ability of the people to make their wishes known to their representatives. To hold that the government retains the power to act in this representative capacity and yet hold, at the same time, that the people cannot freely inform the government of their wishes would impute to the Sherman Act a purpose to regulate, not business activity, but political activity, a purpose which would have no basis whatever in the legislative history of that Act. Secondly, and of at least equal significance, such a construction of the Sherman Act would raise important constitutional questions. The right of petition is one of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights^ and we" cannot, of course, lightly impute to Congress an intent to invade these freedoms. Indeed, such an imputation would be particularly- unjustified in this case in view~of all the countervailing considerations enumerated above. For these reasons, we think it clear that the Sherman Act does not apply to the activities of the railroads-atieast insofar as those activities comprised mere solicitation of governmental action with respect to the passage and enforcement of laws. We are thus called upon to consider whether the courts below were correct in holding that, notwithstanding this principle, the Act was violated here because of the presence in the railroads’ publicity campaign of additional factors sufficient to take the case out of the area in which the principle is controlling.
The first such factor relied upon was the fact, established by the finding of the District Court, that the railroads’ sole purpose in seeking to influence the passage and enforcement of laws was to destroy the truckers as competitors for the long-distance freight business. But we do not see how this fact, even if adequately supported in the record, could transform conduct otherwise lawful into a violation of the Sherman Act. All of the considerations that have led us to the conclusion that the Act does not apply to mere group solicitation of governmental action are equally applicable in spite of the addition of this factor. The right of the people to inform their representatives in government of their desires with respect to the passage or enforcement of laws cannot properly be made to depend upon their intent in doing so. It is neither unusual nor illegal for people to seek action on laws in the hope that they may bring about an advantage to themselves and a disadvantage to their competitors. This Court has expressly recognized this fact in its opinion in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., where it was said: “If ulterior motives of corporate aggrandizement stimulated their activities, their efforts were not thereby rendered unlawful. If the Act and Order are otherwise valid, the fact that their effect would be to give cooperatives a monopoly of the market would not violate the Sherman Act . . . Indeed, it is quite probably people with just such a hope of personal advantage who provide much of the information upon which governments must act. A construction of the Sherman Act that would disqualify people from taking a public position on matters in which they are financially interested would thus deprive the government of a valuable source of information and, at the same time, deprive the people of their right to petition in the very instances in which that right may be of the most importance to them. . We reject such a construction of the Act and hold that, at least insofar as the railroads’ campaign was directed toward obtaining governmental action, its legality was not at all affected by any anticompetitive purpose it may have had.
The second factor relied upon by the courts below to justify the application of the Sherman Act to the railroads’ publicity campaign was the use in the campaign of the so-called third-party technique. The theory under which this factor was related to the proscriptions of the Sherman Act, though not entirely clear from any of the opinions below, was apparently that it involved unethical business conduct on the part of the railroads. As pointed out above, the third-party technique, which was aptly -characterized by the District Court as involving “deception of the public, manufacture of bogus sources of reference, [and] distortion of public sources of information,” depends upon giving propaganda actually circulated by a party in interest the appearance of being spontaneous declarations of independent groups. We can certainly agree with the courts below that this technique, though in widespread use among practitioners of the art of public relations, is one which falls far short of the ethical standards generally approved in this country. It does not follow, however, that the use of the technique in a publicity campaign designed to influence governmental action constitutes a violation of the Sherman Act. Insofar as that Act sets up a code of ethics at all, it is a code that condemns trade restraints, not political activity, and, as we have already pointed out, a publicity campaign to influence governmental action falls clearly into the category of political activity. The proscriptions of the Act, tailored as they are for the business world, are not at all appropriate for application in the political arena. Congress has traditionally exercised extreme caution in legislating with respect to problems relating to the conduct of political activities, a caution which has been reflected in the decisions of this Court interpreting such legislation. All of this caution would go for naught if we permitted an extension of the Sherman Act to regulate activities of that nature simply because those activities have a commercial impact and involve conduct that can be termed unethical.
Moreover, we think the courts below themselves recognized this fact to some extent for their disposition of the case is inconsistent with the position that the use of the third-party technique alone could constitute a violation of the Sherman Act. This much is apparent from the fact that the railroads’ counterclaim against the truckers was not allowed. Since it is undisputed that the truckers were as guilty as the railroads of the use of the technique, this factor could not have been in any sense controlling of the holding against the railroads. Rather, it appears to have been relied upon primarily as an indication of the vicious nature of the campaign against the truckers. But whatever its purpose, we have come to the conclusion that the reliance of the lower courts upon this factor was misplaced and that the railroads’ use of the third-party technique was, so far as the Sherman Act is concerned, legally irrelevant.
In addition to the foregoing factors, both of which relate to the intent and methods of the railroads in seeking governmental action, the courts below rested their holding' that the Sherman Act had been violated upon a finding that the purpose of the railroads was “more than merely an attempt to obtain legislation. It was the purpose and intent ... to hurt the truckers in every way possible even though they secured no legislation.” (Emphasis in original.) Specifically, the District Court found that the purpose of the railroads was to destroy the goodwill of the truckers among the public generally and among the truckers’ customers particularly, in the hope that by doing so the over-all competitive position of the truckers would be weakened, and that the railroads were successful in these efforts to the extent that such injury was actually inflicted. The apparent effect of these findings is to take this case out of the category of those that involve restraints through governmental action and thus render inapplicable the principles announced above. But this effect is only apparent and cannot stand under close scrutiny. There are no specific findings that the railroads attempted directly to persuade anyone not to deal with the truckers. Moreover, all of the evidence in the record, both oral and documentary, deals with the railroads’ efforts to influence the passage and enforcement of laws. Circulars, speeches, newspaper articles, editorials, magazine articles, memoranda and all other documents discuss in one way or another the railroads’ charges that heavy trucks injure the roads, violate the laws and create traffic hazards, and urge that truckers should be forced to pay a fair share of the costs of rebuilding the roads, that they should be compelled to obey the laws, and that limits should be placed upon the weight of the loads they are permitted to carry. In the light of this, the findings of the District Court that the railroads’ campaign was intended to and did in fact injure the truckers in. their relationships with the public and with their customers can mean no more than .that the truckers sustained some direct injury as an incidental effect of the railroads’ campaign to influence governmental action and that the railroads were hopeful that this might happen. Thus, the issue presented by the lower courts’ conclusion of a violation of the Sherman Act on the basis of this injury is no different than the issue presented by the factors already discussed. It is inevitable, whenever an attempt is made to influence legislation by a campaign of publicity, that an incidental effect of that campaign may be the infliction of some direct injury upon the interests of the party against whom the campaign is directed. And it seems equally inevitable that those conducting the campaign would be aware of, and possibly even pleased by, the prospect of such injury. To hold that the knowing infliction of such injury renders the campaign itself illegal would thus be tantamount to outlawing all such campaigns. We have already discussed the reasons which have led us to the conclusion that- this has not been done by anything in the Sherman Act.
There may be situations in which a publicity campaign, ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action, is a 'mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor and the application of the Sherman Act would be justified. But this certainly is not the case here. No one denies that the railroads were making a genuine effort to influence legislation and law enforcement practices. Indeed, if the version of the facts set forth in the truckers’ complaint is fully credited, as it was by the courts below, that effort was not only genuine but also highly successful. Under these circumstances, we conclude that no attempt to interfere with business relationships in a manner proscribed by the Sherman Act is involved in this case.
In rejecting each of the grounds relied upon by the courts below to justify application of the Sherman Act to the campaign of the railroads, we have rejected the very grounds upon which those courts relied to distinguish the campaign conducted by the truckers. In doing so, we have restored what appears to be the true nature of the case — a “no-holds-barred-fight” between two industries both of which are seeking control of a profitable source of income. Inherent in such fights, which are commonplace in the halls of legislative bodies, is the possibility, and in many instances even the probability, that one group or the other will get hurt by the arguments that are made. In this particular instance, each group appears to have utilized all the political powers it could muster in an attempt to bring about the passage of laws that would help it or injure the other. But the contest itself appears to have been conducted along lines normally accepted in our political system, except to the extent that each group-has deliberately deceived the public and public officials. And that deception, reprehensible as it is, can be of no consequence so far as the Sherman Act is concerned. That Act was not violated by either the railroads or the truckers in their respective campaigns to influence legislation and law enforcement. Since the railroads have acquiesced in the dismissal of their counterclaim by not challenging the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of that order in their petition for certiorari, we are here concerned only with those parts of the judgments below holding the railroads and Byoir liable for violations of the Sherman Act. And it follows from what we have said that those parts of the judgments below are wrong. They must be and are
Reversed.
“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal . . . 15 U.S.C.§1.
“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .” 15 U. S. C. § 2.
For a discussion of the mechanics of this technique and the purposes generally underlying its use by public relations firms, see Ross, The Image Merchants, at 118, 226-227 and 266-267.
The. “Fair Truck Bill” referred to was introduced in the Pennsylvania Legislature in May 1951, as Senate bill 615.
“Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” 15 U. S. C. § 15.-
The answer to the trackers’ complaint also interposed a number of other defenses, including the contention that the activities complained of were constitutionally protected under the First Amendment and the contention that the truckers were barred from prosecuting this suit by reason of the fact that they had themselves engaged in conduct identical to that about which they were complaining with regard to the railroads and were thus in pan delicto. Because of the view we take of the proper construction of the Sherman Act, we find it unnecessary to consider any of these other defenses.
The opinion of the District Court on the merits of the controversy is reported at 155 F. Supp. 768. An additional opinion dealing with the question of relief is reported at 166 F. Supp. 163. For' reports of earlier opinions dealing with preliminary motions, see 113 F. Supp. 737, 14 F. R. D. 189, and 19 F. R. D. 146.
The District Gourt did not expressly find that any particular part of the railroads’ publicity campaign was false in its content. Rather, it found that the technique of the railroads was “to take a dramatic fragment of truth and by emphasis and repetition distort it into falsehood.” 155 F. Supp., at 814.
If anything, the injunction was even broader than had been requested in the complaint for it effectively enjoined the defendants from any publicity activities against the truckers whether or not the third-party technique was used. See 166 F. Supp., at 172-173.
The trial court did recognize that on at least one occasion the truckers attempted to encourage legislation that would have been directly harmful to the railroads rather than beneficial to themselves. Thus, the court found: "About the middle of the decade [the 1940’s] PMTA had a tax manual prepared charging that the railroads of Pennsylvania themselves did not pay their fair share of taxes as compared with other states and made a wide distribution of it to legislators, banks, security investment houses, etc.” The trial court found, however, that this action of the truckers also lay within the rule of- reason because “the truckers had been the target of a strong campaign directed to the public with the purpose of convincing the public that trucks did not pay their fair share of taxes,” thus making it necessary for the truckers to “be permitted to likewise show the public that their competitors, the railroads, were actually guilty of the fault charged against the truckers.” 155 F. Supp., at 803.
273 F. 2d 218. Chief Judge Biggs dissented from the opinion of the majority of the Court of Appeals insofar as it upheld the District Court’s conclusion that the railroads and Byoir had violated the Sherman Act. For similar reasons', he concurred in that part of the majority opinion which upheld the conclusion that the truckers had not violated the Act.
362 U. S. 947.
221 U. S. 1, at 51-62.
Id., at 57.
United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., 307 U. S. 533; Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341.
See Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U. S. 469, 491-493.
In Parker v. Brown, supra, this Court was unanimous in the conclusion that the language and legislative history of the Sherman Act would not warrant the invalidation of a state regulatory program as an unlawful restraint upon trade. In so holding, we rejected the contention that the program’s validity under the Sherman Act was affected by the nature of the political support necessary for its implementation — a contention not unlike that rejected here. The reasoning underlying that conclusion was stated succinctly by Mr. Chief Justice Stone: “Here the state command to the Commission and to the program committee of the California Prorate Act is not rendered unlawful by the Sherman Act since, in view of the latter’s words and history, it must be taken to be a prohibition of individual and not state action. It is the state which has created the machinery for establishing the prorate program'. Although the organization of a prorate zone is proposed by producers, and a prorate program, approved by the Commission, must also be approved by referendum of producers, it is' the state, acting through the Commission, which adopts the program and which enforces it with penal sanctions, in the execution of a governmental policy. The prerequisite approval of the program upon referendum by a prescribed number of producers is not the imposition by them of their will upon the minority by force of agreement or combination which the Sherman Act prohibits. The state itself exercises its legislative authority in making the regulation and in prescribing the conditions of its application.” 317 U. S., at 352.
A study of the record reveals that the only evidence or subsidiary findings upon which this conclusory finding could be based is the undisputed fact that the railroads did seek laws by arguments and propaganda that could have had the effect of damaging the competitive position of the truckers. There is thus an absence of evidence of intent independent of the efforts that were made to influence legislation and law enforcement. We nonetheless accept the finding of the District Court on this issue for, in our view, the disposition of this case must be the same regardless of that fact.
307 U. S. 533, 560.
The extent to which the third-party technique is utilized in the public relations field- is demonstrated by the fact, found by the District Court, that each of the several public relations firms interviewed by the railroads before they finally decided to hire the Byoir organization to conduct their publicity campaign included the use of this technique in its outline of proposed activities submitted for consideration by the railroads. See 155 F. Supp., at 778.
See, e. g., United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612. Cf. United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41.
The District Court expressly recognized this fact in its opinion: “The record discloses that both sides used, or wanted to use, fronts and/or the propaganda technique.” 155 F. Supp., at 816. This conclusion was amply supported by specific findings. Thus, the court found: “The record establishes that the truckers wrote to and made personal contacts with legislators in support of bills increasing the weight of trucks; that they had representatives of other industries write and make personal contacts with legislators in Harrisburg without disclosing trucker connections; and that they had such persons intentionally refrain from advising the legislators and the said officials that the letters and contacts had been solicited; that they solicited from legislators statements in support of their position and had news releases issued thereon.” 155 F. Supp., at 803.
Here again, the petitioners have leveled a vigorous attack upon the trial court’s findings. As a part of this attack, they urge that there is no basis in reason for the finding, that some shippers quit doing business with the truckers as a result of the railroads’ publicity campaign. Their contention is that since the theme of the campaign was that the truckers had an unfair competitive advantage and could consequently charge unfairly low prices, the campaign would have encouraged, rather than discouraged, shippers who availed themselves of the truckers’ services. This argument has considerable appeal but, as before, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the validity of these findings for we think the conclusion must be the same whether they are allowed to stand or not.
We borrow this phrase from the dissenting opinion below of Chief Judge Biggs.
Since the commencement of this litigation, a new bill increasing truck-weight limits has passed the Pennsylvania Legislature and has become law by virtue of the Governor’s approval. Thus, the fight goes on.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner Cross seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny these requests as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Cross is allowed until June 14,1999, within which to pay the docketing fees 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 further petitions for certiorari from Cross in noncriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Cross has repeatedly abused this Court’s certiorari process. On March 8, 1999, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Cross informa pauperis status with respect to four petitions for certiorari. See Cross v. Pelican Bay State Prison, post, p. 1003 (three eases); Cross v. Cambra, post, p. 1003. Before that time, Cross had filed six petitions for certiorari, all of which were both patently frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. The 2 instant petitions bring Cross’ total number of frivolous filings to 12, and he has 4 additional filings — all of them patently frivolous — pending before this Court.
We enter the order barring prospective filings reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Cross’ abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Cross from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. Similarly, because Cross has not abused this Court’s extraordinary writs procedures, the order will not prevent him from filing nonfrivolous petitions for extraordinary writs. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our certiorari 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.
Mb. Chief Justice.Burger
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Stevens joined.
The narrow question presented in this case is whether the right of the public and press to attend criminal trials is guaranteed. under the United States Constitution.
I
In March 1976, one Stevenson was indicted for the murder of a hotel manager who had been found stabbed to death on December 2, 1975. Tried promptly in July 1976, Stevenson was convicted of second-degree murder in the Circuit Court of Hanover County, Va. The Virginia Supreme Court reversed the conviction in October 1977, holding that a bloodstained shirt purportedly belonging to Stevenson had been improperly admitted into evidence. Stevenson v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 462, 237 S. E. 2d 779.
Stevenson was retried in the same court. This second trial ended in a mistrial on May 30, 1978, when a juror asked to be excused after trial had begun and no alternate was available.
A third trial, which began in the same court on June 6, 1978, also ended in a mistrial. It appears that the mistrial may have been declared because a prospective juror had read about Stevenson’s previous trials in a newspaper and had told other prospective jurors about the case before the retrial began. See App. 35a-36a.
Stevenson was tried in the same court for a fourth time beginning on September 11, 1978. Present in the courtroom when the case was called were appellants Wheeler and McCarthy, reporters for appellant Richmond Newspapers, Inc. Before the trial began, counsel for the defendant moved that it be closed to the public:
“[T]here was this woman that was with the family of the deceased when we were here before. She had sat in the Courtroom. I would like to ask that everybody be excluded from the Courtroom because I don’t want any information being shuffled back and forth when we have a recess as to what — who testified to what.” Tr. of Sept. 11, 1978 Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Close Trial to the Public 2-3.
The trial judge, who had presided over two of the three previous trials, asked if the prosecution had any objection to clearing the courtroom. The prosecutor stated he had no objection and would leave it to the discretion of the court. Id., at 4. Presumably referring to Va. Code § 19.2-266 (Supp. 1980), the trial judge then announced: “[T]he statute gives me that power specifically and the defendant has made the motion.” He then ordered “that the Courtroom be kept clear of all parties except the witnesses when they testify.” Tr., supra, at 4-5. The record does not show that any objections to the closure order were made by anyone present at the time, including appellants Wheeler and McCarthy.
Later that same day, however, appellants sought a hearing on a motion to vacate the closure order. The trial judge granted the request and scheduled a hearing to follow the close of the day’s proceedings. When the hearing began, the court ruled that the hearing was to be treated as part of the trial; accordingly, he again ordered the reporters to leave the courtroom, and they complied.
At the closed hearing, counsel for appellants observed that no evidentiary findings had been made by the court prior to the entry of its closure order and pointed out that the court had failed to consider any other, less drastic measures within its power to ensure a fair trial. Tr. of Sept. 11, 1978 Hearing on Motion to Vacate 11-12. Counsel for appellants argued that constitutional considerations mandated that before ordering closure, the court should first decide that the rights of the defendant could be protected in no other way.
Counsel for defendant Stevenson pointed out that this was the fourth time he was standing trial. He also referred to “difficulty with information between the jurors,” and stated that he “didn’t want information to leak out,” be published by the media, perhaps inaccurately, and then be seen by the jurors. Defense counsel argued that these things, plus the fact that “this is a small community,” made this a proper ease for closure. Id., at 16-18.
The trial judge noted that counsel for the defendant had made similar statements at the morning hearing. The court also stated:
“[0]ne of the other points that we take into consideration in this particular Courtroom is layout of the Courtroom. I think that having people in the Courtroom is distracting to the jury. Now, we have to have certain people in here and maybe that’s not a very good reason. When we get into our new Court Building, people can sit in the audience so the jury can’t see them. The rule of the Court may be different under those circumstances... Id., at 19.
The prosecutor again declined comment, and the court summed up by saying:
“I’m inclined to agree with [defense counsel] that, if I feel that the rights of the defendant are infringed in any way, [when] he makes the motion to do something and it doesn’t completely override all rights of everyone else, then I’m inclined to go along with the defendant’s motion.” Id., at 20.
The court denied the motion to vacate and ordered the trial to continue the following morning “with the press and public excluded.” Id., at 27; App. 21a.
What transpired when the closed trial resumed the next day was disclosed in the following manner by an order of the court entered September 12,1978:
“[I]n the absence of the jury, the defendant by counsel made a Motion that a mis-trial be declared, which motion was taken under advisement.
“At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence, the attorney for the defendant moved the Court to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence on grounds stated to the record, which Motion was sustained by the Court.
“And the jury having been excused, the Court doth find the accused NOT GUILTY of Murder, as charged in the Indictment, and he was allowed to depart.” Id., at 22a.
On September 27, 1978, the trial court granted appellants’ motion to intervene nunc pro tunc in the Stevenson case. Appellants then petitioned the Virginia Supreme Court for writs of mandamus and prohibition and filed an appeal from the trial court’s closure order. On July 9, 1979, the Virginia Supreme Court dismissed the mandamus and prohibition petitions and, finding no reversible error, denied the petition for appeal. Id., at 23a-28a.
Appellants then sought review in this Court, invoking both our appellate, 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), and certiorari jurisdiction. § 1257 (3). We postponed further consideration of the question of our jurisdiction to the hearing of the case on the merits. 444 U. S. 896 (1979). We conclude that jurisdiction by appeal does not lie; however, treating the filed papers as a petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2103, we grant the petition.
The criminal trial which appellants sought to attend has long since ended, and there is thus some suggestion that the case is moot. This Court has frequently recognized, however, that its jurisdiction is not necessarily defeated by the practical termination of a contest which is short-lived by nature. See, e. g., Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U. S. 368, 377-378 (1979); Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539, 546-547 (1976). If the underlying dispute is “capable of repetition, yet evading review," Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911), it is not moot.
Since the Virginia Supreme Court declined plenary review, it is reasonably foreseeable that other trials may be closed by other judges without any more showing of need than is presented on this record. More often than not, criminal trials will be of sufficiently short duration that a closure order “will evade review, or at least considered plenary review in this Court.” Nebraska Press, supra, at 547. Accordingly, we turn to the merits.
II
We begin consideration of this case by noting that the precise issue presented here has not previously been before this Court for decision. In Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, supra, the Court was not required to decide whether a right of access to trials, as distingushed from hearings on pretrial motions, was constitutionally guaranteed. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to the accused of a public trial gave neither the public nor the press an enforceable right of access to a pretrial suppression hearing. One concurring opinion specifically emphasized that “a hearing on a motion before trial to suppress evidence is not a trial....” 443 U. S., at 394 (Burger, C. J., concurring). Moreover, the Court did not decide whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a right of the public to attend trials, id., at 392, and n. 24; nor did the dissenting opinion reach this issue. Id., at 447 (opinion of Blackmun, J.).
In prior cases the Court has treated questions involving conflicts between publicity and a defendant’s right to a fair trial; as we observed in Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, supra, at 547, “[t]he problems presented by this [conflict] are almost as old as the Republic.” See also, e. g., Gannett, supra; Murphy v. Florida, 421 U. S. 794 (1975); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 (1966); Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532 (1965). But here for the first time the Court is asked to decide whether a criminal trial itself may be closed to the public upon the unopposed request of a defendant, without any demonstration that closure is required to protect the defendant’s superior right to a fair trial, or that some other overriding consideration requires closure.
A
The origins of the proceeding which has become the modern criminal trial in Anglo-American justice can be traced back beyond reliable historical records. We need not here review all details of its development, but a summary of that, history is instructive. What is significant for present purposes is that throughout its evolution, the trial has been open to all who cared to observe.
In the days before the Norman Conquest, cases in England were generally brought before moots, such as the local court of the hundred or the county court, which were attended by the freemen of the community. Pollock, English Law Before the Norman Conquest, in 1 Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History 88, 89 (1907). Somewhat like modern jury duty, attendance at these early meetings was compulsory on the part of the freemen, who were called upon to render judgment. Id., at 89-90; see also 1 W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 10, 12 (1927).
With the gradual evolution of the jury system in the years after the Norman Conquest, see, e. g., id., at 316, the duty of all freemen to attend trials to render judgment was relaxed, but there is no indication that criminal trials did not remain public. When certain groups were excused from compelled attendance, see the Statute of Marlborough, 52 Hen. 3, ch. 10 (1267); 1 Holdsworth, supra, at 79, and n. 4, the statutory exemption did not prevent them from attending; Lord Coke observed that those excused “are not compellable to come, but left to their own liberty.” 2 E. Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England 121 (6th ed. 1681).
Although there appear to be few contemporary statements on the subject, reports of the Eyre of Kent, a general court held in 1313-1314, evince a recognition of the importance of public attendance apart from the “jury duty” aspect. It was explained that
“the King’s will was that all evil doers should be punished after their deserts, and that justice should be ministered indifferently to rich as to poor; and for the better accomplishing of this, he prayed the community of the county by their attendance there to lend him their aid in the establishing of a happy and certain peace that should be both for the honour of the realm and for their own welfare.” 1 Holdsworth, supra, at 268, quoting from the S. S. edition of the Eyre of Kent, vol. i., p. 2 (emphasis added).
From these early times, although great changes in courts and procedure took place, one thing remained constant: the public character of the trial at which guilt or innocence was decided. Sir Thomas Smith, writing in 1565 about “the definitive proceedinges in causes criminall,” explained that, while the indictment was put in writing as in civil law countries:
“All the rest is doone openlie in the presence of the Judges, the Justices, the enquest, the prisoner, and so manie as will or can come so neare as to heare it, and all depositions and witnesses given aloude, that all men may heare from the mouth of the depositors and witnesses what is saide.” T. Smith, De República Anglorum 101 (Alston ed. 1972) (emphasis added).
Three centuries later, Sir Frederick Pollock was able to state of the “rule of publicity” that, “[h]ere we have one tradition, at any rate, which has persisted through all changes.” F. Pollock, The Expansion of the Common Law 31-32 (1904). See also E. Jenks, The Book of English Law 73-74 (6th ed. 1967): “[0]ne of the most conspicuous features of English justice, that all judicial trials are held in open court, to which the public have free access,... appears to have been the rule in England from time immemorial.”
We have found nothing to suggest that the presumptive openness of the trial, which English courts were later to call “one of the essential qualities of a court of justice.” Daubney v. Cooper, 10 B. & C. 237, 240, 109 Eng. Rep. 438, 440 (K. B. 1829), was not also an attribute of the judicial systems of colonial America. In Virginia, for example, such records as there are of early criminal trials indicate that they were open, and nothing to the contrary has been cited. See A. Scott, Criminal Law in Colonial Virginia 128-129 (1930); Reinsch, The English Common Law in the Early American Colonies, in 1 Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History 367, 405 (1907). Indeed, when in the mid-1600’s the Virginia Assembly felt that the respect due the courts was “by the clamorous unmannerlynes of the people lost, and order, gravity and decoram which should manifest the authority of a court in the court it selfe neglected,” the response was not to restrict the openness of the trials to the public, but instead to prescribe rules for the conduct of those attending them. See Scott, supra, at 132.
In some instances, the openness of trials was explicitly recognized as part of the fundamental law of the Colony. The 1677 Concessions and Agreements of West New Jersey, for example, provided:
“That in all publick courts of justice for tryals.of causes, civil or criminal, any person or persons, inhabitants of the said Province may freely come into, and attend the said courts, and hear and be present, at all or any such tryals as shall be there had or passed, that justice may not be done in a corner nor in any covert manner.” Reprinted in Sources of Our Liberties 188 (R. Perry ed. 1959).
See also 1 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 129 (1971).
The Pennsylvania Frame of Government of 1682 also provided “[t]hat all courts shall be open... Sources of Our Liberties, supra, at 217; 1 Schwartz, supra, at 140, and this declaration was reaffirmed in § 26 of the- Constitution adopted by Pennsylvania in 1776. See 1 Schwartz, supra, at 271. See also §§12 and 76 of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 1641, reprinted in 1 Schwartz, supra, at 73, 80.
Other contemporary writings confirm the recognition that part of the very nature of a criminal trial was its openness to those who wished to attend. Perhaps the best indication of this is found in an address to the inhabitants of Quebec which was drafted by a committee consisting of Thomas Cushing, Richard Henry Lee, and John Dickinson and approved by the First Continental Congress on October 26, 1774. 1 Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, pp. 101, 105 (1904) (Journals). This address, written to explain the position of. the Colonies and to gain the support of the people of Quebec, is an “exposition of the fundamental rights of the colonists, as they were understood by a representative assembly chosen from all the colonies.” 1 Schwartz, supra, at 221. Because it was intended for the inhabitants of Quebec, who had been- “educated under another form of government” and had only recently become English subjects, it was thought desirable for the Continental Congress to explain “the inestimable advantages of a free English constitution of government, which it is the privilege of all English subjects to enjoy.” 1 Journals 106.
“[One] great right is that of trial by jury. This provides, that neither life, liberty nor property, can be taken from the possessor, until twelve of his unexceptionable countrymen and peers of his vicinage, who from that neighbourhood may reasonably be supposed to be acquainted with his character, and the characters of the witnesses, upon a fair trial, and full enquiry, face to face, in open Court, before as many of the people as chuse to attend, shall pass their sentence upon oath against him... Id., at 107 (emphasis added).
B
As we have shown, and as was shown in both the Court’s opinion and the dissent in Gannett, 443 U. S., at 384, 386, n. 15, 418-425, the historical evidence demonstrates conclusively that at the time when our organic laws were adopted, criminal trials both here and in England had long been presumptively open. This is no quirk of history; rather, it has long been recognized as an indispensable attribute of an Anglo-American trial. Both Hale in the 17th century and Blackstone in the 18th saw the importance of openness to the proper functioning of a trial; it gave assurance that the proceedings were conducted fairly to alb concerned, and it discouraged perjury, the misconduct of participants, and decisions based on secret bias or partiality. See, e. g., M. Hale, The History of the Common Law of England 343-345 (6th ed. 1820); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *372-*373. Jeremy Bentham not only recognized the therapeutic value of open justice but regarded it as the keystone:
“Without publicity, all other checks are insufficient: in comparison of publicity, all other checks are of small account. Recordation, appeal, whatever other institutions might present themselves in the character of checks, would be found to operate rather as cloaks than cheeks; as cloaks in reality, as checks only in appearance.” 1 J. Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence 524 (1827).
Panegyrics on the values of openness were by no means confined to self-praise by the English. Foreign observers of English criminal procedure in the 18th and early 19th centuries came away impressed by the very fact that they had been freely admitted to the courts, as many were not in their own homelands. See L. Radzinowicz, A History of English Criminal Law 715, and n. 96 (1948). They marveled that “the whole juridical procedure passes in public,” 2 P. Grosley, A Tour to London; or New Observations on England 142 (Nugent trans. 1772), quoted in Radzinowicz, supra, at 717, and one commentator'declared:
“The main excellence of the English judicature consists in publicity, in the free trial by jury, and in the extraordinary despatch with which business is transacted. The publicity of their proceedings is indeed astonishing. Free access to the courts is universally granted.” C. Goede, A Foreigner’s Opinion of England 214 (Home trans. 1822). (Emphasis added.)
The nexus between openness, fairness, and the perception of fairness was not lost on them:
“[Tjhe judge, the counsel, and the jury, are constantly exposed to public animadversion; and this greatly tends to augment the extraordinary confidence, which the English repose in the administration of justice.” Id., at 215.
This observation raises the important point that “[t]he publicity of a judicial proceeding is a requirement of much broader bearing than its mere effect upon the quality of testimony " 6 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1834, p. 435 (J. Chadbourn rev 1976). The early history of open trials in part reflects the widespread acknowledgment, long before there were behavioral scientists, that public trials had significant community therapeutic value. Even without such experts to frame the eoneept in words, people sensed from experience and observation that, especially in the administration of criminal justice, the means used to achieve justice must have the support derived from public acceptance of both the process and its results.
When a shocking crime occurs, a community reaction of outrage and public protest often follows. See H. Weihofen, The Urge to Punish 130-131 (1956). Thereafter the open processes of justice serve an important prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet for community concern, hostility, and emotion. Without an awareness that society’s responses to criminal conduct are underway, natural human reactions of outrage and protest are frustrated and may manifest themselves in some form of vengeful “self-help,” as indeed they did regularly in the activities of vigilante “committees” on our frontiers. “The accusation and conviction or acquittal, as much perhaps as the execution of punishment, operat[e] to restore the imbalance which was created by the offense or public charge, to reaffirm the temporarily lost feeling of security and, perhaps, to satisfy that latent 'urge to punish.’ ” Mueller, Problems Posed by Publicity to Crime and Criminal Proceedings, 110 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1, 6 (1961).
Civilized societies withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante the enforcement of criminal laws, but they cannot erase from people’s consciousness the fundamental, natural yearning to see justice done — or even the urge for retribution. The crucial prophylactic aspects of the administration of justice cannot function in the dark; no community catharsis can occur if justice is “done in a corner [or] in any covert manner.” Supra, at 567. It is not enough to say that results alone will satiate the natural community desire for “satisfaction.” A result considered untoward may undermine public confidence, and where the trial has been concealed from public view an unexpected outcome can cause a reaction that the system at best has failed and at worst has been corrupted. To work effectively, it is important that society’s criminal process “satisfy the appearance of justice,” Offutt v. United States, 348 U, S. 11, 14 (1954), and the appearance of justice can best be provided by allowing people to observe it.
Looking back, we see that when the ancient “town meeting” form of trial became too cumbersome, 12 members of the community were delegated to act as its surrogates, but the community did not surrender its- right to observe the conduct of trials. The people retained a “right of visitation” which enabled them to satisfy themselves that justice was in fact being done.
People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing. When a criminal trial is conducted in the open, there is at least an opportunity both for understanding the system in general and its workings in a particular case:
“The educative effect of public attendance is a material advantage. Not only is respect for the law increased and intelligent acquaintance acquired with the methods of government, but a strong confidence in judicial remedies is secured which could never be inspired by a system of secrecy.” 6 Wigmore, supra, at 438. See also 1 J. Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence, at 525.
In earlier times, both in England and America, attendance at court was a common mode of “passing the time.” See, e. g., 6 Wigmore, supra, at 436; Mueller, supra, at 6. With the press, cinema, and electronic media now supplying the representations or reality of the real life drama once available only in the courtroom, attendancé at court is no longer a widespread pastime. Yet “[i]t is not unrealistic even in this day to believe that public inclusion affords citizens a form of legal education and hopefully promotes confidence in the fair administration of justice.” State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78, 87-88, 139 N. W, 2d 800, 807 (1966). Instead of acquiring information about trials by firsthand observation or by word of mouth from those who attended, people now acquire it chiefly through the print and electronic media. In a sense, this validates the media claim of functioning as surrogates for the public. While media representatives enjoy the same right of access as the public, they often are provided special seating and priority of entry so that they may report what people in attendance have seen and heard. This “contribute[s] to public understanding of the rule of law and to comprehension of the functioning of the entire criminal justice system....” Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S., at 587 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment).
C
From this unbroken, uncontradicted history, supported by reasons as valid today as in centuries past, we are bound to conclude that a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice. This conclusion is hardly novel; without a direct holding on the issue, the Court has voiced its recognition of it in a variety of contexts over the years. Even while holding, in Levine v. United States, 362 U. S. 610 (1960), that a criminal contempt proceeding was not a “criminal prosecution” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, the Court was careful to note that more than the Sixth Amendment was involved:
“[W]hile the right to a 'public trial’ is explicitly guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment only for 'criminal prosecutions,’ that provision is a reflection of the notion, deeply rooted in the common law, that ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’... [D]ue process demands appropriate regard for the requirements of a public proceeding in cases of criminal contempt... as it does for all adjudications through the exercise of the judicial power, barring narrowly limited categories of exceptions....” Id., at 616.
And recently in Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U. S. 368 (1979), both the majority, id., at 384, 386, n. 15, and dissenting opinion, id., at 423, agreed that open trials were part of the common-law tradition.
Despite the history of criminal trials being presumptively open since long before the Constitution, the State presses its contention that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights contains any provision which by its terms guarantees to the public the right to attend criminal trials. Standing alone, this is correct, but there remains the question whether, absent an explicit provision, the Constitution affords protection against exclusion of the public from criminal trials.
Ill
A
The First Amendment, in conjunction with the Fourteenth, prohibits governments from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” These expressly guaranteed freedoms share a common core purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the functioning of government. Plainly it would be difficult to single out any aspect of government of higher concern and importance to the people than the manner in which criminal trials are conducted; as we have shown, recognition of this pervades the centuries-old history of open trials and the opinions of this Court. Supra, at 564-575, and n. 9.
The Bill of Rights was enacted against the backdrop of the long history of trials being presumptively open. Public access to trials was then regarded as an important aspect of-the process itself; the conduct of trials “before as many of the people as chuse to attend” was regarded as one of “the inestimable advantages of a free English constitution of government.” 1 Journals 106, 107. In guaranteeing freedoms such as those of speech and press, the First Amendment can be read as protecting the right of everyone to attend trials so as to give meaning to those explicit guarantees. “[T]he First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 783 (1978). Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen. “In a variety of contexts this Court has referred to a First Amendment right to ‘receive information and ideas.’ ” Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 762 (1972). What this means in the context of trials is that the First Amendment guarantees of speech and press, standing alone, prohibit government from summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the time that Amendment was adopted. “For the First Amendment does not speak equivocally.... It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will allow.” Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 263 (1941) (footnote omitted).
It is not crucial whether we describe this right to attend criminal trials to hear, see, and communicate observations concerning them as a.“right of access,” cf. Gannett, supra, at 397 (Powell, J., concurring); Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843 (1974); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817 (1974), or a “right to gather information,” for we have recognized that “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 681 (1972). The explicit, guaranteed rights to speak and to publish concerning what takes place at a trial would lose much meaning if access to observe the trial could, as it was here, be foreclosed arbitrarily.
B
The right of access to places traditionally open to the public, as criminal trials have long been, may be seen as assured by the amalgam of the First Amendment guarantees of speech and press; and their affinity to the right of assembly is not without relevance. From the outset, the right of assembly was regarded not only as an independent right but also as a catalyst to augment the free exercise of the other First Amendment rights with which it was deliberately linked by the draftsmen. “The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.” De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 364 (1937). People assemble in public places not only to speak or to take action, but also to listen, observe, and learn; indeed, they may “as-sembl[e] for any lawful purpose,” Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 519 (1939) (opinion of Stone, J.). Subject to the traditional time, place, and manner restrictions, see, e. g., Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941); see also Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 560-564 (1965), streets, sidewalks, and parks are places traditionally open, where First Amendment rights may be exercised, see Hague v. CIO, supra, at 515 (opinion of Roberts, J.); a trial courtroom also is a public place where the people generally — and representatives of the media — have a right to be present, and where their presence historically has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes place.
c
The State argues that the Constitution nowhere spells out a guarantee for the right of the public to attend trials, and that accordingly no such right is protected. The possibility that such a contention could be made did not escape the notice of the Constitution’s draftsmen; they were concerned that some important rights might be thought disparaged because not specifically guaranteed. It was even argued that because of this danger no Bill of Rights should be adopted. See, e. g., The Federalist No. 84 (A. Hamilton). In a letter to Thomas Jefferson in October 1788, James Madison explained why he, although “in favor of a bill of rights,” had “not viewed it in an important light” up to that time: “I conceive that in a certain degree... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted.” He went on to state that “there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude.” 5 Writings of James Madison 271 (G. Hunt ed. 1904).
But arguments such as the State makes have not precluded recognition of important rights not enumerated. Notwithstanding the appropriate caution against reading into the Constitution rights not explicitly defined, the Court has acknowledged that certain unarticulated rights are implicit in enumerated guarantees. For example, the rights of association and of privacy, the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to be judged by a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, as well as the right to travel, appear nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Yet these important but unarticulated rights have nonetheless been found to share constitutional protection in common with explicit guarantees. The concerns expressed by Madison and others have thus been resolved; fundamental rights, even though not expressly guaranteed, have been recognized by the Court as indispensable to the enjoyment of rights explicitly defined.
We hold that the right to attend criminal trials is implicit. in the guarantees of the First Amendment; without the freedom to attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries, important aspects of freedom of speech and “of the press could be eviscerated.” Branzburg, 408 TJ. S., at 681.
D
Having concluded there was a guaranteed right of the public under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to attend the trial of Stevenson’s case, we return to the closure order challenged by appellants. The Court in Gannett made clear that although the Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused a right to a public trial, it does not give a right to a private trial. 443 U. S., at 382. Despite
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires further application of the principles stated in Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U. S. 649, and Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U. S. 695. The first question is whether the Interstate Commerce Commission has the power, under § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service with respect to drivers and mechanics employed full time, as such, by a common carrier by motor vehicle, when the services rendered, through such employees, by such carrier, in interstate commerce, are distributed generally throughout the year, constitute 3% to 4% of the carrier’s total carrier services, and the performance of such services is shared indiscriminately among such employees and mingled with their performance of other like services for such carrier not in interstate commerce. The other question is whether, if the Commission has that power, the overtime requirements of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 apply to such employees in view of the exemption stated in § 13 (b) (1) of that Act. We hold that the Commission has the power in question and that the overtime requirements of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act therefore do not apply to such employees.
This action was brought March 26, 1942, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by the Administrator of the Wage and Plour Division, United States Department of Labor, under § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, to enjoin the petitioner, James F. Morris, from violating § 15 (a) (1) and (2) of that Act through failure to pay his employees compensation for overtime in accordance with § 7 of that Act. After a trial based on the pleadings and stipulated facts, the complaint was dismissed September 26, 1945. In its unreported conclusions of law the court stated that neither the petitioner nor his employees were engaged “in the production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act and that, to the extent that they might be considered to be engaged “in commerce” within the meaning of that Act, the requirements of its § 7, as to compensation for overtime, did not apply to them. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed this judgment May 29, 1946, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Walling v. Morris, 155 F. 2d 832. Because of its importance in interpreting the Motor Carrier Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act and because the question first stated above had not been passed upon in our decisions in the Levinson and Pyramid cases, supra, we granted certiorari, 330 U. S. 817, limited to the following question:
“2. Where such employees [i. e., those of a common carrier for hire who conducts a general cartage business] during a minority of their time are engaged in the transportation of interstate traffic are they exempt under the provisions of Section 13 (b) (1) of the Act from the maximum hours provision of Section 7 of the Act as employees with respect to whom the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of Section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 (49 U. S. C. sec. 301, et seq.)V’
In response to our invitation, the Interstate Commerce Commission filed a brief amicus curiae.
The material facts are treated by the parties as being those shown by the record to have been in effect when the complaint was filed in 1942. They may be summarized as follows:
The petitioner then was, and for the past 12 years had been, the sole owner and proprietor of the J. F. Morris Cartage Company which operated a general cartage business as a common carrier by motor vehicle in and about the metropolitan area of Detroit, Michigan, and all within three contiguous counties of that State. His operations were centralized at Ecorse, Michigan, at his garage and yard, used for a dispatching office, general maintenance and repair garage and storage space for equipment.
His principal business was the transportation of steel. In the regular course of his business, in 1941, he generally employed about 60 persons, 40 as truck drivers, 14 as mechanics, painters, washers and repairmen in the garage, three as dispatchers and three as general office workers. His equipment consisted of about 50 trucks or tractors and 60 trailers.
He was prepared to and did render general cartage service to the general shipping public. In 1941, he rendered such service to 47 consigning firms, but about 97 % of his revenue came from the Great Lakes Steel Corporation and the Michigan Steel Corporation, both in Ecorse. His general cartage services, in 1941, were made up of three intermingled types of service, generally classifiable as follows on the basis of the revenue derived from them: (1) 35%: Transportation of steel largely within steel plants. This was transported for further processing in those plants and an unsegregated portion of it was shipped ultimately in interstate commerce. (2) 61%: Transportation between steel mills and industrial establishments. These shipments consisted principally of bumper stock, fender stock and other types of steel used in connection with the manufacture of automobiles, a substantial portion of which entered interstate commerce. (3) 4%: Transportation of miscellaneous freight directly in interstate commerce, either as part of continuous interstate movements or of interstate movements begun or terminated in metropolitan Detroit.
Ever since § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act took effect, October *24, 1938, petitioner’s employees, with the exception of his office workers, consistently worked enough hours to entitle them to additional compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular wages if such Section were applicable to them. They were, however, paid on the assumption that the Section did not apply to them and, therefore, for the most part, received only their regular rate of pay for such overtime. Accordingly, if it is found that § 7 is applicable to them, there is ground for an injunction against its further violation. No issue is presented here as to the office workers because there is no proof of overtime services having been rendered by them or being now in prospect. No issue is presented here as to the dispatchers. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that § 7 applies to them as employees engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce and that they are not exempt as administrative employees. Those issues, however, are not within the limited grant of certiorari. As to the garagemen and laborers, including mechanics, painters, washers and repairmen, together with their superintendent of maintenance, there is no issue presented here, except to the extent that such classifications include mechanics doing the class of work defined as that of “mechanics” in Ex Parte No. MC-2, 28 M. C. C. 125, 132, 133, including the making of mechanical repairs directly affecting the safe operation of motor vehicles. All of the garagemen and laborers, except their superintendent of maintenance, were paid for their overtime work at “straight” or regular hourly rates. He was paid a weekly wage, and received no overtime pay, although he devoted approximately 25% of his time to the performance of routine physical tasks of the same general character as those of the employees working under his direction. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the superintendent of maintenance was not exempt as an executive or administrative employee and should be classified in the same manner as the others in this group. There is nothing in the record showing the extent to which the respective garagemen and laborers devoted themselves to the several classes of work above mentioned and, if this were an action to recover overtime compensation for individual employees, it would be necessary to determine that fact. However, as this is an action only for an injunction relating to future practices, the situation can be met by limiting the injunction to the appropriate classifications of workers. On this basis, the injunction against violation of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act may be issued as to those garagemen and laborers who are not “mechanics” as defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the issue before us is limited to the proper application of such an injunction to such “mechanics.”
The drivers are full-time drivers of motor vehicles well within the definition of that class of work by the Commission if the work is done in interstate commerce. From October 24, 1938, to August 1, 1940, the drivers received their “straight” or regular hourly rate of pay for all overtime work. Since August 1, 1940, their overtime work has been paid for in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement in force as to union drivers, throughout metropolitan Detroit, employed either in intrastate or interstate general cartage. From August 1, 1940, to August 1, 1941, these agreements required payment of overtime in excess of 52 hours a week at one and one-half times the regular rate. After August 1, 1941, as a concession to wartime conditions, this additional rate was applied only to overtime in excess of 54 hours a week. The statutory workweek which would be applicable under § 7 of the Pair Labor Standards Act at all times has been substantially shorter than those just mentioned.
As to these drivers and these “mechanics” whose work affects safety of transportation, the first question here, as in the Levinson case, is whether the Commission has the power, under § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service with respect to them. The special situation presented is that, on the average, only about 4% of their time and effort has been, or is likely to be, devoted to services in interstate commerce. The issue would appear in its simplest form if each driver were required, each day, to devote 24 minutes (i. e., 4% of his allowable daily aggregate of ten hours of driving time) to driving in interstate commerce. The question then would be whether the Commission has the power to establish his qualifications and maximum hours of service in view of the relation of this driving to safety of operation in interstate commerce. Under the tests of the Commission’s power, as approved in both the majority and minority opinions in the Levinson case, and, under the analysis of that power developed by the Interstate Commerce Commission and cited in that case, it is “the character of the activities rather than the proportion of either the employee’s time or of his activities that determines the actual need for the Commission’s power to establish reasonable requirements with respect to qualifications, maximum hours of service, safety of operation and equipment.” It is beyond question that, under such circumstances, § 204 (a) (1) of the Motor Carrier Act has authorized the Commission to establish reasonable requirements with respect to qualifications and maximum hours of service of such drivers. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which was passed three years later, has recognized and does not restrict the Commission’s power over the safety of operation under the Motor Carrier Act. What is thus true for the driver is true also for the mechanic who repairs his truck.
In the record before us, instead of 4% of the driving time of each driver being devoted each day to interstate commerce without relation to what the driver does at other times, the parties present the actual experience of the petitioner and his drivers throughout 1941. The printed record, together with an unprinted exhibit filed with the Clerk, classifies all of the 19,786 trips taken in 1941 by the 43 drivers who respectively drove motor vehicles for the petitioner during not less than eight weeks in that year. Only the “Pickup Trips” and “Boat Dock Trips” are counted as being in “interstate commerce.” These involved movements of goods to or from railroad freight houses, line haul motor carrier depots or the boat docks of the several steamship companies in Detroit. It was stipulated that the petitioner was “engaged as a common carrier for hire in the local transportation of property by motor vehicle,” was “engaged in a general cartage business and . . . [was] prepared to render such service to the general shipping public . . . Each driver appears to have been a full-time driver during each week that he worked. The tables show 464 “Pickup Trips” and 260 “Boat Dock Trips,” or a total of 724 made in interstate commerce, when and as required by petitioner’s consignors. These constituted 3.65% of the petitioner’s total trips. They were not distributed equally to each driver nor on the basis of 4% of his time each day. However, apparently in the normal operation of the business, these strictly interstate commerce trips were distributed generally throughout the year and their performance was shared indiscriminately by the drivers and was mingled with the performance of other like driving services rendered by them otherwise than in interstate commerce. These trips were thus a natural, integral and apparently inseparable part of the common carrier service of the petitioner and of his drivers.
One or more such trips were taken by one or more drivers each week. The average number of drivers making one or more such trips in each week was nine drivers out of 37, or 24.4%. There were six weeks in which more than half of the drivers thus engaged directly in interstate commerce. The highest percentage of drivers making such trips in one week was 78.1%, when 25 drivers, out of the 32 then on duty, did so. As to the distribution of such trips, throughout the year, among the total of 43 drivers, every driver, except two, made at least one such trip with interstate freight. Each of the two who failed to make any such trip was employed for only about one-half the year and that was during the months when the trips in interstate commerce were the less frequent. On the other hand, one driver made 97 such trips in interstate commerce. Another made 52 and the average per driver was over 16. The greatest number of such trips made by a single driver in a single week was seven out of nine. In several other weeks he made six such trips out of a total of seven in the week. The net result is a practical situation such as may confront any common carrier engaged in a general cartage business, and who is prepared and offering to serve the normal transportation demands of the shipping public in an industrial metropolitan center. From the point of view of safety in interstate commerce, the hazards are not distinguishable from those which would be presented if each driver drove 4% of his driving time each day in interstate commerce. In both cases there is the same essential need for the establishment of reasonable requirements with respect to qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees. If the common carrier is required, by virtue of that status, to take this interstate business he must perform the required service in accordance with the requirements established by the Commission. The Commission has made no exception in these qualifications and maximum hours of service that would exempt the drivers of the petitioner from them as a class. The applicability of the Commission’s present requirements as to specific drivers during specific weeks is not the issue before us. We hold that the Commission has the power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service, pursuant to the provisions of § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, for the entire classification of petitioner’s drivers and “mechanics” and it is the existence of that power (rather than the precise terms of the requirements actually established by the Commission in the exercise of that power) that Congress has made the test as to whether or not § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act is applicable to these employees. Congress has gone out of its way to make this purpose clear in cases comparable to the one before us. It has done this by making the power of the Commission, under § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, expressly applicable to motor vehicle pickup and delivery service within terminal areas to transportation in interstate commerce wholly within a metropolitan area, and to casual, occasional, or reciprocal transportation of property in interstate commerce by any person not engaged in transportation by motor vehicle as a regular occupation or business. It has made the Commission’s power over safety requirements expressly applicable to these operations, even though, at the same time, Congress has exempted them from general regulatory control.
Congress furthermore has provided a special procedure by which, in an appropriate case, an intrastate motor carrier or any other party in interest, may secure the general exemption of such a carrier from compliance with the Motor Carrier Act even though such carrier does perform some interstate transportation. Congress, however, expressly has authorized the Commission, and not the courts, to decide when the case is an appropriate one for such a general exemption. It does not appear that any such certificate of exemption has been obtained or sought as to this petitioner.
Having determined that the Commission has the power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service for these drivers and “mechanics” under § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, the question recurs as to whether, in the face of the exemption stated in § 13 (b) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the requirements of § 7 of that Act nevertheless apply to these employees. This issue as to the possible reconciliation of the language of these Acts so as to provide for concurrent jurisdiction was considered at length in the Levinson case and the conclusion was there reached that such a construction was not permissible.
This discussion has proceeded on the basis of the facts which were stipulated to exist in 1942. This treatment, however, should not be interpreted as necessarily restricting the District Court to the present record if, for good cause, that court finds it advisable to consider additional evidence or to retry the case de novo.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, as here modified.
It is so ordered.
“Sec. 204 (a) It shall be the duty of the Commission—
“(1) To regulate common carriers by motor vehicle as provided in this part, and to that end the Commission may establish reasonable requirements with respect to continuous and adequate service, transportation of baggage and express, uniform systems of accounts, records, and reports, preservation of records, qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees, and safety of operation and equipment. . . .” 49 Stat. 546,49 U. S. C. § 304 (a) (1).
“Sec. 7. (a) No employer shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, employ any of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce — •
(1) for a workweek longer than forty-four hours during the first year from the effective date of this section,
(2) for a workweek longer than forty-two hours during the second year from such date, or
(3) for a workweek longer than forty hours after the expiration of the second year from such date,
unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed. . . .” 52 Stat. 1063, 29 U. S. C. § 207 (a).
“Sec. 13. . . .
“(b) The provisions of section 7 shall not apply with respect to (1) any employee with respect to whom the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935; . . . .” 52 Stat. 1068, 29 U. S. C. § 213 (b) (1).
“Sec. 17. The district courts of the United States . . . shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, and subject to the provisions of section 20 (relating to notice to opposite party) of the Act entitled 'An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes’, approved October 15, 1914, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 28, sec. 381), to restrain violations of section 15.” 52 Stat. 1069,29 U. S. C. § 217.
“Sec. 15. (a) ... , it shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) to transport, offer for transportation, ship, deliver, or sell in commerce, or to ship, deliver, or sell with knowledge that shipment or delivery or sale thereof in commerce is intended, any goods in the production of which any employee was employed in violation of section 6 or section 7, or in violation of any regulation or order of the Administrator issued under section 14; except that no provision of this Act shall impose any liability upon any common carrier for the transportation in commerce in the regular course of its business of any goods not produced by such common carrier, and no provision of this Act shall excuse any common carrier from its obligation to accept any goods for transportation;
(2) to violate any of the provisions of section 6 or section 7, or any of the provisions of any regulation or order of the Administrator issued under section 14; 52 Stat. 1068, 29 U. S. C. § 215.
See note 2, supra.
This activity is described as follows:
“C. Approximately three (3) per cent of the defendant’s operations consists of the transportation of freight between the plants of the Great Lakes Steel Corporation and the plants of the Michigan Steel Corporation on the one hand, and, on the other hand, interchange points, such as boat docks, railroad depots, freight terminals and truck terminals lying in the Detroit Metropolitan Area, wholly within the boundaries of the State of Michigan, involving the picking up of freight from or the delivery of freight to water carriers, railroad carriers and line haul motor carriers, which freight either has moved across the Michigan State lines or is about to move across the Michigan State lines in continuous transportation through connection between the defendant and such other interstate carriers. The defendant’s compensation for his portion of the through transportation service is in some instances paid to him by the interstate carrier, the compensation representing a division of the through rates on the transportation movement, and other instances being compensated by the shipper.
“E. Approximately one (1) per cent of the defendant’s operations consists of the transportation of miscellaneous freight in general cartage service for hire and for shippers other than Great Lakes Steel Corporation or Michigan Steel Corporation. Cartage in this category is of the same physical character as that described in subparagraphs A, C, and D above, except that it is done on behalf of and for the account of shippers other than Great Lakes Steel Corporation and Michigan Steel Corporation.”
“(I) Mechanics and other garage workers. — The evidence is clear that carriers that do not operate approximately 10 motor vehicles or more cannot economically employ mechanics to do repair work, and they do not do so. . . .
“The larger carriers, however, do employ mechanics whose primary duties are to keep the motor vehicles in a good and safe working condition. They are required, for example, to keep the lights and brakes in such condition. They perform many other duties, of course, but these are sufficient to show clearly that the duties of these employees do affect safety of operation directly, as it is obvious that a large motor vehicle without the required lights or adequate brakes is a great potential hazard to highway safety. All witnesses testifying at the hearing agreed that the work of mechanics has such a direct and intimate relation to safety of operation, and no conflicting evidence was submitted.
“Our conclusion is that mechanics devote a large portion of their time to activities which directly affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles operated in interstate or foreign commerce, and hence that we have power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service for such employees under said section 204 (a).
“There are other garage employees who do not perform work which affects safety of operation directly. Some carriers employ men who do nothing but paint vehicles. Others employ carpenters, and some few employ tarpaulin tailors. We find that the work done by none of these employees affects safety of operation.
“It is possible, although the record does not clearly establish the fact, that some of the larger carriers employ men whose sole duty is to see that the motor vehicles are properly supplied with oil, gas, and grease, or to wash the vehicles. In the majority of cases, undoubtedly, the mechanics perform this work. However, if there be employees who do nothing but oil, gas, grease, or wash the motor vehicles, we find that they do not perform duties which directly affect the safety of operation and are not subject to our jurisdiction. To make our finding in this regard entirely clear, it is that mechanics are the only garage workers we find subject to our jurisdiction.” Ex Parte No. MC-2, 28 M. C. C. 125, 132, 133.
Safety Regulations (Carriers by Motor Vehicle), 49 CFR Cum. Supp., Parts 190-193.
See note 2, supra.
Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U. S. 649, 674-675.
“For, factually speaking, not the amount of time an employee spends in work affecting safety, but what he may do in the time thus spent whether it be large or small determines the effect on safety. Ten minutes of driving by an unqualified driver may do more harm on the highway than a month or a year of constant driving by a qualified one.” Id., dissenting opinion, at p. 687.
See note 1, supra.
“We recognize, as a practical matter, that private carriers transport property both in interstate and intrastate commerce. The same motor vehicle, operated by the same driver, on 1 or 2 days in a week may be engaged in transporting property in interstate commerce and the rest of the week may be engaged in intrastate commerce. In our opinion if a driver operates a motor vehicle in the transportation of interstate or foreign commerce on any day of a given week, such driver is subject to the weekly maximum herein prescribed. Likewise if a driver employed by a private carrier of property is engaged in interstate commerce during any one period of 24 consecutive hours, he is subject to the daily maximum herein prescribed. If such a driver does not drive or operate a truck in the transportation of property in interstate or foreign commerce for an entire week, he is not subject to the regulations herein prescribed during that week. We express no opinion as to whether or not during that week the driver is subject to the provisions of section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act.” (Italics supplied.) Ex Parte No. MC-3, 23 M. C. C. 1,39.
The above statement demonstrates the Commission’s opinion as to its power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service in the field of mixed interstate and intrastate transportation. The rules that it has prescribed have not extended to its full power to make rules in this field. The fact that this statement was made in 1940, three years before the decision of this Court in Southland Co. v. Bayley, 319 U. S. 44, explains the express reservation made as to the Commission’s opinion relating to the effect of the scope of its unexercised powers under § 204 of the Motor Carrier Act in relation to §7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. For the Commission’s regulations of Hours of Service (Carriers by Motor Vehicle) see 49 CFR Cum. Supp., Part 191.
“Sec. 202. . . .
“(c) Notwithstanding any provision of this section or of section 203, the provisions of this part, except the provisions of section 204 relative to qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees and safety of operation and equipment, shall not apply—
“(1) to transportation by motor vehicle by a carrier by railroad subject to part I, or by a water carrier subject to part III, or by a freight forwarder subject to part IV, incidental to transportation or service subject to such parts, in the performance within terminal areas of transfer, collection, or delivery services; . . . .” §202 (c) (1), 49 Stat. 543, as amended by 56 Stat. 300, 49 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1946), §302 (c) (1).
“Sec. 203. . . .
“(b) Nothing in this part, except the provisions of section 204 relative to qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees and safety of operation or standards of equipment shall be construed to include ... (8) The transportation of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce wholly within a municipality or between contiguous municipalities or within a zone adjacent to and commercially a part of any such municipality or municipalities, except when such transportation is under a common control, management, or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment to or from a point without such municipality, municipalities, or zone, and provided that the motor carrier engaged in such transportation of passengers over regular or irregular route or routes in interstate commerce is also lawfully engaged in the intrastate transportation of passengers over the entire length of such interstate route or routes in accordance with the laws of each State having jurisdiction; or (9) the casual, occasional, or reciprocal transportation of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce for compensation by any person not engaged in transportation by motor vehicle as a regular occupation or business.” 49 Stat. 545-546, 49 U. S. C. § 303 (b) (8) and (9).
See note 15, supra.
“Sec. 204 (a) It shall be the duty of the Commission—
“ (4a) To determine, upon its own motion, or upon application by a motor carrier, a State board, or any other party in interest, whether the transportation in interstate or foreign commerce performed by any motor carrier or class of motor carriers lawfully engaged in operation solely within a single State is in fact of such nature, character, or quantity as not substantially to affect or impair uniform regulation by the Commission of transportation by motor carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce in effectuating the national transportation policy declared in this Act. Upon so finding, the Commission shall issue a certificate of exemption to such motor carrier or class of motor carriers which, during the period such certificate shall remain effective and unrevoked, shall exempt such carrier or class of motor carriers from compliance with the provisions of this part, and shall attach to such certificate such reasonable terms and conditions as the public interest may require. At any time after the issuance of any such certificate of exemption, the Commission may by order revoke all or any part thereof, if it shall find that the transportation in interstate or foreign commerce performed by the carrier or class of carriers designated in such certificate shall be, or shall have become, or is reasonably likely to become, of such nature, character, or quantity as in fact substantially to affect or impair uniform regulation by the Commission of interstate or foreign transportation by motor carriers in effectuating the national transportation policy declared in this Act. . . .” 49 Stat. 546, as amended by 54 Stat. 921, 49 U. S. C. §304 (a) (4a).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the issue whether firearms disabilities imposed by 18 U. S. C. §§ 922(g) and (h) apply with respect to a person who pleads guilty to a state offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, when the record of the proceeding subsequently is expunged under state procedure following a successfully served term of probation.
Title IV of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 226, was amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1214, and now appears as 18 U. S. C. §921 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V). Title IV makes it unlawful for any person “who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to ship, transport, or receive any firearm or ammunition in interstate commerce. §§ 922(g) and (h). Title IV also makes it unlawful to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms without a license from the Secretary of the Treasury. §§ 922(a) and 923(a). One ground, specified by the statute, for denial of a license is the fact that the applicant is barred by §§ 922(g) and (h) from transporting, shipping, or receiving firearms or ammunition. § 923(d)(1)(B). The same statute provides that where the applicant is a corporation, partnership, or association, a license will be denied if an individual possessing, directly or indirectly, the power to direct the management and policies of the entity is under the prohibitions imposed by §§ 922(g) and (h). Title IV also makes it a crime to violate any of its provisions or to make a willful misrepresentation with respect to information required to be furnished. § 924(a).
Although, as noted above, Title IV imposes disabilities, upon any “person who has been convicted... of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” it does permit certain persons in that category to apply to the Secretary for relief from those disabilities. Under § 925(c), the Secretary may grant relief “if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the conviction, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” When the Secretary grants relief, he must publish notice of his action promptly in the Federal Register, together with a statement of reasons. Ibid.
I — I H-I
David F. Kennison, a resident of Columbia, S. C., is a director, chairman of the board, and a shareholder of respondent New Banner Institute, Inc., a corporation. In September 1974, when Kennison was in Iowa, he was arrested and charged with kidnaping his estranged wife. After plea negotiation, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 40-41, he pleaded guilty to the state crime of carrying a concealed handgun, and the kidnap-ing charge was dismissed. The concealed weapon offense, under then Iowa law, see Iowa Code §§695.2 and.3 (1977), was punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. In accord with the provisions of Iowa Code §789A.l (1977), then in effect, the state court entered an order reciting that Kennison had “entered a plea of guilty to the charge of carrying a concealed weapon,” that “the defendant has consented to a deferment of sentence in this matter,” that “he has stable employment,” and that there were “unusual circumstances” in the case. The order then stated that the court “deferred” entry of a formal judgment and placed Kennison on probation.
Kennison returned to South Carolina where he completed his probation term. When that term expired in February 1976, he was discharged pursuant to Iowa Code §789A.6 (1977), then in effect, and the Iowa court’s record with reference to the deferred judgment was expunged.
In May 1976, respondent filed three applications with the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (Bureau), for licenses as a dealer in firearms and ammunition, as a manufacturer of ammunition, and as a collector of curios and relics. On the application forms, respondent listed Kennison as a “responsible person,” that is, an individual possessing direct or indirect power to control the management and policies of respondent. See 18 U. S. C. § 923(d)(1)(B). In answering an inquiry on the forms as to whether such person had been convicted of a crime punishable by a prison term exceeding one year, respondent did not disclose the Iowa events or Kennison’s plea of guilty in that State. The requested licenses were issued.
The Bureau, however, subsequently learned of the Iowa concealed weapon charge and the plea of guilty. In conformity with the provisions of §§ 923(e) and (f)(1) and of 27 CFR § 178.75 (1982), it mailed respondent Notices of Contemplated Revocation of Licenses. After an informal hearing, the Bureau’s Regional Regulatory Administrator issued the revocation notices. Respondent, pursuant to § 923(f)(2), then requested and received a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. At that hearing, the Bureau contended that respondent’s licenses should be revoked because respondent had failed to reveal that Kennison had been convicted of a felony and also because respondent had not been entitled to the licenses in the first place.
The Administrative Law Judge recommended against revocation. App to Pet. for Cert. 41a. Although he concluded that Kennison’s plea of guilty “represented a conviction... within the meaning of Section 922(g) and (h),” id., at 47a, he also concluded that respondent’s statements in the applications did not justify revocation because its representatives had a good-faith belief that Kennison had not been convicted within the meaning of the federal statute.
On review, the Director of the Bureau, petitioner here, ruled that willful misrepresentation had not been shown; that Kennison, however, possessed the power to direct respondent’s management and policies; that Kennison had been convicted in Iowa of an offense that brought him within the prohibitions of §§ 922(g) and (h); and that the licenses should be revoked because respondent was ineligible for them under § 923(d)(1)(B). App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a. The Director ordered the issuance of Final Notices of Revocation. Id., at 40a.
Respondent then filed a timely petition for review in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. See § 923(f)(3). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Director’s motion was granted. On respondent’s appeal, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. 649 F. 2d 216 (1981). It concluded, id., at 219, that although Kennison indeed had been “convicted” of an offense that triggered firearms disabilities, that fact could not serve as a predicate for a Gun Control Act violation or license revocation because the conviction had been expunged under the Iowa deferred judgment procedure. The court acknowledged, id., at 220, that other Courts of Appeals entertained contrary views. Because of the importance of the issue and the obvious need for its resolution, we granted certiorari. 455 U. S. 1015 (1982).
I — I I — I HH
This is not the first time the Court has examined firearms provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and of the Gun Control Act. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980); Scarborough v. United States, 431 U. S. 563 (1977); Barrett v. United States, 423 U. S. 212 (1976); Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S. 814 (1974); United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336 (1971).
Despite the fact that the slate on which we write is thus not a clean one, we state once again the obvious when we note that, in determining the scope of a statute, one is to look first at its language. Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S., at 60; United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 580 (1981). If the language is unambiguous, ordinarily it is to be regarded as conclusive unless there is “ ‘a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.”’ Ibid., quoting Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). It would seem, therefore, from the clear words of the statute (“any person... who has been convicted”), that, for respondent to be deprived of its licenses, Kennison must have been “convicted” of the type of crime specified by the statute, and the Iowa deferred judgment procedure and “ex-punction” must not have operated to nullify that conviction. If Kennison was not “convicted” in the first place, or if he was and that conviction somehow was rendered a nullity, respondent should not be ineligible for licenses on the grounds asserted by the Bureau.
A
We turn first to the issue of conviction. The salient fact is Kennison’s plea of guilty to a state charge punishable by more than a year’s imprisonment. The usual entry of a formal judgment upon a jury verdict or upon a court’s specific finding of guilt after a bench trial is absent. Present, however, are (a) the charge of a crime of the disqualifying type, (b) the plea of guilty to that charge, and (c) the court’s placing Kennison upon probation.
In Lewis v. United States, supra, we had under consideration § 1202(a)(1) of Title VII of the 1968 Act, 18 U. S. C. App. § 1202(a)(1), a gun control statute similar to and partially overlapping §§ 922(g) and (h). The language of § 1202 (a)(1) that is pertinent for present purposes is familiar, for it concerns any person who “has been convicted... of a felony.” The Court there characterized the language of the statute as “sweeping.” 445 U. S., at 60. Despite the fact that Lewis’ conviction was subject to collateral attack on constitutional grounds, the Court held that conviction to be disabling. What was important to the Court was the presence or fact of the conviction. In speaking of Title VII, we said: “No modifier is present, and nothing suggests any restriction on the scope of the term‘convicted.’” Ibid. Still further: “‘Nothing on the face of the statute suggests a congressional intent to limit its coverage....’” Ibid., quoting United States v. Culbert, 435 U. S. 371, 373 (1978). And, finally: “Actually,... we detect little significant difference between Title IV and Title VII.” 445 U. S., at 64.
Whether one has been “convicted” within the language of the gun control statutes is necessarily, as the Court of Appeals in the present case correctly recognized, 649 F. 2d, at 219, a question of federal, not state, law, despite the fact that the predicate offense and its punishment are defined by the law of the State. United States v. Benson, 605 F. 2d 1093, 1094 (CA9 1979). This makes for desirable national uniformity unaffected by varying state laws, procedures, and definitions of “conviction.”
In Lewis, the possible, and indeed probable, vulnerability of the predicate conviction to collateral attack on constitutional grounds did not affect the disqualification. This followed from the statute’s plain language and from a legislative history that, as we have repeatedly observed, makes clear that “ ‘Congress sought to rule broadly — to keep guns out of the hands of those who have demonstrated that “they may not be trusted to possess a firearm without becoming a threat to society.’”” 445 U. S., at 63, quoting Scarborough v. United States, 431 U. S., at 572. Like considerations apply here with respect to whether Kennison was one who was “convicted” within the meaning of the federal statute. He voluntarily, in negotiation, entered a plea of guilty to a disqualifying crime. In some circumstances, we have considered a guilty plea alone enough to constitute a “conviction”: “A plea of guilty differs in purpose and effect from a mere admission or an extrajudicial confession; it is itself a conviction. Like a verdict of a jury it is conclusive. More is not required; the court has nothing to do but give judgment and sentence.” Kercheval v. United States, 274 U. S. 220, 223 (1927). Accord, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 242 (1969).
Here, we do have more. The state judge who noted Ken-nison’s plea placed him on probation. To be sure, there was no written adjudication of guilt and there was no formal pronouncement of a sentence of imprisonment for a specified term. But that was due to special provisions of Iowa statutory law and procedure. It was plainly irrelevant to Congress whether the individual in question actually receives a prison term; the statute imposes disabilities on one convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” § 922(g) (emphasis supplied). It is also plain that one cannot be placed on probation if the court does not deem him to be guilty of a crime — in this case a crime that Congress considered demonstrative of unreliability with firearms. Thus, for purposes of the federal gun control laws, we equate a plea of guilty and its notation by the state court, followed by a sentence of probation, with being “convicted” within the language of §§ 922(g) and (h). See United States v. Woods, 696 F. 2d 566, 570 (CA8 1982) (“once guilt has been established whether by plea or by verdict and nothing remains to be done except pass sentence, the defendant has been convicted within the intendment of Congress”).
B
That, however, is not an end to the matter. We still must determine whether Iowa’s expunction provisions, as carried out in Kennison’s case prior to respondent’s license applications, nullified his conviction for purposes of the federal statute.
We recognized in Lewis that a qualifying pardon, see 27 CFR § 178.142 (1982), or a consent from the Secretary of the Treasury would operate to relieve the disability. 445 U. S., at 60-61. So far as the face of the statute is concerned, however, expunetion under state law does not alter the historical fact of the conviction, and does not open the way to a license despite the conviction, as does positive or “affirmative action,” ibid., by way of the Secretary’s consent on the conditions specified by § 925(c). In Lewis, it is true, we recognized an obvious exception to the literal language of the statute for one whose predicate conviction had been vacated or reversed on direct appeal. 445 U. S., at 61, n. 5; see Note, Prior Convictions and the Gun Control Act of 1968, 76 Colum. L. Rev. 326, 334, n. 42 (1976). But, in contrast, expunetion does not alter the legality of the previous conviction and does not signify that the defendant was innocent of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. Expunetion in Iowa means no more than that the State has provided a means for the trial court not to accord a conviction certain continuing effects under state law. Clearly, firearms disabilities may be attached constitutionally to an expunged conviction, see Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S., at 65-68, and an exception for such a conviction, unlike one reversed or vacated due to trial error, is far from obvious. In Lewis we held that the exception for convictions reversed or vacated on direct appeal did not make ambiguous the statute’s clear application to convictions arguably vulnerable to collateral attack. We perceive no more ambiguity in the statute here than we did in Lewis.
IV
Other provisions of the federal gun control laws and related federal statutes fortify our conclusion that expunetion of a state conviction was not intended by Congress automatically to remove the federal firearms disability.
1. Even conviction is not necessary for disqualification. The mere existence of an outstanding indictment is sufficient under §§ 922(g) and (h). Congress was reaching far and was doing so intentionally.
2. Sections 922(g) and (h) impose the same disabilities upon a person who “is under indictment” for certain crimes, or who “is a fugitive from justice,” or who “is” a drug addict or an unlawful user of certain drugs, or who “has been convicted in any court” of certain crimes, or who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective,” or who “has been committed to a mental institution” (emphasis supplied). This use of the respective tenses is significant and demonstrates that Congress carefully distinguished between present status and a past event. We have noted this distinction in tenses in § 922, and its significance, before:
“Congress knew the significance and meaning of the language it employed. It used the present perfect tense elsewhere in the same section..., in contrast to its use of the present tense (‘who is’) in §§ 922(h)(1), (2), and (3). The statute’s pattern is consistent and no unintended misuse of language or of tense is apparent.” Barrett v. United States, 423 U. S., at 217.
And in Scarborough v. United States, 431 U. S., at 570, we observed: “It is obvious that the tenses used throughout Title IV were chosen with care.”
3. The imposition, by §§ 922(g)(4) and (h)(4), of continuing disability on a person who “has been” adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution is particularly instructive. A person adjudicated as a mental defective may later be adjudged competent, and a person committed to a mental institution later may be deemed cured and released. Yet Congress made no exception for subsequent curative events. The past adjudication or commitment disqualifies. Congress obviously felt that such a person, though unfortunate, was too much of a risk to be allowed firearms privileges. See United States v. Bass, 404 U. S., at 344-345. In the face of this fact, we cannot believe that Congress intended to have a person convicted of a firearms felony under state law become eligible for firearms automatically because of a state expunction for whatever reason.
4. Section 925(c) empowers the Secretary to grant relief from these disabilities in certain cases. The Secretary may not grant such relief, however, to one convicted of a crime involving the use of a firearm or of a federal firearms offense, and may not grant relief in any event unless specific conditions are met to his satisfaction. Again, it is highly unlikely that Congress intended to permit its own circumscription of the ability of the Secretary to grant relief to be overcome by the vagaries of state law. That would be too easy a route to follow in order to circumvent the federal statute. See S. Rep. No. 666, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1965).
5. Provisions of Title VII, enacted simultaneously with Title IV, are helpful to our analysis. We have treated Titles VII and IV as in pari materia in construing statutory language identical to that at issue here. Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S., at 61-62. Title 18 U. S. C. App. § 1203(2) exempts from Title VII “any person who has been pardoned by the President of the United States or the chief executive of a State and has expressly been authorized by the President or such chief executive, as the case may be, to receive, possess, or transport in commerce a firearm.” Thus, in that statute, even a pardon is not sufficient to remove the firearms disabilities unless there is express authorization to have the firearm. It is inconceivable that Congress could have so provided and yet have intended, as the Court of Appeals concluded, 649 F. 2d, at 220-221, to give a state expunction a contrary and unconditional effect. After all, expunction devices were not unknown or unusual when Title IV came into being in 1968. See Comment, Expungement in California: Legislative Neglect and Judicial Abuse of the Statutory Mitigation of Felony Convictions, 12 U. San Fran. L. Rev. 155, 161 (1977); 1909 Cal. Stats., ch. 232, §1. And the Federal Youth Corrections Act, in which Congress itself provided for expunction in certain circumstances, see 18 U. S. C. § 5021, was enacted as far back as 1950. See 64 Stat. 1089.
6. Title 21 U. S. C. § 844(b) is a federal expunction statute providing that a first offender found guilty of simple possession of a controlled substance may be placed on probation without entry of judgment, and that, upon successful completion of the probation, the court shall discharge the defendant and dismiss the proceeding against him. But Congress also specifically provided in § 844(b)(1) that such discharge or dismissal “shall not be deemed a conviction for purposes of disqualifications or disabilities imposed by law upon conviction of a crime... or for any other purpose.” This provision would be superfluous if Congress had believed that expunction automatically removes the disqualification. Congress obviously knew the plain meaning of the terms it employed in statutes of this kind, and when it wished to create an exception for an expunged conviction, it did so expressly.
V
“As in all cases of statutory construction, our task is to interpret the words of [the statute] in light of the purposes Congress sought to serve.” Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U. S. 600, 608 (1979). In our previous cases we have recognized and given weight to the Act’s broad prophylactic purpose:
“When Congress enacted [18 U. S. C. §921 et seq.] it was concerned with the widespread traffic in firearms and with their general availability to those whose possession thereof was contrary to the public interest.... The principal purpose of federal gun control legislation, therefore, was to curb crime by keeping ‘firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetency.’” Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S., at 824, quoting S. Rep. No. 1501, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 22 (1968).
See also Barrett v. United States, 423 U. S., at 220-221.
In order to accomplish this goal, Congress obviously determined that firearms must be kept away from persons, such as those convicted of serious crimes, who might be expected to misuse them. Such persons are also barred from obtaining licenses to deal in firearms or ammunition. This latter provision is particularly important because Title IV and federal gun laws generally funnel access to firearms almost exclusively through dealers. See Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S., at 825. “The principal agent of federal enforcement is the dealer.” Id., at 824.
Although we have searched diligently, we have found nothing in the legislative history of Title IV or related federal firearms statutes that suggests, even remotely, that a state expunction was intended automatically to remove the disabilities imposed by §§ 922(g)(1) and (h)(1). See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 1501, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968); S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968); H. R. Rep. No. 1577, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1956, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968); H. R. Rep. No. 488, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). This lack of evidence is significant for several reasons. First, the purpose of the statute would be frustrated by a ruling that gave effect to state expunctions; a state expunction typically does not focus upon the question with which Title IV is concerned, namely, whether the convicted person is fit to engage in the firearms business or to possess a firearm. Second, “‘[i]n the absence of a plain indication to the contrary,... it is to be assumed when Congress enacts a statute that it does not intend to make its application dependent on state law.’” NLRB v. Natural Gas Utility Dist., 402 U. S. 600, 603 (1971), quoting NLRB v. Randolph Electric Membership Corp., 343 F. 2d 60, 62-63 (CA4 1965). This is because the application of federal legislation is nationwide and at times the federal program would be impaired if state law were to control. Jerome v. United States, 318 U. S. 101, 104 (1943). The legislative history reveals that Congress believed a uniform national program was necessary to assist in curbing the illegal use of firearms. See S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 28, 76-77 (1968). Third, Title IV “is a carefully constructed package of gun control legislation.... ‘Congress knew the significance and meaning of the language it employed.”’ Scarborough v. United States, 431 U. S., at 570, quoting Barrett v. United States, 423 U. S., at 217. And Congress carefully crafted a procedure for removing those disabilities in appropriate cases. § 925(c).
Congress, of course, did use state convictions to trigger Title IV’s disabilities in the first instance. This, however, was not because Congress wanted to tie those disabilities to the intricacies of state law, but because such convictions provide a convenient, although somewhat inexact, way of identifying “especially risky people.” United States v. Bass, 404 U. S., at 345. There is no inconsistency in the refusal of Congress to be bound by postconviction state actions, such as expunctions, that vary widely from State to State and that provide less than positive assurance that the person in question no longer poses an unacceptable risk of dangerousness. Any potential harshness of the federal rule is alleviated by the power given the Secretary to grant relief where relief is appropriate based on uniform federal standards.
The facts of the present case are illustrative. Because Kennison had “stable employment” at home in South Carolina and no previous conviction, he was placed on probation and allowed to go home. App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a-46a. Although he had no previous conviction, Kennison did have prior arrests for “assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature” and for “child abuse.” Record, Govt. Exh. 13. According to him, his supervision during probation consisted of “occasionally reporting] that [he] had not been arrested.” App. to Brief in Opposition 157a. In short, the circumstances surrounding the expunction of his conviction provide little, if any, assurance that Kennison is a person who can be trusted with a dangerous weapon.
I — 1 >
Finally, a rule that would give effect to expunctions under varying state statutes would seriously hamper effective enforcement of Title IV. Over half the States have enacted one or more statutes that may be classified as expunction provisions that attempt to conceal prior convictions or to remove some of their collateral or residual effects. These statutes differ, however, in almost every particular. Some are applicable only to young offenders, e. g., Mich. Comp. Laws §§780.621 and.622 (1982). Some are available only to persons convicted of certain offenses, e. g., N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:52-2(b) (West 1982); others, however, permit expunction of a conviction for any crime including murder, e. g., Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., eh. 276, §100A (West Supp. 1982-1983). Some are confined to first offenders, e. g., Okla. Stat., Tit. 22, §991c (Supp. 1982-1983). Some are discretionary, e. g., Minn. Stat. §638.02(2) (Supp. 1982), while others provide for automatic expunction under certain circumstances, e. g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-912 (1978). The statutes vary in the language employed to describe what they do. Some speak of expunging the conviction, others of “sealing” the file or of causing the dismissal of the charge. The statutes also differ in their actual effect. Some are absolute; others are limited. Only a minority address questions such as whether the expunged conviction may be considered in sentencing for a subsequent offense or in setting bail on a later charge, or whether the expunged conviction may be used for impeachment purposes, or whether the convict may deny the fact of his conviction. Some statutes, too, clearly were not meant to prevent use of the conviction in a subsequent prosecution. See, e. g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907 (1978); United States v. Herrell, 588 F. 2d 711 (CA9 1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 964 (1979). These and other differences provide nothing less than a national patchwork.
In this case, for example, although the Court of Appeals referred to Iowa’s deferred judgment statute as “unconditional and absolute,” 649 F. 2d, at 221, it is obvious from the face of the statute that that description is not entirely accurate. At the time of expunction, a separate record is maintained, not destroyed, by the Supreme Court administrator. Iowa Code § 907.4 (1981). See Tr. of Oral Arg. 44. In addition, all “criminal history data” may be released to “criminal justice agencies.” Iowa Code §§692.1(5) and 692.2 (1981). In short, the record of a conviction expunged under Iowa law is not expunged completely.
Under the decision below, perplexing problems would confront those required to enforce federal gun control laws as well as those bound by their provisions. Because, as we have noted, Title IV “is a carefully constructed package of gun control legislation,” Scarborough v. United States, 431 U. S., at 570, Congress, in framing it, took pains to avoid the very problems that the Court of Appeals’ decision inevitably would create, such as individualized federal treatment of every expunction law. Congress used unambiguous language in attaching gun control disabilities to any person “who has been convicted” of a qualifying offense. We give full effect to that language.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The Act provides exemptions from its proscriptions for certain business and commercial crimes, such as antitrust violations, punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and for nonfirearms and nonexplosives state offenses classified by the State as misdemeanors and punishable by imprisonment for two years or less. 18 U. S. C. § 921(a)(20). These exemptions are of no relevance here.
The court, however, in its discretion, in the case of a first offense, could reduce that punishment. See Iowa Code § 695.3 (1977). Sections 695.2 and.3 were repealed effective January 1, 1978, and are now replaced by Iowa Code §§724.4 and 903.1 (1981).
Section 789A.1 then read in pertinent part:
“The trial court may, upon a plea of guilty, verdict of guilty, or a special verdict upon which a judgment of conviction may be rendered, exercise either of the options contained in subsections 1 and 2. However, this section shall not apply to the crimes of treason, murder, or violation of [other specified statutes].
“1. With the consent of the defendant, the court may defer judgment and place the defendant on probation upon such terms and conditions as it may require. Upon fulfillment of the terms of probation the defendant shall be discharged without entry of judgment. Upon violation of the terms, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt and proceed as otherwise provided.
“However, this subsection shall not be available if any of the following is true:
“[Here are recited specific exceptions to the availability of the procedure outlined in subsection 1.]
“2. By record entry at time of or after sentencing, the court may suspend the sentence and place the defendant on probation upon such terms and conditions as it may require.
“Before exercising either of the options contained in subsections 1 and 2, the court shall first determine which of them will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant and protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others. In making this determination the court shall consider the age of the defendant, his prior record of convictions, if any, his employment circumstances, his family circumstances, the nature of the offense committed, whether a dangerous weapon or force was used in the commission of such offense, and such other factors as shall be appropriate. The court shall file a specific written statement of its reasons for and the facts supporting its decision to defer judgment or to suspend sentence and its decision on the length of probation.”
Section 789A.1 was enacted by 1973 Iowa Acts, ch. 295, § 1. It was repealed by 1976 Iowa Acts, ch. 1245, § 526, effective January 1, 1978. The current replacement statutes are Iowa Code §§907.3,.4, and.5 (1981).
Section 789A.6 then read in pertinent part:
“At any time that the court determines that the purposes of probation have been fulfilled, the court may order the discharge of any person from probation.... A person who has been discharged from probation shall no. longer be held to answer for his offense. Upon discharge from probation, if judgment has been deferred under section 789A.1, the court’s criminal record with reference to the deferred judgment shall be expunged. The record maintained by the supreme court administrator required by section 789A.1 shall not be expunged....”
Section 789A.6 was also enacted in 1973 and was repealed, effective January 1, 1978, by the same Iowa statutes cited in the last paragraph of n. 3, supra. The current statute replacing §789A.6 is Iowa Code §907.9 (1981).
See United States v. Bergeman, 592 F. 2d 533 (CA9 1979); United States v. Mostad, 485 F. 2d 199 (CA8 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 947 (1974); United States v. Lehmann, 613 F. 2d 130 (CA5 1980). See also, e. g., United States v. Padia, 584 F. 2d 85 (CA5 1978); United States v. Gray, 692 F. 2d 352 (CA5 1982); United States v. Nord, 586 F.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether the state-action doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943), protects physicians in the State of Oregon from federal antitrust liability for their activities on hospital peer-review committees.
I
Astoria, Oregon, where the events giving rise to this lawsuit took place, is a city of approximately 10,000 people located in the northwest comer of the State. The only hospital in Astoria is the Columbia Memorial Hospital (CMH). Astoria also is the home of a private group-medical practice called the Astoria Clinic. At all times relevant to this case, a majority of the staff members at the CMH were employees or partners of the Astoria Clinic.
Petitioner Timothy Patrick is a general and vascular surgeon. He became an employee of the Astoria Clinic and a member of the CMH’s medical staff in 1972. One year later, the partners of the Clinic, who are the respondents in this case, invited petitioner to become a partner of the Clinic. Petitioner declined this offer and instead began an independent practice in competition with the surgical practice of the Clinic. Petitioner continued to serve on the medical staff of the CMH.
After petitioner established his independent practice, the physicians associated with the Astoria Clinic consistently refused to have professional dealings with him. Petitioner received virtually no referrals from physicians at the Clinic, even though the Clinic at times did not have a general surgeon on its staff. Rather than refer surgery patients to petitioner, Clinic doctors referred them to surgeons located as far as 50 miles from Astoria. In addition, Clinic physicians showed reluctance to assist petitioner with his own patients. Clinic doctors often declined to give consultations, and Clinic surgeons refused to provide backup coverage for patients under petitioner’s care. At the same time, Clinic physicians repeatedly criticized petitioner for failing to obtain outside consultations and adequate backup coverage.
In 1979, respondent Gary Boelling, a partner at the Clinic, complained to the executive committee of the CMH’s medical staff about an incident in which petitioner had left a patient in the care of a recently hired associate, who then left the patient unattended. The executive committee decided to refer this complaint, along with information about other cases handled by petitioner, to the State Board of Medical Examiners (BOME). Respondent Franklin Russell, another partner at the Clinic, chaired the committee of the BOME that investigated these matters. The members of the BOME committee criticized petitioner’s medical practices to the full BOME, which then issued a letter of reprimand that had been drafted by Russell. The BOME retracted this letter in its entirety after petitioner sought judicial review of the BOME proceedings.
Two years later, at the request of respondent Richard Harris, a Clinic surgeon, the executive committee of the CMH’s medical staff initiated a review of petitioner’s hospital privileges. The committee voted to recommend the termination of petitioner’s privileges on the ground that petitioner’s care of his patients was below the standards of the hospital. Petitioner demanded a, hearing, as provided by hospital bylaws, and a five-member ad hoc committee, chaired by respondent Boelling, heard the charges and defense. Petitioner requested that the members of the committee testify as to their personal bias against him, but they refused to accommodate this request. Before the committee rendered its decision, petitioner resigned from the hospital staff rather than risk termination.
During the course of the hospital peer-review proceedings, petitioner filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Petitioner alleged that the partners of the Astoria Clinic had violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2. Specifically, petitioner contended that the Clinic partners had initiated and participated in the hospital peer-review proceedings to reduce competition from petitioner rather than to improve patient care. Respondents denied this assertion, and the District Court submitted the dispute to the jury with instructions that it could rule in favor of petitioner only if it found that respondents’ conduct was the result of a specific intent to injure or destroy competition.
The jury returned a verdict against respondents Russell, Boelling, and Harris on the § 1 claim and against all of the respondents on the § 2 claim. It awarded damages of $650,000 on the two antitrust claims taken together. The District Court, as required by law, see 15 U. S. C. § 15(a), 38 Stat. 731, trebled the antitrust damages.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 800 F. 2d 1498 (1986). It found that there was substantial evidence that respondents had acted in bad faith in the peer-review process. The court held, however, that even if respondents had used the peer-review process to disadvantage a competitor rather than to improve patient care, their conduct in the peer-review proceedings was immune from antitrust scrutiny. The court reasoned that the peer-review activities of physicians in Oregon fall within the state-action exemption from antitrust liability because Oregon has articulated a policy in favor of peer review and actively supervises the peer-review process. The court therefore reversed the judgment of the District Court as to petitioner’s antitrust claims.
We granted certiorari, 484 U. S. 814 (1987), to decide whether the state-action doctrine protects respondents’ hospital peer-review activities from antitrust challenge. We now reverse.
II
In Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943), this Court considered whether the Sherman Act prohibits anticompetitive actions of a State. Petitioner in that case was a raisin producer who brought suit against the California Director of Agriculture to enjoin the enforcement of a marketing plan adopted under the State’s Agricultural Prorate Act. That statute restricted competition among food producers in the State in order to stabilize prices and prevent economic waste. Relying on principles of federalism and state sovereignty, this Court refused to find in the Sherman Act “an unexpressed purpose to nullify a state’s control over its officers and agents.” Id., at 351. The Sherman Act, the Court held, was not intended “to restrain state action or official action directed by a state.” Ibid.
Although Parker involved a suit against a state official, the Court subsequently recognized that Parker’s federalism rationale demanded that the state-action exemption also apply in certain suits against private parties. See, e. g., Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U. S. 48 (1985). If the Federal Government or a private litigant always could enforce the Sherman Act against private parties, then a State could not effectively implement a program restraining competition among them. The Court, however, also sought to ensure that private parties could claim state-action immunity from Sherman Act liability only when their anticompetitive acts were truly the product of state regulation. We accordingly established a rigorous two-pronged test to determine whether anticompetitive conduct engaged in by private parties should be deemed state action and thus shielded from the antitrust laws. See California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97 (1980). First, “the challenged restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy.’” Id., at 105, quoting Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U. S. 389, 410 (1978) (opinion of Brennan, J.). Second, the anticompetitive conduct “must be ‘actively supervised’ by the State itself.” California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., supra, at 105, quoting Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., supra, at 410 (opinion of Brennan, J.). Only if an anticompetitive act of a private party meets both of these requirements is it fairly attributable to the State.
In this case, we need not consider the “clear articulation” prong of the Midcal test, because the “active supervision” requirement is not satisfied. The active supervision requirement stems from the recognition that “[wjhere a private party is engaging in the anticompetitive activity, there is a real danger that he is acting to further his own interests, rather than the governmental interests of the State. ” Hallie v. Eau Claire, 471 U. S. 34, 47 (1985); see id., at 45 (“A private party. . . may be presumed to be acting primarily on his or its own behalf”). The requirement is designed to ensure that the state-action doctrine will shelter only the particular anticompetitive acts of private parties that, in the judgment of the State, actually further state regulatory policies. Id., at 46-47. To accomplish this purpose, the active supervision requirement mandates that the State exercise ultimate control over the challenged anticompetitive conduct. Cf. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, supra, at 51 (noting that state public service commissions “have and exercise ultimate authority and control over all intrastate rates”); Parker v. Brown, supra, at 352 (stressing that a marketing plan proposed by raisin growers could not take effect unless approved by a state board). The mere presence of some state involvement or monitoring does not suffice. See 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U. S. 335, 345, n. 7 (1987) (holding that certain forms of state scrutiny of a restraint established by a private party did not constitute active supervision because they did not “exerft] any significant control over” the terms of the restraint). The active supervision prong of the Midcal test requires that state officials have and exercise power to review particular anticompeti-tive acts of private parties and disapprove those that fail to accord with state policy. Absent such a program of supervision, there is no realistic assurance that a private party’s anticompetitive conduct promotes .state policy, rather than merely the party’s individual interests.
Respondents in this case contend that the State of Oregon actively supervises the peer-review process through the State Health Division, the BOME, and the state judicial system. The Court of Appeals, in finding the active supervision requirement satisfied, also relied primarily on the powers and responsibilities of these state actors. Neither the Court of Appeals nor respondents, however, have succeeded in showing that any of these actors reviews — or even could review — private decisions regarding hospital privileges to determine whether such decisions comport with state regulatory policy and to correct abuses.
Oregon’s Health Division has general supervisory powers over “matters relating to the preservation of life and health,” Ore. Rev. Stat. §431.110(1) (1987), including the licensing of hospitals, see §441.025, and the enforcement of health laws, see §§431.120(1), 431.150, 431.155(1). Hospitals in Oregon are under a statutory obligation to establish peer-review procedures and to review those procedures on a regular basis. See §§441.055(3)(c), (d). The State Health Division, exercising its enforcement powers, may initiate judicial proceedings against any hospital violating this law. See §§ 431.150, 431.155. In addition, the Health Division may deny, suspend, or revoke a hospital’s license for failure to comply with the statutory requirement. See §441.030(2). Oregon law specifies no other ways in which the Health Division may supervise the peer-review process.
This statutory scheme does not establish a state program of active supervision over peer-review decisions. The Health Division’s statutory authority over peer review relates only to a hospital’s procedures; that authority does not encompass the actual decisions made by hospital peer-review committees. The restraint challenged in this case (and in most cases of its kind) consists not in the procedures used to terminate hospital privileges, but in the termination of privileges itself. The State does not actively supervise this restraint unless a state official has and exercises ultimate authority over private privilege determinations. Oregon law does not give the Health Division this authority: under the statutory scheme, the Health Division has no power to review private peer-review decisions and overturn a decision that fails to accord with state policy. Thus, the activities of the Health Division under Oregon law cannot satisfy the active supervision requirement of the state-action doctrine.
Similarly, the BOME does not engage in active supervision over private peer-review decisions. The principal function of the BOME is to regulate the licensing of physicians in the State.. As respondents note, Oregon hospitals are required by statute to notify the BOME promptly of a decision to terminate or restrict privileges. See Ore. Rev. Stat. § 441.820(1) (1987). Neither this statutory provision nor any other, however, indicates that the BOME has the power to disapprove private privilege decisions. The apparent purpose of the reporting requirement is to give the BOME an opportunity to determine whether additional action on its part, such as revocation of a physician’s license, is warranted. Certainly, respondents have not shown that the BOME in practice reviews privilege decisions or that it ever has asserted the authority to reverse them.
The only remaining alleged supervisory authority in this case is the state judiciary. Respondents claim, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that Oregon’s courts directly review privilege-termination decisions and that this judicial review constitutes active state supervision. This Court has not previously considered whether state courts, acting in their judicial capacity, can adequately supervise private conduct for purposes of the state-action doctrine. All of our prior cases concerning state supervision over private parties have involved administrative agencies, see, e. g., Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U. S. 48 (1985), or State Supreme Courts with agency-like responsibilities over the organized bar, see Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 (1977). This case, however, does not require us to decide the broad question whether judicial review of private conduct ever can constitute active supervision, because judicial review of privilege-termination decisions in Oregon, if such review exists at all, falls far short of satisfying the active supervision requirement.
As an initial matter, it is not clear that Oregon law affords any direct judicial review of private peer-review decisions. Oregon has no statute expressly providing for judicial review of privilege terminations. Moreover, we are aware of no case in which an Oregon court has held that judicial review of peer-review decisions is available. The two cases that respondents have cited certainly do not hold that a physician whose privileges have been terminated by a private hospital is entitled to judicial review. In each of these cases, the Oregon Supreme Court assumed, but expressly did not decide, that a complaining physician was entitled to the kind of review he requested. See Straube v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Board, 287 Ore. 375, 383, 600 P. 2d 381, 386 (1979) (“We have assumed (but not decided) for the purpose of this case that plaintiff is entitled to ‘fair procedure’ as a common law right”); Huffaker v. Bailey, 273 Ore. 273, 275, 540 P. 2d 1398, 1399 (1975) (“In view of our conclusion that petitioner cannot prevail even assuming the case is properly before us, we find it unnecessary to decide these interesting questions [of reviewability]. Therefore, we assume, but do not decide, that the hospital’s decisions are subject to review by mandamus . . .”).
Moreover, the Oregon courts have indicated that even if they were to provide judicial review of hospital peer-review proceedings, the review would be of a very limited nature.' The Oregon Supreme Court, in its most recent decision addressing this matter, stated that a court “should [not] decide the merits of plaintiff’s dismissal” and that “[i]t would be unwise for a court to do more than to make sure that some sort of reasonable procedure was afforded and that there was evidence from which it could be found that plaintiff’s conduct posed a threat to patient care.” Straube v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Board, supra, at 384, 600 P. 2d, at 386. This kind of review would fail to satisfy the state-action doctrine’s requirement of active supervision. Under the standard suggested by the Oregon Supreme Court, a state court would not review the merits of a privilege termination decision to determine whether it accorded with state regulatory policy. Such constricted review does not convert the action of a private party in terminating a physician’s privileges into the action of the State for purposes of the state-action doctrine.
Because we conclude that no state actor in Oregon actively supervises hospital peer-review decisions, we hold that the state-action doctrine does not protect the peer-review activities challenged in this case from application of the federal antitrust laws. In so holding, we are not unmindful of the policy argument that respondents and their amici have advanced for reaching the opposite conclusion. They contend that effective peer review is essential to the provision of quality medical care and that any threat of antitrust liability will prevent physicians from participating openly and actively in peer-review proceedings. This argument, however, essentially challenges the wisdom of applying the antitrust laws to the sphere of medical care, and as such is properly directed to the legislative branch. To the extent that Congress has declined to exempt medical peer review from the reach of the antitrust laws, peer review is immune from antitrust scrutiny only if the State effectively has made this conduct its own. The State of Oregon has not done so. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Petitioner originally named all of the partners of the Astoria Clinic as defendants. One partner, however, was dismissed from the suit at the close of petitioner’s case at trial.
The court below did not address any issues arising from petitioner’s decision to resign from the hospital staff prior to the ad hoc committee’s determination, and respondents did not raise this matter in their response to the petition for certiorari. Accordingly, we do not address the significance, if any, of petitioner’s resignation.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner, as appropriate in light of the verdicts rendered by the jury, the Court of Appeals characterized respondents’ conduct as “shabby, unprincipled and unprofessional.” 800 F. 2d, at 1509.
The Court of Appeals also determined that respondent Russell’s activities as a member of the BOME likewise were immune from antitrust liability under the state-action doctrine. As we read the petition for writ of certiorari in this case, petitioner has declined to challenge this holding of the Court of Appeals. Indeed, petitioner asserts that this holding makes no difference to him because he suffered little or no damage from the BOME proceedings or respondent Russell’s participation therein. Be-eause petitioner has not brought this aspect of the Court of Appeals’ decision before us, we express no view as to its correctness.
The petition for certiorari also presented the question whether, assuming that respondent Russell’s activities as a member of the BOME constitute state action and thus cannot directly form the basis for antitrust liability, evidence of those activities is admissible insofar as it indicates the presence of a nonimmune conspiracy in which Russell and others engaged. A close reading of the opinion below, however, reveals that the Court of Appeals did not address this question. This Court usually will decline to consider questions presented in a petition for certiorari that have not been considered by the lower court. See, e. g., Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231, 234 (1976) (per curiam). We see no reason to depart from this practice in the case at bar. Accordingly, we take no position on the eviden-tiary question raised by petitioner.
Indeed, the statutory scheme indicates that the Health Division has only limited power over even a hospital’s peer-review procedures. The statute authorizes the Health Division to force a hospital to comply with its obligation to establish and regularly review peer-review procedures, but the statute does not empower the Health Division to Review the quality of the procedures that the hospital adopts.
The statutory provision requiring hospitals to inform the BOME of a decision to terminate privileges is only one of several statutory reporting requirements involving the BOME. Oregon law also provides that hospitals and licensees shall report medically incompetent conduct to the BOME. See Ore. Rev Stat. §677.415(2) (1987). Further, malpractice insurers must report all medical malpractice claims to the BOME. See § 743.770. All of these reporting requirements appear designed to ensure that the BOME will learn of instances of substandard medical care so that it can decide whether official action is warranted.
Congress in fact insulated certain medical peer-review activities from antitrust liability in the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, 42 U. S. C. § 11101 et seq. (1982 ed., Supp. IV). The Act, which was enacted well after the events at issue in this case and is not retroactive, essentially immunizes peer-review action from liability if the action was taken- “in the reasonable belief that [it] was in the furtherance of quality health care.” § 11112(a). The Act expressly provides that it does not change other “immunities under-law,” § 11115(a), including the state-action immunity, thus allowing States to immunize peer-review action that does not meet the federal standard. In enacting this measure, Congress clearly noted and responded to the concern that the possibility of antitrust liability will discourage effective peer review. If physicians believe that the Act provides insufficient immunity to protect the peer-review process fully, they must take that matter up with Congress.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to consider whether a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note is insured as a “deposit” under the federal deposit insurance program. We hold that, in light of the longstanding interpretation of petitioner Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that such a letter does not create a deposit and, in light of the fact that such a letter does not entrust any noncontingent assets to the bank, a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note does not give rise to an insured deposit.
I
Orion Manufacturing Corporation (Orion) was, at the time of the relevant transactions, a customer of respondent Philadelphia Gear Corporation (Philadelphia Gear). On Orion’s application, the Penn Square Bank, N. A. (Penn Square) issued a letter of credit for the benefit of Philadelphia Gear in the amount of $145,200. The letter of credit provided that a draft drawn upon the letter of credit would be honored by Penn Square only if accompanied by Philadelphia Gear’s “signed statement that [it had] invoiced Orion Manufacturing Corporation and that said invoices have remained unpaid for at least fifteen (15) days.” App. 25. Because the letter of credit was intended to provide payment to the seller only if the buyer of the invoiced goods failed to make payment, the letter of credit was what is commonly referred to as a “standby” or “guaranty” letter of credit. See, e. g., 12 CFR § 337.2(a), and n. 1 (1985) (defining standby letters of credit and mentioning that they may “‘guaranty’ payment of a money obligation”). A conventional “commercial” letter of credit, in contrast, is one in which the seller obtains payment from the issuing bank without looking to the buyer for payment even in the first instance. See ibid, (distinguishing standby letters of credit from commercial letters of credit). See also Verkuil, Bank Solvency and Guaranty Letters of Credit, 25 Stan. L. Rev. 716, 717-724 (1973); Arnold & Bransilver, The Standby Letter of Credit — The Controversy Continues, 10 U.C.C.L.J. 272, 277-279 (Spring 1978).
On the same day that Penn Square issued the standby letter of credit, Orion executed an unsecured promissory note for $145,200 in favor of Penn Square. App. 27. The purpose of the note was listed as “Back up Letter of Credit.” Ibid. Although the face of the note did not so indicate, both Orion and Penn Square understood that nothing would be considered due on the note, and no interest charged by Penn Square, unless Philadelphia Gear presented drafts on the standby letter of credit after nonpayment by Orion. 751 F. 2d 1131, 1134 (CA10 1984). See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 32.
On July 5, 1982, Penn Square was declared insolvent. Petitioner FDIC was appointed its receiver. Shortly thereafter, Philadelphia Gear presented drafts on the standby letter of credit for payment of over $700,000 for goods delivered before Penn Square’s insolvency. The FDIC returned the drafts unpaid. 751 F. 2d., at 1133-1134.
Philadelphia Gear sued the FDIC in the Western District of Oklahoma. Philadelphia Gear alleged that the standby letter of credit was an insured deposit under the definition of “deposit” set forth at 12 U. S. C. § 1813(0(1), and that Philadelphia Gear was therefore entitled to $100,000 in deposit insurance from the FDIC. See 12 U. S. C. § 1821(a)(1) (setting forth $100,000 as the maximum amount generally insured by the FDIC for any single depositor at a given bank). In apparent hopes of obtaining additional funds from the FDIC in the latter’s capacity as receiver rather than as insurer, respondent also alleged that terms of the standby letter of credit allowing repeated reinstatements of the credit made the letter’s total value more than $145,200.
The District Court held that the total value of the standby letter of credit was $145,200, App. B to Pet. for Cert. 20a, 28a-30a; that the letter was an insured deposit on which the FDIC was hable for $100,000 in deposit insurance, id., at 37a-43a; and that Philadelphia Gear was entitled to prejudgment interest on that $100,000, id., at 43a. The FDIC appealed from the District Court’s ruling that the standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note constituted a “deposit” for purposes of 12 U. S. C. § 1813(0(1) and its ruling that Philadelphia Gear was entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. Philadelphia Gear cross-appealed from the District Court’s ruling on the total value of the letter of credit.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court’s award of prejudgment interest, 751 F. 2d, at 1138-1139, but otherwise affirmed the District Court’s decision. As to the definition of “deposit,” the Court of Appeals held that a standby letter of credit backed by a promissory note fell within the terms of 12 U. S. C. § 1813(Z)(l)’s definition of “deposit,” and was therefore insured. Id., at 1134-1138. We granted the FDIC’s petition for certiorari on this aspect of the Court of Appeals’ ruling. 474 U. S. 918 (1985). We now reverse.
II
Title 12 U. S. C. § 1813(0(1) provides:
“The term ‘deposit’ means—
“(1) the unpaid balance of money or its equivalent received or held by a bank in the usual course of business and for which it has given or is obligated to give credit, either conditionally or unconditionally, to a commercial . . . account, or which is evidenced by ... a letter of credit or a traveler’s check on which the bank is primarily liable: Provided, That, without limiting the generality of the term ‘money or its equivalent,’ any such account or instrument must be regarded as evidencing the receipt of the equivalent of money when credited or issued in exchange for checks or drafts or for a promissory note upon which the person obtaining any such credit or instrument is primarily or secondarily liable . . . .”
Philadelphia Gear successfully argued before the Court of Appeals that the standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note constituted a “deposit” under 12 U. S. C. § 1813(0(1) because that letter was one on which the bank was primarily liable, and evidenced the receipt by the bank of “money or its equivalent” in the form of a promissory note upon which the person obtaining the credit was primarily or secondarily liable. The FDIC does not here dispute that the bank was primarily liable on the letter of credit. Brief for Petitioner 7, n. 7. Nor does the FDIC contest the fact that the backup note executed by Orion is, at least in some sense, a “promissory note.” See Tr. of Oral Arg. 7 (remarks of Mr. Rothfeld, representing the FDIC) (“It was labeled a note. It can be termed a note”). The FDIC argues rather that it has consistently interpreted § 1813(0(1) not to include standby letters of credit backed only by a contingent promissory note because such a note represents no hard assets and thus does not constitute “money or its equivalent.” Because the alleged “deposit” consists only of a contingent liability, asserts the FDIC, a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note does not give rise to a “deposit” that Congress intended the FDIC to insure. Under this theory, while the note here may have been labeled a promissory note on its face and may have been a promissory note under state law, it was not a promissory note for purposes of the federal law set forth in 12 U. S. C. § 1813(Z)(1). See D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U. S. 447, 456 (1942) (holding that liability on a promissory note acquired by the FDIC is a federal question); First National Bank v. Dickinson, 396 U. S. 122, 133-134 (1969) (holding that federal law governs the definition of branch banking under the McFadden Act).
The Court of Appeals quite properly looked first to the language of the statute. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 735 (1985); United States v. Yermian, 468 U. S. 63, 68 (1984). Finding the language of the proviso in § 1813(Z)(1) sufficiently plain, the Court of Appeals looked no further. But as the FDIC points out, the terms “letter of credit” and “promissory note” as used in the statute have a federal definition, and the FDIC has developed and interpreted those definitions for many years within the framework of the complex statutory scheme that the FDIC administers. The FDIC’s interpretation of whether a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note constitutes a “deposit” is consistent with Congress’ desire to protect the hard earnings of individuals by providing for federal deposit insurance. Since the creation of the FDIC, Congress has expressed no dissatisfaction with the FDIC’s interpretation of “deposit”; indeed, Congress in 1960 adopted the FDIC’s regulatory definition as the statutory language. When we weigh all these factors together, we are constrained to conclude that the term “deposit” does not include a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note.
A
Justice Holmes stated that, as to discerning the constitutionality of a federal estate tax, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921). Although the genesis of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act may not be quite so powerful a substitute for legal analysis, that history is worthy of at least a page of recounting for the light it sheds on Congress’ purpose in passing the Act. Cf. Watt v. Alaska, 451 U. S. 259, 266 (1981) (“The circumstances of the enactment of particular legislation may persuade a court that Congress did not intend words of common meaning to have their literal effect”).
When Congress created the FDIC, the Nation was in the throes of an extraordinary financial crisis. See generally F. Allen, Since Yesterday: The Nineteen-Thirties in America 98-121 (1940); A. Schlesinger, The Crisis of the Old Order 474-482 (1957). More than one-third of the banks in the United States open in 1929 had shut their doors just four years later. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, pt. 2, pp. 1019, 1038 (1976). In response to this financial crisis, President Roosevelt declared a national banking holiday effective the first business day after he took office. 48 Stat. 1689. Congress in turn responded with extensive legislation on banking, including the laws that gave the FDIC its existence.
Congress’ purpose in creating the FDIC was clear. Faced with virtual panic, Congress attempted to safeguard the hard earnings of individuals against the possibility that bank failures would deprive them of their savings. Congress passed the 1933 provisions “[i]n order to provide against a repetition of the present painful experience in which a vast sum of assets and purchasing power is ‘tied up.’” S. Rep. No. 77, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 12 (1933) (emphasis added). The focus of Congress was therefore upon ensuring that a deposit of “hard earnings” entrusted by individuals to a bank would not lead to a tangible loss in the event of a bank failure. As the chairman of the relevant Committee in the House of Representatives explained on the floor:
“[T]he purpose of this legislation is to protect the people of the United States in the right to have banks in which their deposits will be safe. They have a right to expect of Congress the establishment and maintenance of a system of banks in the United States where citizens may place their hard earnings with reasonable expectation of being able to get them out again upon demand. . . .
“[The purpose of the bill is to ensure that] the community is saved from the shock of a bank failure, and every citizen has been given an opportunity to withdraw his deposits. . . .
“The public . . . demand of you and me that we provide a banking system worthy of this great Nation and banks in which citizens may place the fruits of their toil and know that a deposit slip in return for their hard earnings will be as safe as a Government bond.” 77 Cong. Rec. 3837, 3838, 3840 (1933) (remarks of Rep. Steagall).
See also id., at 3913 (remarks of Rep. Keller) (“[We must make] it absolutely certain that . . . any and every man, woman, or child who puts a dollar in any bank can absolutely know that he will under no circumstances lose a single penny of it”); id., at 3924 (remarks of Rep. Green) (“It is time that we pass a law so secure that when a man puts his money in a bank he will know for sure that when he comes back it will be there”). To prevent bank failure that resulted in the tangible loss of hard assets was therefore the focus of Congress’ effort in creating deposit insurance.
Despite the fact Congress revisited the deposit insurance statute in 1935, 1950, and 1960, these comments remain the best indication of Congress’ underlying purpose in creating deposit insurance. The Reports on the 1935 amendments presented the definition of “deposit” without any specific comment. See H. R. Rep. No. 742, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1935); S. Rep. No. 1007, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-4 (1935); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1822, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 44 (1935). The floor debates centered around changes in the Federal Reserve System made in the same bill, not on deposit insurance. See, e. g., 79 Cong. Rec. 6568-6577, 6651-6660 (1935). Indeed, in light of the fact that instruments denominated “promissory notes” seem at the time to have been considered exclusively uncontingent, see, e. g., 16 Fed. Res. Bull. 520 (1930) (Regulation A) (defining promissory note as an “unconditional promise ... to pay [a sum certain in dollars] at a fixed or determinable future time”) (emphasis added); Gilman v. Commissioner, 53 F. 2d 47, 50 (CA8 1931) (“The form of these [contingent] instruments referred to as ‘promissory notes’ is very unusual”), it is unlikely that Congress would have had occasion to refer expressly to contingent notes such as the one before us here even if Congress had turned its attention to the definition of “deposit” when it first enacted the provision treating “money or its equivalent.”
The legislative history of the 1950 amendments is similarly unhelpful, as one would expect given that the relevant provisions were reenacted but unchanged. See S. Rep. No. 1269, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 2-3 (1950); H. R. Rep. No. 2564, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 5-6 (1950). The Committee Reports on the 1960 amendments likewise give no indication that the amendments’ phrasing was meant to effect any fundamental changes in the definition of deposit; those Reports state only that the changes are intended to bring into harmony the definitions of “deposit” used for purposes of deposit insurance with those used in reports of condition, and that the FDIC’s rules and regulations are to be incorporated into the new definition. See H. R. Rep. No. 1827, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 3, 5 (1960); S. Rep. No. 1821, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 7, 10 (1960). See also 106 Cong. Rec. 14794 (1960) (discussing pre-1960 scheme).
Congress’ focus in providing for a system of deposit insurance — a system that has been continued to the present without modification to the basic definition of deposits that are “money or its equivalent” — was clearly a focus upon safeguarding the assets and “hard earnings” that businesses and individuals have entrusted to banks. Congress wanted to ensure that someone who put tangible assets into a bank could always get those assets back. The purpose behind the insurance of deposits in general, and especially in the section defining deposits as “money or its equivalent,” therefore, is the protection of assets and hard earnings entrusted to a bank.
This purpose is not furthered by extending deposit insurance to cover a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note, which involves no such surrender of assets or hard earnings to the custody of the bank. Philadelphia Gear, which now seeks to collect deposit insurance, surrendered absolutely nothing to the bank. The letter of credit is for Philadelphia Gear’s benefit, but the bank relied upon Orion to meet the obligations of the letter of credit and made no demands upon Philadelphia Gear. Nor, more importantly, did Orion surrender any assets unconditionally to the bank. The bank did not credit any account of Orion’s in exchange for the promissory note, and did not treat its own assets as increased by its acceptance of the note. The bank could not have collected on the note from Orion unless Philadelphia Gear presented the unpaid invoices and a draft on the letter of credit. In the absence of a presentation by Philadelphia Gear of the unpaid invoices, the promissory note was a wholly contingent promise, and when Penn Square went into receivership, neither Orion nor Philadelphia Gear had lost anything except the ability to use Penn Square to reduce Philadelphia Gear’s risk that Philadelphia Gear would go unpaid for a delivery of goods to Orion.
B
Congress’ actions with respect to the particular definition of “deposit” that it has chosen in order to effect its general purpose likewise lead us to believe that a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note is not an insurable “deposit.” In 1933, Congress amended the Federal Reserve Act to authorize the creation of the FDIC and charged it “to insure . . . the deposits of all banks which are entitled to the benefits of [FDIC] insurance.” §8, Banking Act of 1933, ch. 89, 48 Stat. 168. Congress did not define the term “deposit,” however, until the Banking Act of 1935, in which it stated:
“The term ‘deposit’ means the unpaid balance of money or its equivalent received by a bank in the usual course of business and for which it has given or is obligated to give credit to a commercial, checking, savings, time or thrift account, or which is evidenced by its certificate of deposit, and trust funds held by such bank whether retained or deposited in any department of such bank or deposited in another bank, together with such other obligations of a bank as the board of directors [of the FDIC] shall find and shall prescribe by its regulations to be deposit liabilities by. general usage . . . .” §101, Banking Act of 1935, ch. 614, 49 Stat. 684, 685-686.
Less than two months after this statute was enacted, the FDIC promulgated a definition of “deposit,” which provided in part that “letters of credit must be regarded as issued for the equivalent of money when issued in exchange for . . . promissory notes upon which the person procuring [such] instruments is primarily or secondarily liable.” See 12 CFR §301.1(d) (1939) (codifying Regulation I, rule 1, Oct. 1, 1935), revoked after incorporation into statutory law, 12 CFR 234 (Supp. 1962).
In 1950, Congress revisited the provisions specifically governing the FDIC in order to remove them from the Federal Reserve Act and place them into a separate Act. See Act of Sept. 21, 1950, ch. 967, 64 Stat. 874. The new provisions did not modify the definition of “deposit.” In 1960, Congress expanded the statutory definition of “deposit” in several categories, and also incorporated the regulatory definition that the FDIC had employed since 1935 into the statute that remains in force today. See swpra, at 430 (quoting current version of statute).
At no point did Congress disown its initial, clear desire to protect the hard assets of depositors. See supra, at 432-435. At no point did Congress criticize the FDIC’s longstanding interpretation, see infra, at 438, that a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note is not a “deposit.” In fact, Congress had reenacted the 1935 provisions in 1950 without changing the definition of “deposit” at all. Compare 49 Stat. 685-686 with 64 Stat. 874-875. When the statute giving rise to the longstanding interpretation has been reenacted without pertinent change, the “congressional failure to revise or repeal the agency’s interpretation is persuasive evidence that the interpretation is the one intended by Congress.” NLRB v. Bell Aerospace, 416 U. S. 267, 275 (1974). See Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 U. S. 443, 457 (1978). Indeed, the current statutory definition of “deposit,” added by Congress in 1960, was expressly designed to incorporate the FDIC’s rules and regulations on “deposits.” As Committees of both Houses of Congress explained the amendments: “The amended definition would include the present statutory definition of deposits, and the definition of deposits in the rules and regulations of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, [along] with . . . changes [in sections other than what is now §1813(0(1)].” H. R. Rep. No. 1827, 86th Cong, 2d Sess., 5 (1960) (emphasis added); S. Rep. No. 1821, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1960) (same). Congress, therefore, has expressly incorporated into the statutory scheme the regulations that the FDIC devised to assist it in determining what constitutes a “deposit” within the statutory scheme. Under these circumstances, we must obviously give a great deal of deference to the FDIC’s interpretation of what these regulations do and do not include within their definition of “deposit.”
C
Although the FDIC does not argue that it has an express regulation excluding a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note from the definition of “deposit” in 12 U. S. C. § 1813(0(1), that exclusion by the FDIC is nonetheless longstanding and consistent. At a meeting of FDIC and bank officials shortly after the FDIC’s creation, a bank official asked whether a letter of credit issued by a charge against a customer’s account was a deposit. The FDIC official replied:
“ Tf your letter of credit is issued by a charge against a depositor’s account or for cash and the letter of credit is reflected on your books as a liability, you do have a deposit liability. If, on the other hand, you merely extend a line of credit to your customer, you will only show a contingent liability on your books. In that event no deposit liability has been created.’” Transcript as quoted in FDIC v. Irving Trust Co., 137 F. Supp. 145, 161 (SDNY 1955).
Because Penn Square apparently never reflected the letter of credit here as a noncontingent liability, and because the interwoven financial instruments at issue here can be viewed most accurately as the extension of a line of credit by Penn Square to Orion, this transcript lends support to the FDIC’s contention that its longstanding policy has been to exclude standby letters of credit backed by contingent promissory notes from 12 U. S. C. § 1813(Z)(l)’s definition of “deposit.”
The FDIC’s contemporaneous understanding that standby letters of credit backed by contingent promissory notes do not generate a “deposit” for purposes of 12 U. S. C. § 1813(i)(l) has been fortified by its behavior over the following decades. The FDIC has asserted repeatedly that it has never charged deposit insurance premiums on standby letters of credit backed by contingent promissory notes, and Philadelphia Gear does not contest that assertion. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 42. Congress requires the FDIC to assess contributions to its insurance fund at a fixed percentage of a bank’s “deposits” under 12 U. S. C. §1813(0(1). See 12 U. S. C. §§ 1817(a)(4), (b)(1), (b)(4)(A). By the time that this suit — the first challenge to the FDIC’s treatment of standby letters of credit backed by contingent promissory notes — was brought, almost $100 billion in standby letters of credit was outstanding. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Annual Statistical Digest 71 (1983); FDIC, 1983 Statistics on Banking (Table 110F). The FDIC’s failure to levy premiums on standby letters of credit backed by contingent promissory notes therefore clearly demonstrates that the FDIC has never considered such letters to reflect deposits.
Although the FDIC’s interpretation of the relevant statute has not been reduced to a specific regulation, we conclude nevertheless that the FDIC’s practice and belief that a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note does not create a “deposit” within the meaning of 12 U. S. C. § 1813(0(1) are entitled in the circumstances of this case to the “considerable weight [that] should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844 (1984). As we have stated above, the FDIC’s interpretation here of a statutory definition adopted wholesale from the FDIC’s own regulation is consistent with congressional purpose, and may certainly stand.
Ill
Philadelphia Gear essentially seeks to have the FDIC guarantee the contingent credit extended to Orion, not assets entrusted to the bank by Philadelphia Gear or by Orion on Philadelphia Gear’s behalf. With a standard “commercial” letter of credit, Orion would typically have unconditionally entrusted Penn Square with funds before Penn Square would have written the letter of credit, and thus Orion would have lost something if Penn Square became unable to honor its obligations. As the FDIC concedes, deposit insurance extends to such a letter of credit backed by an uncontingent promissory note. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 8 (statement of Mr. Rothfeld, representing the FDIC) (“If this note were a fully uncontingent negotiable note that were not limited by any side agreements, it would be a note backing a letter of credit within the meaning of the statute”). See also id., at 17-18. But here, with a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note, Penn Square was not in possession of any of Orion’s or Philadelphia Gear’s assets when it went into receivership. Nothing was ventured, and therefore no insurable deposit was lost. We believe that, whatever the relevant State’s definition of “letter of credit” or “promissory note,” Congress did not by using those phrases in 12 U. S. C. § 1813(Z)(1) intend to protect with deposit insurance a standby letter of credit backed only by a contingent promissory note. We thus hold that such an arrangement does not give rise to a “deposit” under 12 U. S. C. § 1813(0(1).
Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These two cases present the question whether the incompetence of a state prisoner requires suspension of the prisoner’s federal habeas corpus proceedings. We hold that neither 18 U. S. C. § 3599 nor 18 U. S. C. § 4241 provides such a right and that the Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Sixth Circuits both erred in holding that district courts must stay federal habeas proceedings when petitioners are adjudged incompetent.
I
A
Ernest Valencia Gonzales was convicted by an Arizona jury of felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, first-degree burglary, and theft. The convictions arose from Gonzales’ repeated stabbing of Darrel and Deborah Wagner in front of their 7-year-old son during a burglary of the Wagners’ home. Darrel Wagner died from the stabbing, while Deborah Wagner survived but spent five days in intensive care. The trial court sentenced Gonzales to death on the murder charge and to various prison terms for the other crimes.
After exhausting state remedies, Gonzales filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court on November 15,1999. While the petition was pending, Gonzales’ appointed counsel moved to stay the proceedings, contending that Gonzales was no longer capable of rationally communicating with or assisting counsel. He argued that mental incompetence entitled Gonzales to a stay under Ninth Circuit precedent. See Rohan v. Woodford, 334 F. 3d 803 (2003). In Rohan, the Ninth Circuit held that the federal statute guaranteeing state capital prisoners a right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings, 21 U. S. C. § 848(q)(4)(B) (2000 ed.) (now codified as 18 U. S. C. § 3599(a)(2)), could not “be faith-folly enforced unless courts ensure that a petitioner is competent,” 334 F. 3d, at 813. Rohan thus concluded that “where an incompetent capital habeas petitioner raises claims that could potentially benefit from his ability to communicate rationally, refusing to stay proceedings pending restoration of competence denies him his statutory right to assistance of counsel, whether or not counsel can identify with precision the information sought.” Id., at 819.
Applying Rohan, the District Court denied a stay after concluding that the claims properly before it were record based or resolvable as a matter of law and thus would not benefit from Gonzales' input. The court found it unnecessary to determine whether Gonzales was incompetent, though it did find that he possessed “at least a limited capacity for rational communication.” Gonzales v. Schriro, 617 F. Supp. 2d 849, 863 (Ariz. 2008).
Gonzales thereafter filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit. While Gonzales’ petition was pending, the Ninth Circuit decided Nash v. Ryan, 581 F. 3d 1048 (2009), which held that habeas petitioners have a right to competence on appeal, even though appeals are entirely record based. Id., at 1050 (“While an appeal is record-based, that does not mean that a habeas petitioner in a capital case is relegated to a nonexistent role. Meaningful assistance of appellate counsel may require rational communication between counsel and a habeas petitioner”). Applying Nash and Rohan, the court granted the writ of mandamus, concluding that even though Gonzales’ “exhausted claims are record-based or legal in nature, he is entitled to a stay pending a competency determination” under 18 U. S. C. § 3599. In re Gonzales, 623 F. 3d 1242, 1244 (2010).
We granted certiorari to determine whether §3599 provides a statutory right to competence in federal habeas proceedings. 565 U. S. 1259 (2012).
B
Sean Carter was convicted by an Ohio jury of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and rape, and sentenced to death for anally raping his adoptive grandmother, Veader Prince, and stabbing her to death. After exhausting his state-court appeals, Carter initiated federal habeas proceedings on March 19, 2002, in the Northern District of Ohio. Carter eventually filed a third amended petition, along with a motion requesting a competency determination and a stay of the proceedings. The District Court granted the motion.
Following several psychiatric evaluations and a competency determination, the District Court found Carter incompetent to assist counsel. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s test in Rohan, it determined that Carter’s assistance was required to develop four of his exhausted claims. As a result, the court dismissed his habeas petition without prejudice and prospectively tolled the statute of limitations. Carter v. Bradshaw, 583 F. Supp. 2d 872, 884 (2008). The State appealed.
The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that “[fjederal habeas petitioners facing the death penalty for state criminal convictions do not enjoy a constitutional right to competence.” Carter v. Bradshaw, 644 F. 3d 329, 332 (2011). It nevertheless located a statutory right to competence in § 4241, relying, in part, on this Court’s decision in Rees v. Peyton, 384 I, U. S. 312 (1966) (per curiam) (Rees I). 644 F. 3d, at 332. The Sixth Circuit explained:
“By applying section 4241 to habeas actions, Rees addresses the situation where a habeas petitioner awaiting the death penalty may seek to forego any collateral attacks on his conviction or sentence, and defines a statutory right for the petitioner to be competent enough to (1) understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, and (2) assist properly in his defense.” Id., at 333.
The court concluded that “[ajnytime a capital habeas petitioner affirmatively seeks to forego his habeas petition, whether by action or inaction,... a district court may employ section 4241.” Id., at 334.
The court therefore amended the District Court’s judgment and ordered that Carter’s petition be stayed indefi-: nitely with respect to any claims that required his assistance. Id., at 336-337. Judge Rogers dissented, arguing that there was no constitutional or statutory basis for the court’s decision. Id., at 337-342.
We granted certiorari to determine whether §4241 provides a statutory right to competence in federal habeas proceedings. 565 U. S. 1259 (2012).
f—1
Both the Ninth and Sixth Circuits have concluded that death row inmates pursuing federal habeas are entitled to a suspension of proceedings when found incompetent. The Ninth Circuit located this right in §3599, while the Sixth Circuit located it in §4241. Neither section provides such a right.
A
Section 3599(a)(2) guarantees federal habeas petitioners on death row the right to federally funded counsel. The statute provides that petitioners who are “financially unable to obtain adequate representation... shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys.” Appointed attorneys are required to have experience in death penalty litigation, §§3599(b)-(d), and, once appointed, are directed to “represent the defendant throughout every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings,” § 3599(e). The statute also gives district courts the power to authorize funding for “investigative, expert, or other services” as are “reasonably necessary for the representation of the defendant.” § 3599(f). But § 3599 does not direct district courts to stay proceedings when habeas petitioners are found incompetent.
In addition to lacking any basis in the statutory text, the assertion that the right to counsel implies a right to competence is difficult to square with our constitutional precedents. The right to counsel is located in the Sixth Amendment. (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the ■right... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”) If the right to counsel carried with it an implied right to competence, the right to competence at trial would flow from the Sixth Amendment. But “[w]e have repeatedly and consistently recognized that ‘the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process,’ ” not the Sixth Amendment. Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U. S. 348, 354 (1996) (quoting Medina v. California, 505 U. S. 437, 453 (1992); emphasis added); see also Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 172 (1975) (“[T]he failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial” (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375, 385 (1966))).
It stands to reason that the benefits flowing from the right to counsel at trial could be affected if an incompetent defendant is unable to communicate with his attorney. For example, an incompetent defendant would be unable to assist counsel in identifying witnesses and deciding on a trial strategy. For this reason, “[a] defendant may not be put to trial unless he ‘ “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding... [and] a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” ’ ” Cooper, supra, at 354 (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S. 402 (1960) (per curiam)). Notwithstanding the connection between the right to competence at trial and the right to counsel at trial, we have never said that the right to competence derives from the right to counsel. We will not assume or infer that Congress intended to depart from our precedents and locate a right to competence in federal habeas proceedings within the right to counsel. “We normally assume that, when Congress enacts statutes, it is aware of relevant judicial precedent.” Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U. S. 633, 648 (2010).
The Ninth Circuit located a statutory right to competence in § 3599. 623 F. 3d, at 1245 (citing Rohan, 334 F. 3d 803, and Nash, 581 F. 3d 1048). Because Rohan is the Ninth Circuit’s controlling precedent, we briefly address that decision.
In Rohan, a habeas petitioner asserted a right to competency based both on the Due Process Clause and on 21 U. S. C. § 848(q)(4)(B) (2000 ed.). After discussing the history of the common law, which prohibited the indictment, trial, and execution of mentally incompetent defendants, the Court of Appeals stated that the petitioner's due process claim raised “substantial” “constitutional questions.” 334 F. 3d, at 814. This conclusion is puzzling in light of the Ninth Circuit’s acknowledgment that there is “no constitutional right to counsel on habeas,” id., at 810 (citing Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U. S. 1, 10 (1989) (plurality opinion)), and that “there is no due process right to collateral review at all,” 334 F. 3d, at 810 (citing United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 323 (1976) (plurality opinion)). The Ninth •Circuit was simply incorrect in suggesting that, in this case, there might be a constitutional concern—much less a “substantial” one—raised by the petitioner’s due process claim.
Invoking the canon of constitutional avoidance, the Ninth Circuit gave the petitioner the practical benefit of a due process right to competence in federal habeas proceedings through its interpretation of § 848(q)(4)(B). 334 F. 3d, at 814. In analyzing that statute, the Rohan court relied on a Ninth Circuit en banc opinion in Calderon v. United States Dist. Court for Central Dist. of Cal., 163 F. 3d 530 (1998) (Kelly V), overruled in unrelated part, Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U. S. 202 (2003), which held that a prisoner’s incompetence is grounds for equitably tolling the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (AEDPA) 1-year statute of limitations for filing habeas petitions. The Rohan court purported to be bound by the “rationale” of Kelly V—that a prisoner’s incompetence could “eviscerate the statutory right to counsel,” Kelly V, supra, at 541—and con-eluded that “[i]f a petitioner’s statutory rights depend on his ability to communicate rationally, compelling him to pursue relief while incompetent is no less an infringement than dismissing his late petition.” 334 R 3d, at 814.
We are not persuaded by the Ninth Circuit’s assertion that a habeas petitioner’s mental incompetency could “eviscerate the statutory right to counsel” in federal habeas proceedings. Given the backward-looking, record-based nature of most federal habeas proceedings, counsel can generally provide effective representation to a habeas petitioner regardless of the petitioner’s competence. Indeed, where a claim is “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings,” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) (2006 ed.), counsel should, in most circumstances, be able to identify whether the “adjudication... resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” §2254(d)(1), without any evidence outside the record. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (“[Rjeview under [28 U. S. C.] § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.... This backward-looking language requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time—i. <?., the record before the state court”). Attorneys are quite capable of reviewing the state-court record, identifying legal errors, and marshaling relevant arguments, even without their clients’ assistance.
Rohan also cited Rees I, 384 U. S. 312, in support of its conclusion. 334 F. 3d, at 815. In Rees I, a state inmate on death row filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in District Court, alleging that the state-court conviction violated his constitutional rights. 384 U. S., at 313. The District Court denied his petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Ibid. Shortly after Rees’ counsel filed a petition for certio-rari with this Court, Rees directed his counsel to withdraw the petition and to forgo any further proceedings. Counsel advised the Court that he could not accede to these instructions without a psychiatric evaluation of Rees, because there was some doubt as to Rees’ mental competency. Ibid. In response, the Court directed the District Court to determine Rees’ mental competence. Id., at 313-314. After the District Court conducted a hearing and found Rees incompetent, the Court issued a one-sentence order directing that the petition for certiorari be “held without action.” Rees v. Peyton, 386 U. S. 989 (1967) (Rees II). When Rees died several decades later, the Court dismissed the petition. Rees v. Superintendent of Va. State Penitentiary, 516 U. S. 802 (1995) (Rees III).
The Ninth Circuit concluded that “[t]he record in Rees II shows that incompetence is grounds for staying habeas proceedings.” Rohan, supra, at 815. This conclusion is unwarranted. Rees I concerned whether an incompetent ha-beas petitioner may withdraw his certiorari petition, and it provides no clear answer even to that question. Likewise, the unique, one-sentence order in Rees II offered no rationale for the decision to hold Rees’ petition. As a result, Rees offers no support for federal habeas petitioners seeking to stay district court proceedings or for the Ninth Circuit’s opinions in Rohan, Nash, or this case.
Gonzales barely defends the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of § 3599. He offers a single, halfhearted argument in support of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion based on our statement in McFarland v. Scott, 512 U. S. 849, 858 (1994), that “the right to counsel necessarily includes a right for that counsel meaningfully to research and present a defendant’s habeas claims.” But McFarland was addressing whether a district court could issue a stay of execution after a capital prisoner had filed a request for counsel but before he had filed his habeas petition. Id., at 854-858. We held that a district court may stay a capital prisoner’s execution once the prisoner has invoked his statutory right to counsel. Id., at 859. McFarland has no relevance here where Gonzales is not seeking a stay of execution, but rather a stay of the District Court’s proceedings. Moreover, Gonzales moved for a stay more than six years after initiating his habeas petition. This was certainly ample time for his attorney to research and present the claims.
.. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that §3599 does not provide federal habeas petitioners with a “statutory right” to competence.
B
The Sixth Circuit reached the same conclusion as the Ninth Circuit but located the statutory right to competence during habeas proceedings in 18 U. S. C. §4241. Relying largely on Rees I, the Sixth Circuit concluded that §4241 provides a statutory right to competence. 644 F. 3d, at 333. But as discussed, Part II-A, supra, Rees I did not recognize a statutory right to competence in federal habeas proceedings. Moreover, §4241 does not even apply to such proceedings. Section 4241(a) provides:
“At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, or at any time after the commencement of probation or supervised release and prior to the completion of the sentence, the defendant or the attorney for the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant. The court shall grant the motion, or shall order such a hearing on its own motion, if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.”
By its own terms, § 4241 applies only to trial proceedings prior to sentencing and “at any time after the commencement of probation or supervised release.” Federal habeas proceedings, however, commence after sentencing, and federal habeas petitioners, by definition, are incarcerated, not on probation.
Furthermore, § 4241, like the rest of Title 18 generally, applies exclusively to federal defendants and probationers subject to prosecution by the United States. Carter is not, and does not claim to be, a federal defendant. Rather, he is a state prisoner challenging the basis of his conviction in a federal civil action. See Blair v. Martel, 645 F. 3d 1151, 1155 (CA9 2011) (“By its own terms, § 4241 does not apply unless a federal criminal defendant is on trial or is released on probation”).
Finally, § 4241(a) authorizes the district court to grant a motion for a competency determination if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant’s mental incompetence renders him “unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense” (Emphasis added.) See also §4241(d). A habeas proceeding under §2254, however, is not a “pro-ceedin[g] against” the habeas petitioner; this, on the other hand, is a civil action against the warden of the state prison. And, a federal habeas petitioner does not mount a “defense” to the government’s prosecution. Rather, the petitioner collaterally attacks his conviction at an earlier state trial. Accordingly, the statutory right to competence provided in §4241 is simply inapplicable to federal habeas proceedings.
We would address Carter’s arguments in defense of the Sixth Circuit’s decision, but, there are none. Carter’s brief informed us that “[t]his Court need not consider the statutory argument with which the [petitioner’s] brief begins— i. e., that there is no ‘statutory right’ under 18 U. S. C. § 4241 to be competent in habeas proceedings.” Brief for Respondent in No. 11-218, p. 15. Apparently, Carter found the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning indefensible. We agree.
⅜—⅜ hH
Both Gonzales and Carter argued at length in their briefs and at oral argument that district courts have the equitable power to stay proceedings when they determine that habeas petitioners are mentally incompetent. Neither petitioner disputes that “[district courts... ordinarily have authority to issue stays, where such a stay would be a proper exercise of discretion.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U. S. 269, 276 (2005) (citation omitted); see also Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U. S. 379, 382 (1935) (explaining that a district court may stay a case “pending before it by virtue of its inherent power to control the progress of the cause so as to maintain the orderly processes of justice”). Similarly, both petitioners agree that “AEDPA does not deprive district courts of [this] authority.” Rhines, supra, at 276. Petitioners and respondents disagree, however, about the types of situations in which a stay would be appropriate and about the permissible duration of a competency-based stay. We do not presume that district courts need unsolicited advice from us on how to manage their dockets. Rather, the decision to grant a stay, like the decision to grant an evidentiary hearing, is “generally left to the sound discretion of district courts.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U. S. 465, 473 (2007). For purposes of resolving these cases, it is unnecessary to determine the precise contours of the district court’s discretion to issue stays. We address only its outer limits.
A
In Gonzales’ case, the District Court correctly found that all of Gonzales’ properly exhausted claims were record based or resolvable as a matter of law, irrespective of Gonzales’ competence. 617 F. Supp. 2d, at 863; see also State v. Gonzales, 181 Ariz. 502, 509-515, 892 P. 2d 838, 845-851 (1995) (adjudicating Gonzales’ claims on the merits). The court therefore denied Gonzales’ motion for a stay. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in so holding, because a stay is not generally warranted when a petitioner raises only record-based claims subject to 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). As previously noted, review of such claims “is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Pinholster, 563 U. S., at 181. Accordingly, any evidence that a petitioner might have would be inadmissible. Ibid. (“[T]he record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time—i. e., the record before the state court”). Because federal ha-beas is “a ‘guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,’ not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal,” the types of errors redress-able under § 2254(d) should be apparent from the record. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. 86, 102 (2011) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 332, n. 5 (1979) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment)). Counsel can read the record.
B
In Carter’s, case, the District Court concluded that four of Carter’s claims could potentially benefit from Carter’s assistance. However, three of these claims were adjudicated on the merits in state posteonviction proceedings and, thus, were subject to review under § 2254(d). See State v. Carter, No. 99-T-0133, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5935, *5-*13 (Dec. 15, 2000). Any extrarecord evidence that Carter might have concerning these claims would therefore be inadmissible. Pinholster, supra, at 181. Consequently, these claims do not warrant a stay.
It is unclear from the record whether Carter exhausted the fourth claim. If that claim was exhausted, it too would be record based. But even if Carter could show that the claim was both unexhausted and not procedurally defaulted, an indefinite stay would be inappropriate. “AEDPA’s acknowledged purpose” is to “ ‘reduc[e] delays in the execution of state and federal criminal sentences.’” Schriro, supra, at 475 (quoting Woodford, 538 U. S., at 206). “Staying a federal habeas petition frustrates AEDPA’s objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to delay the resolution of the federal proceedings.” Rhines, 544 U. S., at 277. In the context of discussing stay and abeyance procedures, we observed:
“[N]ot all petitioners have an incentive to obtain federal relief as quickly as possible. In particular, capital petitioners might deliberately engage in dilatory tactics to prolong their incarceration and avoid execution of the sentence of death. Without time limits [on stays], petitioners could frustrate AEDPA’s goal of finality by dragging out indefinitely their federal habeas review.” Id., at 277-278.
The same principle obtains in the context of competency-based stays. At some point, the State must be allowed to defend its judgment of conviction.
If a district court concludes that the petitioner’s claim could substantially benefit from the petitioner’s assistance, the district court should take into account the likelihood that the petitioner will regain competence in the foreseeable future. Where there is no reasonable hope of competence, a stay is inappropriate and merely frustrates the State’s attempts to defend its presumptively valid judgment.
> H-(
The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed. We vacate the judgment of the Sixth Circuit and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
In Rees I, we held indefinitely a petition for certiorari after an incompetent capital inmate sought to withdraw his petition prior to our review. 384 U. S., at 313-314. See infra, at 69-70.
“In any post conviction proceeding under [28 U. S. C. §2254 or §2255], seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence, any defendant who is or becomes financially unable to obtain adequate representation or investigative, expert, or other reasonably necessary services shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys and the furnishing of such other services in accordance with subsections (b) through (f).” 18 U. S. C. § 3599(a)(2).
In fact, § 3599(e), which contains the section’s sole reference to “competency,” cuts against the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion. That section provides that appointed attorneys “shall also represent the defendant in such competency proceedings and proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant.” We doubt that Congress would have authorized counsel to represent inmates in posteonviction competency proceedings only if the inmates were competent.
Blackstone explained the common-law rule as follows:
“[I]f a man in his sound memory commits a capital offence, and before arraignment for it, he becomes mad, he ought not to be arraigned for it; because he is not able to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought. And if, after he has pleaded, the prisoner becomes mad, he shall not be tried; for how can he make his defence? If, after he be tried and found guilty, he loses his senses before judgment, judgment shall not be pronounced; and if, after judgment, he becomes of nonsane memory, execution shall be stayed: for peradventure, says the humanity of the English law, had the prisoner been of sound memory, he might have alleged something in stay of judgment or execution.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 24-25 (1769).
As noted supra, at 61, § 848(q)(4)(B) has been superseded by 18 U. S. C. § 3599(a)(2).
It is unclear how Kelly V's determination that mental incompetence is grounds for AEDPA equitable tolling could possibly control the outcome in Rohan, which had nothing to do with AEDPA’s statute of limitations. The relevant questions for equitable tolling purposes are whether the petitioner has “ ‘been pursuing his rights diligently’ ” and whether “ ‘some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.’” Holland v. Florida, 560 U. S. 631, 649 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U. S. 408, 418 (2005)). But the propriety of equitably tolling AEDPA’s statute of limitations in the ease of a mentally incompetent petitioner has nothing to do with the statutory right to counsel. The Ninth Circuit has held that habeas petitioners who do not have a statutory right to counsel (i. e., all habeas petitioners other than those on death row) may still avail themselves of equitable tolling if they are mentally incompetent. See, e. g., Bills v. Clark, 628 F. 3d 1092, 1097 (2010) (establishing standard for deciding equitable tolling claims predicated on mental incompetence); Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F. 3d 919, 924-925 (2003) (recognizing that mental incompetence can give rise to equitable tolling for AEDPA’s statute of limitations).
This order was issued after the Clerk of the Court spoke with the attorneys for Virginia and for the petitioner and proposed that the Court hold the petition indefinitely. See Memorandum from John F. Davis, Clerk of Court, to The Chief Justice (Mar. 31,1967); see also Crocker, Not To Decide Is To Decide: The U. S. Supreme Court’s Thirty-Year Struggle With One Case About Competency To Waive Death Penalty Appeals, 49 Wayne L. Rev. 885, 916 (2004). Although Virginia originally opposed the idea of an indefinite stay, see Memorandum for Respondent in Rees v. Peyton, O. T. 1966, No. 9, Misc., pp. 2-3 (Mar. 14, 1967), it eventually accepted the proposal, see Memorandum from John F. Davis, supra, at 2 (“In summary, counsel for both parties do not really present any objection to the procedure proposed in the case, but neither of them accepts it with enthusiasm”).
Moreover, we note that Rees is a pre-AEDPA case. To whatever extent Rees can be read to provide guidance in the habeas context, that guidance must pass muster under AEDPA.
See Brief for Respondent in No. 10-930, p. 13 (“The State and the Solicitor General argue that the federal habeas right-to-counsel provision, 18 U. S. C. § 3599(a)(2), should not be interpreted to create a 'right to competence’.... However, that is not the question presented in this case. The issue is whether courts have authority to issue a stay, not whether capital habeas petitioners enjoy a freestanding ‘right to competence,’ or what the contours of such a right may be. The Court need not reach that question in order to uphold the discretionary, and temporary, stay of proceedings issued in this case”). Notwithstanding Gonzales’ attempt to rewrite the question presented, we granted certiorari on the following question:
“Did the Ninth Circuit err when it held that 18 U. S. C. § 3599(a)(2)— which provides that an indigent capital state inmate pursuing federal ha-beas relief ‘shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys’—impliedly entitles a death row inmate to stay the federal habeas proceedings he initiated if he is not competent to assist counsel?” Pet.. for Cert, in No. 10-930, p. i.
Gonzales suggests that 28 U. S. C. §2251 supports the Ninth Circuit’s decision. But §2251 merely provides district courts with the statutory authority to stay state-court proceedings pending the resolution of federal habeas proceedings. Section 2251 says nothing about whether a habeas petitioner is entitled to a stay of the district court’s proceedings pending his return to competence.
The Sixth Circuit made much of the fact that Rees I cited 18 U. S. C. §§4244-4245, the predecessors of §4241. But that citation provides no support for a statutory right to competence. In Rees I, as part of our direction to the District Court, we said that it would “be appropriate for the District Court to subject Rees to psychiatric and other appropriate medical examinations and, so far as necessary, to temporary federal hospitalization for this purpose. Cf. 18 U. S. C. §§ 4244-4245 (1964 ed.).” 384 U. S., at 314. The citation to §§4244-4245 did nothing more than point the District Court to those sections of the Criminal Code that set forth the proper procedures for conducting a competency hearing. There would have been little point in this Court’s directing the District Court to reinvent the wheel when §4244 already provided a rubric for conducting such a hearing.
Section 4241(d) provides, in relevant part:
“If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense, the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General.” (Emphasis added.)
This argument is especially curious coming from Gonzales, because the District Court denied his request for a stay. For Gonzales to prevail on his “equitable discretion” theory, Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 10-930, p. 33, we would have to conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in denying the stay. But Gonzales has not argued that the District Court abused its discretion by denying his stay motion. Gonzales’ arguments, thus, have little to do with the facts of his case.
Gonzales alleges that the trial judge refused to recuse himself; that he was prejudiced by the presence of the victim’s wife in the courtroom during jury selection and following her testimony; that the wife’s in-court identification was tainted; that there was insufficient evidence to support two aggravating factors found by the judge; and that Arizona’s statutory death penalty scheme unconstitutionally precludes the sentencer from considering all mitigating evidence.
Claim one alleges that Carter was incompetent to stand trial and was unlawfully removed from the trial proceedings. Claims two, five, and six are ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
The fourth claim alleges ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising trial counsel’s failure to pursue the competency-at-trial 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.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case was brought here under § 1254 (1) of Title 28 of the United States Code to review the dismissal by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of an appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground of evidence discovered after the petitioner had been convicted of murder in the first degree. 335 U. S. 866. The decisive issue is the admissibility of that evidence. The question arises not through its exclusion at trial but on a motion for a new trial in order to be able to introduce it as newly discovered.
The petitioner, Baxter Griffin, was convicted of the murder of Lee Hunter. The killing was the outcome of a quarrel. Admitting that he shot Hunter, Griffin claimed that he did so in self-defense. His story was that the deceased and he were playing a card game called blackjack, that Hunter demanded a larger share of the pot than was his right, and that upon his refusal to pay, Hunter “jumped up and started around the table, with his hand in his pocket, and told me he would kick my teeth out of my head.” On cross-examination Griffin added that Hunter threatened to kill him. Accordingly, so his story continued, Griffin shot Hunter as Hunter advanced toward him with his hand in his pocket. This version of the occurrence was contradicted by five Government witnesses. Each testified that petitioner started the argument, and that it had nothing to do with the card game which, according to their account, was over before the fracas began. According to them, this is what happened: Griffin made some remark to Hunter about taking Hunter’s wife and baby around to Griffin’s house; Hunter replied that he would kick petitioner’s teeth down his throat; Griffin thereupon left the house and returned within ten minutes with a gun, and on his return shot Hunter, who had made no move from the spot where he was standing. Griffin admitted that he saw nothing in Hunter’s hand at the time he shot Hunter. On the evidence, as summarized, the jury on March 28, 1947, found Griffin guilty of murder in the first degree; on April 18, 1947, he was sentenced to death; on December 8, 1947, the conviction was affirmed, 83 U. S. App. D. C. 20, 164 F. 2d 903; on March 15, 1948, this Court denied certiorari, 333 U. S. 857.
On May 7, 1948, a little more than a month before the day set for execution, Griffin began the present proceedings for a new trial. It was based on affidavits of his then counsel who averred that it had recently come to his knowledge that the attendant at the morgue had found an opened penknife in the trousers’ pocket of the deceased and that the prosecutor knew of this at the time of the trial but failed to introduce this circumstance in evidence or make it available to the defense. The affidavits further alleged that there was evidence that playing cards were on the floor immediately after the shooting, a fact which would, had it been known to the defense, have tended to corroborate Griffin’s statement that the card game was in progress at the time of the shooting. An extended hearing was had on the motion for a new trial. The allegation regarding scattered playing cards on the floor at the time of the fatal shooting was adequately met, and this ground for a new trial need not detain us.
As to Griffin’s discovery, after his conviction was affirmed, of the undisclosed knife in the pocket of the deceased, the Government conceded that it knew of this circumstance at the time of the trial and despite that knowledge neither introduced the fact in evidence nor felt any duty to make it known to the defense. The Government justified this on the ground that in its view the circumstance of the knife was inadmissible, since knowledge of its presence in the pocket of the deceased had not been communicated to Griffin either by sight or otherwise. The District Judge took this view of the law and denied the motion for a new trial. In an unreported opinion, he stated, “The question whether a person is justified in attacking an assailant in self-defense must be determined by the facts which were presented to the person who pleads self-defense. He [Griffin] did not know, it appears, that the deceased had an open knife in his pocket, and therefore its existence is irrelevant.” An appeal having been taken, the Government moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that “the issues raised by appellant’s motion for a new trial were fully explored in the court below and that the disposition made of them by the trial court was manifestly correct.” The appeal was dismissed by a unanimous Court of Appeals, presided over by a judge than whom no one is more alert in protecting the rights of the accused.
Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals evidently thought that the ground for dismissing the appeal was too clear to require explication. It dismissed the appeal without an expression of views regarding the admissibility of the evidence on which the claim for a new trial rests. It may well have done so on the ground that in the District evidence of this nature is inadmissible. That this was the reason for the dismissal is the view of some members of this Court. The opinion of the Court of Appeals on a later appeal from the denial of a petition for habeas corpus by Griffin lends support to such an interpretation of the summary dismissal of the appeal now under review'. See Griffin v. Clemmer, 83 U. S. App. D. C. 351, 169 F. 2d 961. But solicitude for life bars reliance on such an inference, especially since the issue on habeas corpus is quite different from that on appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial. It seems to us more appropriate for the Court of Appeals to address itself directly to the issue of admissibility. This is so in order to rule out the inference that the Court of Appeals may, in applying United States v. Johnson, 327 U. S. 106, have deemed the denial of a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence solely a matter for the trial court’s discretion.
Were the Court of Appeals to declare that the controverted evidence was admissible according to the law prevailing in the District, it would have to consider further whether it would not be too dogmatic, on the basis of mere speculation, for any court to conclude that the jury would not have attached significance to the evidence favorable to the defendant had the evidence been before it. If the Court of Appeals had decided that the disputed evidence was not admissible in the District of Columbia on a claim of self-defense and on that ground had sustained the denial of the motion for a new trial, there would have been an end of the matter. It is not to be assumed that this Court would have granted a petition for certiorari to review the ruling since the determination would have been a matter of local law as are the rules of evidence prevailing in the State courts.
We are told, however, that a ruling which did not permit the introduction of “uncommunicated threats” would constitute “egregious error” to be corrected by this Court. Fisher v. United States, 328 U. S. 463, 476. Wig-more is vouched as authority that uncommunicated threats are admissible in “virtually all Courts.” But Wigmore immediately follows the words quoted with a series of qualifications and limitations which prove that there are few questions of admissibility in trials for murder that have occasioned a greater contrariety of views. See 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 111 (3d ed., 1940). By way of example, most jurisdictions hold that evidence of uncommunicated threats is inadmissible where there is clear proof that the defendant took the initiative, or where there is no evidence that the deceased was the aggressor other than the proffered uncommunicated threats. Were this the rule in the District, the dismissal of the appeal may well have been rested on it, since there was weighty proof that the petitioner was the aggressor. Indeed, for all we know the Court of Appeals might have had in mind a rule concerning uncommunicated threats that would admit them and yet guard against the danger of fabrication by placing upon the trial judge the responsibility of excluding such alleged threats against the defendant in the absence of proof satisfactory to him of some hostile manifestation by the deceased relevant to the killing. At least one State has some such rule. State v. Carter, 197 La. 155, 158, 1 So. 2d 62, 63. This is not to reject as unreasonable a rule, followed by some courts, that would let the evidence in, even where all other witnesses oppose a defendant’s version of the killing.
One thing is clear. There is no “federal rule” on this subject. The decision in Wiggins v. Utah, 93 U. S. 465, does not purport to lay down a general rule, nor does it even formulate the evidentiary problem now in controversy. In that case, in light of the fact that there was no other identification of the aggressor, proof was offered that the deceased had exhibited a pistol a few minutes before the shooting and had said, though out of the hearing of the accused, that “he would kill defendant before he went to bed that night,” and this Court naturally held that this evidence should have been admitted. It did so because “it would have tended strongly to show where that first shot came from, and how that pistol, with one chamber emptied, came to be found on the ground.” Wiggins v. Utah, supra at 470.
But even assuming that the “federal rule” is that the evidence described in the motion for a new trial would be admissible, it does not follow that it must also be the rule for the District of Columbia. This Court, in its decisions, and Congress, in its enactment of statutes, have often recognized the appropriateness of one rule for the District and another for other jurisdictions so far as they are subject to federal law. Thus, the “federal rule” in first-degree murder cases is that, unless the jury by unanimous vote agrees that the penalty should be death, the court must fix the sentence at imprisonment for life. 35 Stat. 1151, 1152, 18 U. S. C. § 567, now 18 U. S. C. § 1111 (1948), Andres v. United States, 333 U. S. 740. But a defendant convicted of first-degree murder in the District cannot look to the jury to soften the penalty; he must be given the death sentence. 31 Stat. 1321, 43 Stat. 799, D. C. Code § 22-2404, Johnson v. United States, 225 U. S. 405. Furthermore, the Court’s decision in Fisher v. United States, 328 U. S. 463, makes clear that when we refused to reverse the Court of Appeals for the District we were not establishing any “federal rule” in interpreting the murder statutes which apply in places other than the District of Columbia over which Congress has jurisdiction. In fact, this Court has been at pains to point out that “Congress . . . recognized the expediency of separate provisions” pertaining to criminal justice applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia in contradistinction to the Criminal Code governing offenses amenable to federal jurisdiction elsewhere. Johnson v. United States, 225 U. S. 405, 418.
Many statutes reflect this distinctive position of the District in matters of criminal law. Compare 35 Stat. 1149, 18 U. S. C. § 516 (“federal” adultery statute), now repealed, 18 U. S. C. p. 2415 (1948), with 31 Stat. 1332, D. C. Code § 22-301 (District adultery statute); compare 35 Stat. 1143, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2031, 2032 (1948) (“federal” rape statute) with 31 Stat. 1322, 41 Stat. 567, 43 Stat. 798, D. C. Code § 22-2801 (District rape statute); compare 35 Stat. 1144, 18 U. S. C. § 2111 (1948) (“federal” robbery statute) with 31 Stat. 1322, D. C. Code § 22-2901 (District robbery statute); compare 35 Stat. 1144, 18 U. S. C. § 466 (“federal” larceny statute), now repealed, 18 U. S. C. p. 2415 (1948), with 31 Stat. 1324, D. C. Code § 22-2201 (District larceny statute). In fact, it requires two volumes to contain “all the general and permanent laws relating to or in force in the District of Columbia, on January 3, 1941, except such laws as are of application in the District of Columbia by reason of being laws of the United States general and permanent in their nature.” See Preface to District of Columbia Code (1940 ed.). If Congress can enact substantive rules of criminal law exclusively for the District of Columbia, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ought not to be denied opportunity to formulate rules of evidence appropriate for the District, so long as the rules chosen do not offend statutory or constitutional limitations.
The position of spouses as witnesses strikingly illustrates that the District stands apart from the rule of evidence prevailing generally in the federal courts. The federal courts have held that one spouse cannot testify against the other unless the defendant spouse waives the privilege. Miles v. United States, 103 U. S. 304; Bassett v. United States, 137 U. S. 496; cf. United States v. Mitchell, 137 F. 2d 1006, 1008 (C. A. 2d Cir.). Since this Court in the Funk case left open the question whether this rule should be changed, Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371, 373, it presumably is still the “federal rule” for the lower courts. In the District, however, the rule has long been otherwise. Halback v. Hill, 49 App. D. C. 127, 261 F. 1007; Buford v. Buford, 81 U. S. App. D. C. 169, 170, 156 F. 2d 567, 568; cf. Dobbins v. United States, 81 U. S. App. D. C. 218, 157 F. 2d 257; 31 Stat. 1358, D. C. Code § 14-306. Another example is afforded by the fact that the statute just cited also provided that one spouse could testify in favor of the other in cases in the District when the “federal rule” was still to the contrary. Compare Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U. S. 189; Hendrix v. United States, 219 U. S. 79, both overruled in Funk v. United States, supra.
The problem of the admissibility of the evidence set forth in the motion for a new trial is serious and its wise solution full of difficulty. The problem was apparently not explored below, and at the bar of this Court counsel did not give it the consideration appropriate for determination of a federal issue of general importance. It was not even argued in their briefs. Under such circumstances it is not for us to announce a rule for the District of Columbia. Nothing that has been said concerning the various possible choices is intended as an expression of preference among the competing rules about the admissibility of uncommunicated threats, nor as the slightest restriction upon the freedom of the Court of Appeals to make its own choice. We purposely withhold any expression of opinion on the merits of any of the permissible views on admissibility of this evidence. Certainly nothing in our decisions forecloses the Court of Appeals from selecting any one in the range of choices open to it, each one having some rational basis. That court has heretofore been recognized as the appellate tribunal for determining the local rules of evidence; it also is a court that has active experience with the just and practical considerations governing trials for murder, plainly outside the preoccupation of this Court.
It is precisely for such reasons that for a decade the Court has declined to review all convictions for first-degree murder in the District of Columbia, with a single exception, and in every one of these cases some local rule of evidence was at least in part involved. The Appendix, infra, p. 719, gives a summary of the legal issues involved in the fourteen cases in which we denied a petition for certiorari. This course of disposition manifests uniformity of respect by this Court for District rulings on evidence. Reference to this course of disposition of attempts to secure review here for convictions of mürder in the District in no wise disregards our repeated admonition that denial of a petition for certiorari imports nothing as to the merits of a lower court decision. These denials do not remotely imply approval of the various rulings on evidence made in these cases by the Court of Appeals for the District. What they do establish is that it has become settled practice for this Court to recognize that the formulation of rules of evidence for the District of Columbia is a matter purely of local law to be determined — in the absence of specific Congressional legislation — by the highest appellate court for the District.
Previous to this case, there was, as has been noted, a single exception to this Court’s consistent refusal, for the past decade, to bring here for review a conviction for murder in the District. The disposition of the exception powerfully underlines the significance of the necessity for the Court of Appeals to pass initially on this issue. The conviction in that case was affirmed essentially on the principle that the law of evidence and procedure governing criminal trials in the District of Columbia is in the keeping of the Court of Appeals for the District and is not to be exercised by this Court. “The administration of criminal law in matters not affected by constitutional limitations or a general federal law is a matter peculiarly of local concern. . . . Matters relating to law enforcement in the District are entrusted to the courts of the District. Our policy is not to interfere with the local rules of law which they fashion, save in exceptional situations where egregious error has been committed.” Such were the views which determined decision in Fisher v. United States, 328 U. S. 463, 476. While the Fisher case evoked dissent, it was a decision rendered after the Court of Appeals had fully declared its views of the law, and none of the considerations that moved the dissenters in that case is even remotely present in the case now before us.
We must therefore remand the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to decide, in the first instance, what rule should prevail in the District of Columbia. To do otherwise would constitute an unwarranted departure from a wise rule of practice in our consideration of cases coming here from the Court of Appeals of the District. “There are cogent reasons why this Court should not undertake to decide questions of local law without the aid of some expression of the views of judges of the local courts who are familiar with the intricacies and trends of local law and practice. We do not ordinarily decide such questions without that aid where they may conveniently be decided in the first instance by the court whose special function it is to resolve questions of the local law of the jurisdiction over which it presides. Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U. S. 232, 237, and cases cited. Only in exceptional cases will this Court review a determination of such a question by the Court of Appeals for the District.” Busby v. Electric Utilities Employees Union, 323 U. S. 72, 74-75.
Remanded.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Murphy, see post, p. 721.]
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Summary of Disposition of Petitions for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to Review Death Sentences on Conviction for First-degree Murder since 1938.
In Griffin v. Clemmer, 83 U. S. App. D. C. 351, 169 F. 2d 961, the Court of Appeals had before it an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that Griffin’s detention was illegal because the conviction was procured by unfair conduct on the part of the prosecutor. This was filed by Griffin after the Court of Appeals had dismissed the appeal from the denial of the motion for a new trial but before this Court granted this petition for certiorari. The claim of unfairness was based on the failure to disclose the finding of the penknife on Hunter. In effect this was a claim of lack of jurisdiction in the court, according to the doctrine of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458. The Court of Appeals deemed the evidence to be irrelevant to that proceeding. It is too precarious to treat this as a holding on the admissibility of the evidence.
It is pertinent to quote at length Wigmore’s statements on this subject:
“This evidence [uncommunicated threats] is now conceded to be admissible, by virtually all Courts. But the following discriminations must be noted:
“(3) There is much opportunity for abuse of this sort of evidence. Not only may it be manufactured; but, even when genuine, it may be employed improperly to help the defendant by way of justification,— in certain communities at least, where the Courts have been compelled repeatedly to make clear the law that a threat to shoot another is no justification for the latter to kill on sight. For these reasons various limitations have been attempted:
“ (a) The evidence of threat is inadmissible where there is clear evidence that the defendant was the aggressor. Most jurisdictions adopt this rule, and none seem to negative it.
“(b) Furthermore, the threat is only admissible (as most Courts provide) where there is some other evidence of an aggression by the deceased. This is usually expressed by saying that there must have been some ‘demonstration of hostility,’ or, more shortly, some ‘overt act,’ by the deceased. It is difficult to say whether this limitation originated in the “res gesta” notion {infra) or in a rule of criminal law that an overt act is a necessary element of the justification of self-defence, or merely in a general policy of preventing the abuse of this evidence. At any rate, it seems a satisfactory limitation, provided the multiplication of quibbles as to ‘overt acts’ is avoided by leaving the whole matter in the hands of the trial judge; for it prevents the defendant from trying to use the threats as a mere pretext for justifying the killing of one who was making no actual attempt to injure him.
“(c) Another condition, sometimes suggested, but inconsistent with and more stringent than the preceding one, is that the threat should be received only when there is no other direct evidence as to who was the aggressor, i. e. when there were no eye-witnesses. Perhaps in practice a combination of (b) and (c) would be the best; i. e. to admit the evidence when by eye-witnesses there was some other evidence of the deceased’s aggression, or when there were no eye-witnesses to the affair.
“(4) Another and additional use, independent of the preceding, receives the uncommunicated threat in ‘confirmation’ or ‘corroboration’ of communicated threats. This is usually coupled with one of the preceding limitations as an alternative condition of admission.
“(5) The doctrine of “res geste” is sometimes invoked as the ground of receiving the evidence; and the same notion underlies the occasional suggestion that the threats ‘characterize’ the deceased’s conduct. This employment of “res gestee” as a veil for obscurity of thought is elsewhere examined (post, § 1795); and it is enough here to say that it has no possible application to this kind of evidence, and cannot be made to fit its rules; the sooner such phrases are abandoned, the better for clearness of legal thought.
“(6) In some jurisdictions it is impossible to ascertain the exact rule. Previous precedents are ignored, inconsistent tests laid down in succeeding rulings, decisions in other jurisdictions are cited to the exclusion of local precedents; and the oftener the matter comes up for a ruling, the more it is obscured.
“ (7) The prosecution may of course rebut the evidence of threats by counter-testimony of the deceased’s peaceful plans. It would seem also that, whenever the deceased’s aggression is in issue, the prosecution could begin with its evidence of peaceful plans. The prosecution may also, on the principle of § 63, ante, rebut by evidence of the deceased’s peaceful character.
“(8) There may be sundry other cases in which the threats of a deceased person would be relevant apart from the present doctrines.
“ (9) The threats of a third person may also be admitted, where it is desired to show that he, and not the accused, was the aggressor.
“ (10) In other issues in which the aggression of the plaintiff or prosecuting witness is material, his threats are admissible on the foregoing principles.
“ (11) Other conduct of the deceased, not amounting to threats, but indicating a motive to attack (on the principle of § 390, post) may be admitted, by the logic of the present rule, without showing prior communication to the defendant.” 1 Wigmore, Evidence, § 111 (3d ed., 1940).
The repeal of the specific provisions on adultery and larceny does not detract from their illustrative significance.
“. . . There is certainly nothing anomalous in punishing the crime of murder differently in different jurisdictions. It is but the application of legislation to conditions. But if it be anomalous, very little argument can be drawn from it to solve the questions in controversy. The difference existed for a number of years between the District and other places under national jurisdiction, for, as we have seen, the qualified verdict has not existed in the District since the enactment of the District Code, and did not exist when the Criminal Code was enacted. . . .
“Congress certainly in enacting the District Code, recognized the expediency of separate provisions for the District of Columbia. It was said at the bar and not denied that the District Code was not only the work of the lawyers of the District, having in mind the needs of the District, but of its citizens as well, expressed through various organizations and bodies of them. In yielding to the recommendations Congress made no new precedent. It had given local control to the Territories, and it enacted a separate code for Alaska.” Johnson v. United States, 225 U. S. 405, 417-418.
To compare this impressive course of disposition with the fact that we have granted little over 5% of petitions in forma pauperis on behalf of convicts is to treat statistics as though they were merely figures without meaning. The mass of these in forma pauperis petitions, usually drawn by laymen, are pathetically trivial and frivolous endeavors by those incarcerated to procure their freedom after all other hope has faded. To draw inferences from this 5% figure is to treat as fungible denials of certiorari because no federal question is raised, denials because the state remedies were not exhausted, and denials for other unrelated jurisdictional reasons. The fourteen petitions for certiorari for the District of Columbia were of a wholly different nature. They were all cases in which the petitioner was represented by counsel and in which the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had considered seriously errors claimed to have occurred in the course of the trial — they were all adjudications on the merits. Our consistent denials under these circumstances are mute evidence, not of approval or disapproval, but of deference to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on rules of evidence prevailing in the District.
The situation in England regarding appeals in criminal cases is not without illumination on the importance of abstention by this Court in criminal cases already decided by two courts. Between the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal by the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907 and the end of 1947, there have been 585 appeals in murder cases to that Court. In the same period there have been only four appeals from that Court to the House of Lords. Such appeals can only be taken if “the Director of Public Prosecutions or the prosecutor or defendant obtains the certificate of the Attorney General that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal involves a point of law of exceptional public importance, and that it is desirable in the public interest that a further appeal should be brought.” The Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII, c,. 23.
We are indebted for the above figures to the kindness of the Attorney General of England, the Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley Shaweross.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, II-D, and III, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and. Justice Thomas join, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-C, IV, and V, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy join.
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. The city of Chicago (Chicago or City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
I
Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson (Chicago petitioners) are Chicago residents who would like to keep handguns in their homes for self-defense but are prohibited from doing so by Chicago’s firearms laws. A City ordinance provides that “[n]o person shall... possess... any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm.” Chicago, Ill., Municipal Code § 8-20-040(a) (2009). The Code then prohibits registration of most handguns, thus effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens who reside in the City. § 8-20-050(c). Like Chicago, Oak Park makes it “unlawful for any person to possess... any firearm,” a term that includes “pistols, revolvers, guns and small arms... commonly known as handguns.” Oak Park, 111., Village Code §§27-2-1 (2007), 27-1-1 (2009).
Chicago enacted its handgun ban to protect its residents “from the loss of property and injury or death from firearms.” See Chicago, Ill., Journal of Proceedings of the City Council, p. 10049 (Mar. 19, 1982). The Chicago petitioners and their amici, however, argue that the handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.
Several of the Chicago petitioners have been the targets of threats and violence. For instance, Otis McDonald, who is in his late seventies, lives in a high-crime neighborhood. He is a community activist involved with alternative policing strategies, and his efforts to improve his neighborhood have subjected him to violent threats from drug dealers. App. 16-17; Brief for State Firearm Associations as Amici Curiae 20-21; Brief for State of Texas et al. as Amici Curiae 7-8. Colleen Lawson is a Chicago resident whose home has been targeted by burglars. “In Mrs. Lawson’s judgment, possessing a handgun in Chicago would decrease her chances of suffering serious injury or death should she ever be threatened again in her home.” McDonald, Lawson, and the other Chicago petitioners own handguns that they store outside of the city limits, but they would like to keep their handguns in their homes for protection. See App. 16-19, 43-44 (McDonald), 20-24 (C. Lawson), 19, 36 (Orlov), 20-21, 40 (D. Lawson).
After our decision in Heller, the Chicago petitioners and two groups filed suit against the City in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They sought a declaration that the handgun ban and several related Chicago ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Another action challenging the Oak Park law was filed in the same District Court by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and two Oak Park residents. In addition, the NRA and others filed a third action challenging the Chicago ordinances. All three cases were assigned to the same District Judge.
The District Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the Chicago and Oak Park laws are unconstitutional. See App. 83-84; NRA, Inc. v. Oak Park, 617 F. Supp. 2d 752, 754 (ND Ill. 2008). The court noted that the Seventh Circuit had “squarely upheld the constitutionality of a ban on handguns a quarter century ago,” id., at 753 (citing Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (CA7 1982)), and that Heller had explicitly refrained from “opin[ing] on the subject of incorporation vel non of the Second Amendment,” NRA, 617 F. Supp. 2d, at 754. The court observed that a district judge has a “duty to follow established precedent in the Court of Appeals to which he or she is beholden, even though the logic of more recent caselaw may point in a different direction.” Id., at 753.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases — United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876), Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535 (1894) — that were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873). The Seventh Circuit described the rationale of those cases as “defunct” and recognized that they did not consider the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. NRA, Inc. v. Chicago, 567 F. 3d 856, 857, 858 (2009). Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit observed that it was obligated to follow Supreme Court precedents that have “direct application,” and it declined to predict how the Second Amendment would fare under this Court’s modern “selective incorporation” approach. Id., at 857-858 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We granted, certiorari. 557 U. S. 965 (2009).
II
A
Petitioners argue that the Chicago and Oak Park laws violate the right to keep and bear arms for two reasons. Petitioners’ primary submission is that this right is among the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” and that the narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause adopted in the Slaughter-House Cases, supra, should now be rejected. As a secondary argument, petitioners contend that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause “incorporates” the Second Amendment right.
Chicago and Oak Park (municipal respondents) maintain that a right set out in the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if that right is an indispensable attribute of any “ ‘civilized’ ” legal system. Brief for Municipal Respondents 9. If it is possible to imagine a civilized country that does not recognize the right, the municipal respondents tell us, then that right is not protected by due process. Ibid. And since there are civilized countries that ban or strictly regulate the private possession of handguns, the municipal respondents maintain that due process does not preclude such measures. Id., at 21-23. In light of the parties’ far-reaching arguments, we begin by recounting this Court’s analysis over the years of the relationship between the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the States.
B
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government. In Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833), the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, explained that this question was “of great importance” but “not of much difficulty.” Id., at 247. In less than four pages, the Court firmly rejected the proposition that the first eight Amendments operate as limitations on the States, holding that they apply only to the Federal Government. See also Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469, 551-552 (1833) (“[I]t is now settled that those amendments [in the Bill of Rights] do not extend to the states”).
The constitutional Amendments adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War fundamentally altered our country’s federal system. The provision at issue in this case, § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides, among other things, that a State may not abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Four years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court was asked to interpret the Amendment’s reference to “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The Slaughter-House Cases, supra, involved challenges to a Louisiana law permitting the creation of a state-sanctioned monopoly on the butchering of animals within the city of New Orleans. Justice Samuel Miller’s opinion for the Court concluded that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only those rights “which owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.” Id., at 79. The Court held that other fundamental rights — rights that predated the creation of the Federal Government and that “the State governments were created to establish and secure” — were not protected by the Clause. Id., at 76.
In drawing a sharp distinction between the rights of federal and state citizenship, the Court relied on two principal arguments. First, the Court emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause spoke of “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” and the Court contrasted this phrasing with the wording in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, both of which refer to state citizenship. (Emphasis added.) Second, the Court stated that a contrary reading would “radically ehang[e] the whole theory of the relations of the State and Federal governments to each other and of both these governments to the people,” and the Court refused to conclude that such a change had been made “in the absence of language which expresses such a purpose too clearly to admit of doubt.” Id., at 78. Finding the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” lacking by this high standard, the Court reasoned that the phrase must mean something more limited.
Under the Court’s narrow reading, the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects such things as the right
“to come to the seat of government to assert any claim [a citizen] may have upon that government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions... [and to] become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State.” Id., at 79-80 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Finding no constitutional protection against state intrusion of the kind envisioned by the Louisiana statute, the Court upheld the statute. Four Justices dissented. Justice Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley, criticized the majority for reducing the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause to “a vain and idle enactment, which accomplished nothing, and most unnecessarily excited Congress and the people on its passage.” Id., at 96; see also id., at 104. Justice Field opined that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects rights that are “in their nature... fundamental,” including the right of every man to pursue his profession without the imposition of unequal or discriminatory restrictions. Id., at 96-97 (internal quotation marks omitted). Justice Bradley’s dissent observed that “we are not bound to resort to implication... to find an authoritative declaration of some of the most important privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. It is in the Constitution itself.” Id., at 118. Justice Bradley would have construed the Privileges or Immunities Clause to include those rights enumerated in the Constitution as well as some unenumerated rights. Id., at 119. Justice Swayne described the majority’s narrow reading of the Privileges or Immunities Clause as “turn[ing]... what was meant for bread into a stone.” Id., at 129 (dissenting opinion).
Today, many legal scholars dispute the correctness of the narrow Slaughter-House interpretation. See, e. g., Saenz v. Roe, 526 U. S. 489, 522, n. 1, 527 (1999) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (scholars of the Fourteenth Amendment agree “that the Clause does not mean what the Court said it meant in 1873”); Amar, Substance and Method in the Year 2000, 28 Pepper-dine L. Rev. 601, 631, n. 178 (2001) (“Virtually no serious modern scholar — left, right, and center — thinks that this [interpretation] is a plausible reading of the Amendment”); Brief for Constitutional Law Professors as Amici Curiae 33 (claiming an “overwhelming consensus among leading constitutional scholars” that the opinion is “egregiously wrong”); C. Black, A New Birth of Freedom 74-75 (1997).
Three years after the decision in the Slaughter-House Cases, the Court decided Cruikshank, the first of the three 19th-century cases on which the Seventh Circuit relied. 92 U. S. 542. In that case, the Court reviewed convictions stemming from the infamous Colfax Massacre in Louisiana on Easter Sunday 1873. Dozens of blacks, many unarmed, were slaughtered by a rival band of armed white men. Cruikshank himself allegedly marched unarmed African-American prisoners through the streets and then had them summarily executed. Ninety-seven men were indicted for participating in the massacre, but only nine went to trial. Six of the nine were acquitted of all charges; the remaining three were acquitted of murder but convicted under the Enforcement Act of 1870,16 Stat. 140, for banding and conspiring together to deprive their victims of various constitutional rights, including the right to bear arms.
The Court reversed all of the convictions, including those relating to the deprivation of the victims’ right to bear arms. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., at 553, 559. The Court wrote that the right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose “is not a right granted by the Constitution” and is not “in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” Id., at 553. “The second amendment,” the Court continued, “declares that it shall not be infringed; but this... means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” Ibid. “Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886), and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 620, n. 23.
C
As previously noted, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller doomed petitioners’ claims at the Court of Appeals level. Petitioners argue, however, that we should overrule those decisions and hold that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In petitioners’ view, the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects all of the rights set out in the Bill of Rights, as well as some others, see Brief for Petitioners 10, 14, 15-21, but petitioners are unable to identify the Clause’s full scope, Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-6, 8-11. Nor is there any consensus on that question among the scholars who agree that the Slaughter-House Cases’ interpretation is flawed. See Saenz, supra, at 522, n. 1 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
We see no need to reconsider that interpretation here. For many decades, the question of the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state infringement has been analyzed under the Due Process Clause of that Amendment and not under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. We therefore decline to disturb the Slaughter-House holding.
At the same time, however, this Court’s decisions in Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller do not preclude us from considering whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right binding on the States. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 620, n. 23. None of those cases “engage[d] in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.” Ibid. As explained more fully below, Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller all preceded the era in which the Court began the process of “selective incorporation” under the Due Process Clause, and we have never previously addressed the question whether the right to keep and bear arms applies to the States under that theory.
Indeed, Cruikshank has not prevented us from holding that other rights that were at issue in that case are binding on the States through the Due Process Clause. In Cruikshank, the Court held that the general “right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes,” which is protected by the First Amendment, applied only against the Federal Government and not against the States. See 92 U. S., at 551-552. Nonetheless, over 60 years later the Court held that the right of peaceful assembly was a “fundamental righ[t]... safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 364 (1937). We follow the same path here and thus consider whether the right to keep and bear arms applies to the States under the Due Process Clause.
D
1
In the late 19th century, the Court began to consider whether the Due Process Clause prohibits the States from infringing rights set out in the Bill of Rights. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 (1884) (due process does not require grand jury indictment); Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897) (due process prohibits States from taking of private property for public use without just compensation). Five features of the approach taken during the ensuing era should be noted.
First, the Court viewed the due process question as entirely separate from the question whether a right was a privilege or immunity of national citizenship. See Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 99 (1908).
Second, the Court explained that the only rights protected against state infringement by the Due Process Clause were those rights “of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.” Ibid. See also, e. g., Ad amson v. California, 332 U. S. 46 (1947); Belts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 (1937); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932). While it was “possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action [might] also be safeguarded against state action,” the Court stated, this was “not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments.” Twining, 211 U. S., at 99.
The Court used different formulations in describing the boundaries of due process. For example, in Twining, the Court referred to “immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government which no member of the Union may disregard.” Id., at 102 (internal quotation marks omitted). In Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934), the Court spoke of rights that are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” And in Palko, the Court famously said that due process protects those rights that are “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty” and essential to “a fair and enlightened system of justice.” 302 U. S., at 325.
Third, in some cases decided during this era the Court “can be seen as having asked, when inquiring into whether some particular procedural safeguard was required of a State, if a civilized system could be imagined that would not accord the particular protection.” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149, n. 14 (1968). Thus, in holding that due process prohibits a State from taking private property without- just compensation, the Court described the right as “a principle of natural equity, recognized by all temperate and civilized governments, from a deep and universal sense of its justice.” Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., supra, at 238. Similarly, the Court found that due process did not provide a right against compelled incrimination in part because this right “has no place in the jurisprudence of civilized and free countries outside the domain of the common law.” Twining, supra, at 113.
Fourth, the Court during this era was not hesitant to hold that a right set out in the Bill of Rights failed to meet the test for inclusion within the protection of the Due Process Clause. The Court found that some such rights qualified. See, e. g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 666 (1925) (freedom of speech and press); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931) (same); Powell, supra (assistance of counsel in capital cases); De Jonge, supra (freedom of assembly); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940) (free exercise of religion). But others did not. See, e. g., Hurtado, supra (grand jury indictment requirement); Twining, supra (privilege against self-incrimination).
Finally, even when a right set out in the Bill of Rights was held to fall within the conception of due process, the protection or remedies afforded against state infringement sometimes differed from the protection or remedies provided against abridgment by the Federal Government. To give one example, in Betts the Court held that, although the Sixth Amendment required the appointment of counsel in all federal criminal cases in which the defendant was unable to retain an attorney, the Due Process Clause required appointment of counsel in state criminal proceedings only where “want of counsel in [the] particular case... resulted] in a conviction lacking in... fundamental fairness.” 316 U. S., at 473. Similarly, in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 (1949), the Court held that the “core of the Fourth Amendment” was implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and thus “enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause” but that the exclusionary rule, which applied in federal cases, did not apply to the States. Id., at 27-28, 33.
2
An alternative theory regarding the relationship between the Bill of Rights and § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was championed by Justice Black. This theory held that § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment totally incorporated all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. See, e. g., Adamson, supra, at 71-72 (Black, J., dissenting); Duncan, supra, at 166 (Black, J., concurring). As Justice Black noted, the chief congressional proponents of the Fourteenth Amendment espoused the view that the Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States and, in so doing, overruled this Court’s decision in Barron. Adamson, supra, at 72 (dissenting opinion). Nonetheless, the Court never has embraced Justice Black’s “total incorporation” theory.
3
While Justice Black’s theory was never adopted, the Court eventually moved in that direction by initiating what has been called a process of “selective incorporation,” i. e., the Court began to hold that the Due Process Clause fully incorporates particular rights contained in the first eight Amendments. See, e. g., Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 341 (1963); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 5-6 (1964); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 403-404 (1965); Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 18 (1967); Duncan, 391 U. S., at 147-148; Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 794 (1969).
The decisions during this time abandoned three of the previously noted characteristics of the earlier period. The Court made it clear that the governing standard is not whether any “civilized, system [can] be imagined that would not accord the particular protection.” Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, n. 14. Instead, the Court inquired whether a particular Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. Id., at 149, and n. 14; see also id., at 148 (referring to those “fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions” (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Court also shed any reluctance to hold that rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights met the requirements for protection under the Due Process Clause. The Court eventually incorporated almost all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Only a handful of the Bill of Rights protections remain unincorporated.
Finally, the Court abandoned “the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States only a watered-down, subjective version of the individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights,” stating that it would be “incongruous” to apply different standards “depending on whether the claim was asserted in a state or federal court.” Malloy, 378 U. S., at 10-11 (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, the Court decisively held that incorporated Bill of Rights protections “are all to be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment.” Id., at 10; see also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655-656 (1961); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 33-34 (1963); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 110 (1964); Pointer, 380 U. S., at 406; Duncan, supra, at 149, 157-158; Benton, 395 U. S., at 794-795; Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 48-49 (1985).
Employing this approach, the Court overruled earlier decisions in which it had held that particular Bill of Rights guarantees or remedies did not apply to the States. See, e. g., Mapp, supra (overruling in part Wolf 338 U. S. 25); Gideon, 372 U. S. 335 (overruling Betts, 316 U. S. 455); Malloy, supra (overruling Adamson, 332 U. S. 46, and Twining, 211 U. S. 78); Benton, 395 U. S., at 794 (overruling Palko, 302 U. S. 319).
III
With this framework in mind, we now turn directly to the question whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process. In answering that question, as just explained, we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, or as we have said in a related context, whether this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A
Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at 599; see also id., at 628 (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at 628-629 (some internal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at 628 (noting that handguns are “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” of self-defense); id., at 629 (“[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon”). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at 630.
Heller makes it clear that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Glucksberg, supra, at 721 (internal quotation marks omitted). Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, 554 U. S., at 592-593, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,” id., at 594.
Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George Ill’s attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760’s and 1770’s “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.” Ibid.; see also L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 137-143 (1999) (hereinafter Levy).
The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights. “During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.” Heller, supra, at 598 (citing Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981)); see also Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican, Letter XVIII (Jan. 25, 1788), in 17 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 360, 362-363 (J. Kaminski & G. Saladino eds. 1995); S. Halbrook, The Founders’ Second Amendment 171-278 (2008). Federalists responded, not by arguing that the right was insufficiently important to warrant protection but by contending that the right was adequately protected by the Constitution’s assignment of only limited powers to the Federal Government. Heller, supra, at 599; cf. The Federalist No. 46, p. 296 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). Thus, Antifederalists and Federalists alike agreed that the right to bear arms was fundamental to the newly formed system of government. See Levy 143-149; J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right 155— 164 (1994). But those who were fearful that the new Federal Government would infringe traditional rights such as the right to keep and bear arms insisted on the adoption of the Bill of Rights as a condition for ratification of the Constitution. See 1 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 327-331 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1854); 3 id., at 657-661; 4 id., at 242-246, 248-249; see also Levy 26-34; 1 A. Kelly, W. Harbison, & H. Belz, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development 110, 118 (7th ed. 1991). This is surely powerful evidence that the right was regarded as fundamental in the sense relevant here.
This understanding persisted in the years immediately following the ratification of the Bill of Rights. In addition to the four States that had adopted Second Amendment analogues before ratification, nine more States adopted state constitutional provisions protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms between 1789 and 1820. Heller, supra, at 600-603. Founding-era legal commentators confirmed the importance of the right to early Americans. St. George Tucker, for example, described the right to keep and bear arms as “the true palladium of liberty” and explained that prohibitions on the right would place liberty “on the brink of destruction.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries, Editor’s App. 300 (S. Tucker ed. 1803); see also W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 125-126 (2d ed. 1829); 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1890, p. 746 (1833) (“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”).
B
1
By the 1850’s, the perceived threat that had prompted the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights— the fear that the National Government would disarm the universal militia — had largely faded as a popular concern, but the right to keep and bear arms was highly valued for purposes of self-defense. See M. Doubler, Civilian in Peace, Soldier in War 87-90 (2003); Amar, Bill of Rights 258-259. Abolitionist authors wrote in support of the right. See L. Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 66 (1860); J. Tiffany, A Treatise on the Unconstitutionality of American Slavery 117-118 (1849). And when attempts were made to disarm “Free-Soilers” in “Bloody Kansas,” Senator Charles Sumner, who later played a leading role in the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, proclaimed that “[n]ever was [the rifle] more needed in just self-defense than now in Kansas.” The Crime Against Kansas: The Apologies for the Crime: The True Remedy, Speech of
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, which was argued following Anders v. California, ante, p. 738, presents a similar problem in that we are here also concerned with the constitutional requirements which are binding on a State in the administration of its appellate criminal procedures with respect to convicted indigents - seeking initial review of their convictions. Petitioner, who was represented at trial by a court-appointed attorney, was convicted of uttering a forged instrument in violation of Iowa law. Shortly after the verdict was rendered, he requested the trial court to appoint different counsel to aid him in the preparation of a motion for new trial. Counsel was appointed, the motion was prepared and filed but the trial court overruled it. Upon petitioner’s application, the same attorney was appointed to represent him on appeal; counsel then prepared and filed a timely notice of appeal.
Iowa law provides alternate methods of appealing criminal convictions, the first method being an appeal on a “clerk’s transcript” which follows the notice of appeal as a matter of course. Under this procedure, the clerk of the trial court prepares and files a modified transcript of the proceedings below; such transcript contains only the Information or Indictment, the Grand Jury Minutes, the Bailiff’s Oath, Statement and Instructions, various, orders and judgment entries of the court, but does not contain the transcript of evidence nor the briefs and argument of counsel. This, practice is used in the absence of a request on the part of counsel for a plenary review-of the case. If such a request is made, the appellant is provided an appeal on a complete record of the trial, including not only those items included in the clerk’s transcript but in addition thereto, the briefs and argument of counsel.
Petitioner asked his appointed attorney to perfect a plenary .appeal and counsel gave notice therefor which, though belatedly filed, was allowed by the Iowa Supreme Court. However, counsel, apparently believing that the appeal was without merit, failed to file the entire record of petitioner’s trial although it had. been prepared by-the State and counsel had advised petitioner that he would file same. It is of note that counsel nevér moved the court for leave to withdraw from'-the case. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court had ordered the case submitted on the full record, briefs and arguments of counsel — and the record here fails to reveal any rescission of that order — the court took petitioner’s case into consideration on the clerk’s transcript alone as it was required to do under Iowa law. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Iowa, State v. Entsminger, 137 N. W. 2d 381 (1965). This was done despite the request of the petitioner a few days before the affirmance of his conviction, that the court issue an order commanding the trial court to “transmit the certified records” to the Supreme Court for its review. We granted certiorari, 384 U. S. 1000.
The Attorney General of Iowa in the utmost candor and with most commendable fairness concedes that petitioner has not received “adequate appellate review” and is entitled to an appeal free of constitutional doubt. We have examined the record carefully and agree that the clerk’s transcript procedure as applied, here “can hardly be labeled adequate and effective review of the merits of the proceedings culminating in a conviction.” He bases his conclusions in this regard upon the holding of the Iowa Supreme Court in Weaver v. Herrick, 258 Iowa 796, 140 N. W. 2d 178 (1966), where the court specifically stated:
“To afford an indigent defendant an adequate appeal from his conviction, the furnishing of a transcript, printed record and necessary briefs is required.” At 801-802, 140 N. W. 2d, at 181.
As we have held again and again, an indigent defendant is entitled to the appointment of counsel to assist him on his first appeal, Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963), and appointed counsel must function in the active role of an advocate, as opposed to that of amicus curiae, Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674 (1958). In Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956), the Court held that a State that provided transcripts on appeal only to those who could afford them was constitutionally required to provide a “means of affording adequate and effective appellate review to indigent defendants.” At 20. Again in Burns v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 252 (1959), the Court, in reaffirming the Griffin rule, held that “once the State chooses to establish appellate review in criminal cases, it may not foreclose indigents from access to any phase of that procedure because of their poverty.” At 257. In Smith v. Bennett, 365 U. S. 708 (1961), the Court, once again considering the question, held that such principles are not limited to direct appeals but are also applicable to post-conviction proceedings. In that case the Court held that “the Fourteenth Amendment weighs the interests of rich and poor criminals in equal scale, and its hand extends as far to each.” At 714. Here there is no question but that petitioner was precluded from obtaining a complete and effective appellate review of his conviction by the operation of the clerk’s transcript procedure as embodied in Iowa law. Such procedure automatically deprived him of a full record, briefs, and arguments on the bare election of his appointed counsel, without providing,any notice to him or to the reviewing court that he had chosen not to file the complete record in the case. By such action “all hope of any [adequate and effective] appeal at all,” Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477, 485 (1963), was taken from the petitioner.
Since petitioner admittedly has not received the benefit of a first appeal with a full printed abstract of the record, briefs, and oral argument, as was his right under Iowa law, we do not reach the merits of his conviction here. We have discussed at some length the responsibility of both the appellate court and appointed counsel representing indigents on appeal in Anders v. California, supra, decided this day, and we need not repeat such here. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice, Stewart, with whom Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Harlan join, concurs in the judgment and in the Court’s opinion, except as it refers to Anders v. California, a case which ' he thinks involves quite different issues.
Iowa Code §793.6 (1962).
Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 16, Iowa Code, Vol. II, p. 2716 (1962).
Id., Rule 15.
Indeed the Attorney General has moved the Supreme Court of Iowa to change its rule with respect to the clerk’s transcript system and his suggested changes and the responsibility of appointed counsel thereunder are now under advisement. We do not pass on the validity of the suggested procedure.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Eleventh Amendment grants a State immunity from suit in federal court by citizens of other States, U. S. Const., Arndt. 11, and by its own citizens as well, Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890). The question before us is whether the State’s act of removing a lawsuit from state court to federal court waives this immunity. We hold that it does.
I
Paul Lapides, a professor employed by the Georgia state university system, brought this lawsuit in a Georgia state court. He sued respondents, the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (hereinafter Georgia or State) and university officials acting in both their personal capacities and as agents of the State. Lapides’ lawsuit alleged that university officials placed allegations of sexual harassment in his personnel files. And Lapides claimed that their doing so violated both Georgia law, see Georgia Tort Claims Act, Ga. Code Ann. §50-21-23 (1994), and federal law, see Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1994 ed., Supp. V).
All defendants joined in removing the case to Federal District Court, 28 U. S. C. § 1441, where they sought dismissal. Those individuals whom Lapides had sued in their personal capacities argued that the doctrine of “qualified immunity” barred Lapides’ federal-law claims against them. And the District Court agreed. The State, while conceding that a state statute had waived sovereign immunity from state-law suits in state court, argued that, by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment, it remained immune from suit in federal court. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 11 (limiting scope of “Judicial power of the United States” (emphasis added)). But the District Court did not agree. Rather, in its view, by removing the case from state to federal court, the State had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 238 (1985) (State may waive Eleventh Amendment immunity).
The State appealed the District Court’s Eleventh Amendment ruling. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 144-145 (1993) (allowing interlocutory appeal). And the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 251 F. 3d 1372 (2001). In its view, state law was, at the least, unclear as to whether the State’s attorney general possessed the legal authority to waive the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. And, that being so, the State retained the legal right to assert its immunity, even after removal. See Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Ind., 323 U. S. 459 (1945).
Lapides sought certiorari. We agreed to decide whether “a state waive[s] its Eleventh Amendment immunity by its affirmative litigation conduct when it removes a case to federal court....” Pet. for Cert. (i).
It has become clear that we must limit our answer to the context of state-law claims, in respect to which the State has explicitly waived immunity from state-court proceedings. That is because Lapides’ only federal claim against the State arises under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, that claim seeks only monetary damages, and we have held that a State is not a “person” against whom a § 1983 claim for money damages might be asserted. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58, 66 (1989). Compare Tr. of Oral Arg. 57-58 (asserting that complaint also sought declaratory judgment on the federal claim), with complaint, App. 9-19 (failing, implicitly or explicitly, to seek any such relief). Hence this case does not present a valid federal claim against the State. Nor need we address the scope of waiver by removal in a situation where the State’s underlying sovereign immunity from suit has not been waived or abrogated in state court.
It has also become clear that, in the absence of any viable federal claim, the Federal District Court might well remand Lapides’ state-law tort claims against the State to state court. 28 U. S. C. § 1367(c)(3). Nonetheless, Lapides’ state-law tort claims against the State remain pending in Federal District Court, § 1367(a), and the law commits the remand question, ordinarily a matter of discretion, to the Federal District Court for decision in the first instance. Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 712 (1973). Hence, the question presented is not moot. We possess the legal power here to answer that question as limited to the state-law context just described. And, in light of differences of view among the lower courts, we shall do so. Compare McLaughlin v. Board of Trustees of State Colleges of Colo., 215 F. 3d 1168, 1171 (CA10 2000) (removal waives immunity regardless of attorney general’s state-law waiver authority); and Newfield House, Inc. v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Welfare, 651 F. 2d 32, 36, n. 3 (CA1 1981) (similar); with Estate of Porter ex rel. Nelson v. Illinois, 36 F. 3d 684, 690-691 (CA7 1994) (removal does not waive immunity); Silver v. Baggiano, 804 F. 2d 1211, 1214 (CA11 1986) (similar); and Gwinn Area Community Schools v. Michigan, 741 F. 2d 840, 846-847 (CA6 1984) (similar).
II
The Eleventh Amendment provides that the “Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit . . . commenced or prosecuted against one of the . . . States” by citizens of another State, U. S. Const., Amdt. 11, and (as interpreted) by its own citizens. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890). A State remains free to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in a federal court. See, e.g., Atascadero, supra, at 238. And the question before us now is whether a State waives that immunity when it removes a case from state court to federal court.
It would seem anomalous or inconsistent for a State both (1) to invoke federal jurisdiction, thereby contending that the “Judicial power of the United States” extends to the case at hand, and (2) to claim Eleventh Amendment immunity, thereby denying that the “Judicial power of the United States” extends to the case at hand. And a Constitution that permitted States to follow their litigation interests by freely asserting both claims in the same case could generate seriously unfair results. Thus, it is not surprising that more than a century ago this Court indicated that a State’s voluntary appearance in federal court amounted to a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 447 (1883) (State’s “voluntary appearance” in federal court as an intervenor avoids Eleventh Amendment inquiry). The Court subsequently held, in the context of a bankruptcy claim, that a State “waives any immunity . . . respecting the adjudication of” a “claim” that it voluntarily files in federal court. Gardner v. New Jersey, 329 U. S. 565, 574 (1947). And the Court has made clear in general that “where a State voluntarily becomes a party to a cause and submits its rights for judicial determination, it will be bound thereby and cannot escape the result of its own voluntary act by invoking the prohibitions of the Eleventh Amendment.” Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200 U. S. 273, 284 (1906) (emphasis added). The Court has long accepted this statement of the law as valid, often citing with approval the cases embodying that principle. See, e. g., College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 681, n. 3 (1999) (citing Gardner); Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare of Mo., 411 U. S. 279, 294, and n. 10 (1973) (Marshall, J., concurring in result) (citing Clark); Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n, 359 U. S. 275, 276 (1959) (citing Clark).
In this case, the State was brought involuntarily into the case as a defendant in the original state-court proceedings. But the State then voluntarily agreed to remove the case to federal court. See 28 U. S. C. § 1446(a); Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Martin, 178 U. S. 245, 248 (1900) (removal requires the consent of all defendants). In doing so, it voluntarily invoked the federal court’s jurisdiction. And unless we are to abandon the general principle just stated, or unless there is something special about removal or about this case, the general legal principle requiring waiver ought to apply.
We see no reason to abandon the general principle. Georgia points out that the cases that stand for the principle, Gunter, Gardner, and Clark, did not involve suits for money damages against the State — the heart of the Eleventh Amendment’s concern. But the principle enunciated in those cases did not turn upon the nature of the relief sought. And that principle remains sound as applied to suits for money damages.
Georgia adds that this Court decided Gunter, Gardner, and Clark before it decided more recent cases, which have required a “clear” indication of the State’s intent to waive its immunity. College Savings Bank, 527 U. S., at 675-681. But College Savings Bank distinguished the kind of constructive waivers repudiated there from waivers effected by litigation conduct. Id., at 681, n. 3. And this makes sense because an interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment that finds waiver in the litigation context rests upon the Amendment’s presumed recognition of the judicial need to avoid inconsistency, anomaly, and unfairness, and not upon a State’s actual preference or desire, which might, after all, favor selective use of “immunity” to achieve litigation advantages. See Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U. S. 381, 393 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The relevant “clarity” here must focus on the litigation act the State takes that creates the waiver. And that act — removal—is clear.
Nor has Georgia pointed to any special feature, either of removal or of this case, that would justify taking the case out from under the general rule. Georgia argues that its motive for removal was benign. It agreed to remove, not in order to obtain litigating advantages for itself, but to provide its codefendants, the officials sued in their personal capacities, with the generous interlocutory appeal provisions available in federal, but not in state, court. Compare Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 524-530 (1985) (authorizing interlocutory appeal of adverse qualified immunity determination), with Turner v. Giles, 264 Ga. 812, 813, 450 S. E. 2d 421, 424 (1994) (limiting interlocutory appeals to those certified by trial court). And it intended, from the beginning, to return to state court, when and if its codefendants had achieved their own legal victory.
A benign motive, however, cannot make the critical difference for which Georgia hopes. Motives are difficult to evaluate, while jurisdictional rules should be clear. See Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U. S. 403, 426 (1916) (Holmes, J., concurring). To adopt the State’s Eleventh Amendment position would permit States to achieve unfair tactical advantages, if not in this case, in others. See Schacht, supra, at 393-394, 398 (Kennedy, J., concurring); cf. ALI, Study of the Division of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts 366-367 (1968) (discussing the unfairness of allowing one who has invoked federal jurisdiction subsequently to challenge that jurisdiction). And that being so, the rationale for applying the general “voluntary invocation” principle is as strong here, in the context of removal, as elsewhere.
More importantly, Georgia argues that state law, while authorizing its attorney general “[t]o represent the state in all civil actions tried in any court,” Ga. Code Ann. §45-15-3(6) (1990); see Ga. Const., Art. 5, § 3, ¶ 4, does not authorize the attorney general to waive the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, id., Art. 1, §2,¶¶ 9(e), (f), reprinted in 2 Ga. Code Ann. (Supp. 1996). Georgia adds that in Ford, this Court unanimously interpreted roughly similar state laws similarly, that the Court held that “no properly authorized executive or administrative officer of the state has waived the state’s immunity,” 328 U. S., at 469, and that it sustained an Eleventh Amendment defense raised for the first time after a State had litigated a claim brought against it in federal court. That is to say, in Ford a State regained immunity by showing the attorney general’s lack of statutory authority to waive— even after the State litigated a case brought against it in federal court. Why, then, asks Georgia, can it not regain immunity in the same way, even after it removed its case to federal court?
The short answer to this question is that this case involves a State that voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of the federal court, while Ford involved a State that a private plaintiff had involuntarily made a defendant in federal court. This Court consistently has found a waiver when a State’s attorney general, authorized (as here) to bring a case in federal court, has voluntarily invoked that court’s jurisdiction. See Gardner, 329 U. S., at 574-575; Gunter, 200 U. S., at 285-289, 292; cf. Clark, 108 U. S., at 447-448 (not inquiring into attorney general’s authority). And the Eleventh Amendment waiver rules are different when a State’s federal-court participation is involuntary. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890); cf. U. S. Const., Amdt. 11 (discussing suits “commenced or prosecuted against” a State).
But there is a more important answer. In large part the rule governing voluntary invocations of federal jurisdiction has rested upon the problems of inconsistency and unfairness that a contrary rule of law would create. Gunter, supra, at 284. And that determination reflects a belief that neither those who wrote the Eleventh Amendment nor the States themselves (insofar as they authorize litigation in federal courts) would intend to create that unfairness. As in analogous contexts, in which such matters are questions of federal law, cf., e. g., Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U. S. 425, 429, n. 5 (1997), whether a particular set of state laws, rules, or activities amounts to a waiver of the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity is a question of federal law. A rule of federal law that finds waiver through a state attorney general’s invocation of federal-court jurisdiction avoids inconsistency and unfairness. A rule of federal law that, as in Ford, denies waiver despite the state attorney general’s state-authorized litigating decision, does the opposite. For these reasons one Member of this Court has called for Ford’s reexamination. Schacht, 524 U. S., at 394, 397 (Kennedy, J., concurring). And for these same reasons, we conclude that Clark, Gunter, and Gardner represent the sounder line of authority. Finding Ford inconsistent with the basic rationale of that line of cases, we consequently overrule Ford insofar as it would otherwise apply.
The State makes several other arguments, none of which we find convincing. It points to cases in which this Court has permitted the United States to enter into a case voluntarily without giving up immunity or to assert immunity despite a previous effort to waive. See United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U. S. 506 (1940); United States v. Shaw, 309 U. S. 495 (1940); see also Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U. S. 505 (1991). Those cases, however, do not involve the Eleventh Amendment — a specific text with a history that focuses upon the State’s sovereignty vis-a-vis the Federal Government. And each case involves special circumstances not at issue here, for example, an effort by a sovereign (i. e., the United States) to seek the protection of its own courts (1 e., the federal courts), or an effort to protect an Indian tribe.
Finally, Georgia says that our conclusion will prove confusing, for States will have to guess what conduct might be deemed a waiver in order to avoid accidental waivers. But we believe the rule is a clear one, easily applied by both federal courts and the States themselves. It says that removal is a form of voluntary invocation of a federal court’s jurisdiction sufficient to waive the State’s otherwise valid objection to litigation of a matter (here of state law) in a federal forum. As Justice Kennedy has pointed out, once “the States know or have reason to expect that removal will constitute a waiver, then it is easy enough to presume that an attorney authorized to represent the State can bind it to the jurisdiction of the federal court (for Eleventh Amendment purposes) by the consent to removal.” See Schacht, supra, at 397 (concurring opinion).
We conclude that the State’s action joining the removing of this case to federal court waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity — though, as we have said, the District Court may well find that this case, now raising only state-law issues, should nonetheless be remanded to the state courts for determination. 28 U. S. C. § 1367(c)(3).
For these reasons, 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: | 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. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is one of a group of “obscenity-pornography” cases being reviewed by the Court in a re-examination of standards enunciated in earlier cases involving what Mr. Justice Harlan called “the intractable obscenity problem.” Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U. S. 676, 704 (1968) (concurring and dissenting).
Appellant conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated books, euphemistically called “adult” material. After a jury trial, he was convicted of violating California Penal Code § 311.2 (a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene matter, and the Appellate Department, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, summarily affirmed the judgment without opinion. Appellant's conviction was specifically based on his conduct in causing five unsolicited advertising brochures to be sent through the mail in an envelope addressed to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The envelope was opened by the manager of the restaurant and his mother. They had not requested the brochures; they complained to the police.
The brochures advertise four books entitled “Intercourse,” “Man-Woman,” “Sex Orgies Illustrated,” and “An Illustrated History of Pornography,” and a film entitled “Marital Intercourse.” While the brochures contain some descriptive printed material, primarily they consist of pictures and drawings very explicitly depicting men and women in groups of two or more engaging in a variety of sexual activities, with genitals often prominently displayed.
I
This case involves the application of a State’s criminal obscenity statute to a situation in which sexually explicit materials have been thrust by aggressive sales action upon unwilling recipients who had in no way indicated any desire to receive such materials. This Court has recognized that the States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material when the mode of dissemination carries with it a significant danger of offending the sensibilities of unwilling recipients or of exposure to juveniles. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 567 (1969); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 637-643 (1968); Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, supra, at 690; Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 769 (1967); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 195 (1964). See Robe v. Washington, 405 U. S. 313, 317 (1972) (Burger, C. J., concurring); United States v. Reidel, 402 U. S. 351, 360-362 (1971) (opinion of Marshall, J.); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 502 (1952); Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 644-645 (1951); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77, 88-89 (1949); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 169-170 (1944). Cf. Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380, 382-383 (1957); Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451, 464—465 (1952). It is in this context that we are called on to define the standards which must be used to identify obscene material that a State may regulate without infringing on the First Amendment as applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The dissent of Mr. Justice Brennan reviews the background of the obscenity problem, but since the Court now undertakes to formulate standards more concrete than those in the past, it is useful for us to focus on two of the landmark cases in the somewhat tortured history of the Court’s obscenity decisions. In Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), the Court sustained a conviction under a federal statute punishing the mailing of “obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy...” materials. The key to that holding was the Court’s rejection of the claim that obscene materials were protected by the First Amendment. Five Justices joined in the opinion stating:
“All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance- — unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion — have the full protection of the [First Amendment] guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.... This is the same judgment expressed by this Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572:
“ ‘... There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene.... It has been well observed that such 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... [Emphasis by Court in Roth opinion.]
“We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.” 354 U. S., at 484-485 (footnotes omitted).
Nine years later, in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 (1966), the Court veered sharply away from the Roth concept and, with only three Justices in the plurality opinion, articulated a new test of obscenity. The plurality held that under the Roth definition
“as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.” Id., at 418.
The sharpness of the break with Roth, represented by the third element of the Memoirs test and emphasized by Mr. Justice White’s dissent, id., at 460-462, was further underscored when the Memoirs plurality went on to state:
“The Supreme Judicial Court erred in holding that a book need not be 'unqualifiedly worthless before it can be deemed obscene.’ A book cannot be proscribed unless it is found to be utterly without redeeming social value.” Id., at 419 (emphasis in original).
While Roth presumed “obscenity” to be “utterly without redeeming social importance,” Memoirs required that to prove obscenity it must be affirmatively established that the material is “utterly without redeeming social value.” Thus, even as they repeated the words of Both, the Memoirs plurality produced a drastically altered test that called on the prosecution to prove a negative, i. e., that the material was “utterly without redeeming social value” — a burden virtually impossible to discharge under our criminal standards of proof. Such considerations caused Mr. Justice Harlan to wonder if the “utterly without redeeming social value” test had any meaning at all. See Memoirs v. Massachusetts, id., at 459 (Harlan, J., dissenting). See also id., at 461 (White, J., dissenting); United States v. Groner, 479 F. 2d 577, 579-581 (CA5 1973).
Apart from the initial formulation in the Roth case, no majority of the Court has at any given time been able to agree on a standard to determine what constitutes obscene, pornographic material subject to regulation under the States’ police power. See, e. g., Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S., at 770-771. We have seen “a variety of views among the members of the Court unmatched in any other course of constitutional adjudication.” Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U. S., at 704-705 (Harlan, J., concurring and dissenting) (footnote omitted). This is not remarkable, for in the area of freedom of speech and press the courts must always remain sensitive to any infringement on genuinely serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific expression. This is an area in which there are few eternal verities.
The case we now review was tried on the theory that the California Penal Code § 311 approximately incorporates the three-stage Memoirs test, supra. But now the Memoirs test has been abandoned as unworkable by its author, and no Member of the Court today supports the Memoirs formulation.
II
This much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment. Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U. S. 229 (1972); United States v. Reidel, 402 U. S., at 354; Roth v. United States, supra, at 485. “The First and Fourteenth Amendments have never been treated as absolutes [footnote omitted].” Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S., at 642, and cases cited. See Times Film Corp. v. Chicago, 365 U. S. 43, 47-50 (1961); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S., at 502. We acknowledge, however, the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression. State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited. See Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, supra, at 682-685. As a result, we now confine the permissible scope of such regulation to works which depict or describe sexual conduct. That conduct must be specifically defined by the applicable state law, as written or authoritatively construed. A state offense must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. We do not adopt as a constitutional standard the “utterly without redeeming social value” test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S., at 419; that concept has never commanded the adherence of more than three Justices at one time. See supra, at 21. If a state law that regulates obscene material is thus limited, as written or construed, the First Amendment values applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment are adequately protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary. See Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 232; Memoirs v. Massachusetts, supra, at 459-460 (Harlan, J., dissenting); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S., at 204 (Harlan, J., dissenting); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 284-285 (1964); Roth v. United States, supra, at 497—198 (Harlan, J., concurring and dissenting).
We emphasize that it is not our function to propose regulatory schemes for the States. That must await their concrete legislative efforts. It is possible, however, to give a few plain examples of what a state statute could define for regulation under part (b) of the standard announced in this opinion, supra:
(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.
(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.
Sex and nudity may not be exploited without limit by films or pictures exhibited or sold in places of public accommodation any more than live sex and nudity can be exhibited or sold without limit in such public places. At a minimum, prurient, patently offensive depiction or description of sexual conduct must have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to merit First Amendment protection. See Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230-232; Roth v. United States, supra, at 487; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 101-102 (1940). For example, medical books for the education of physicians and related personnel necessarily use graphic illustrations and descriptions of human anatomy. In resolving the inevitably sensitive questions of fact and law, we must continue to rely on the jury system, accompanied by the safeguards that judges, rules of evidence, presumption of innocence, and other protective features provide, as we do with rape, murder, and a host of other offenses against society and its individual members.
Mr. Justice Brennan, author of the opinions of the Court, or the plurality opinions, in Roth v. United States, supra; Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra; Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 (1966), Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502 (1966); and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, supra, has abandoned his former position and now maintains that no formulation of this Court, the Congress, or the States can adequately distinguish obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment from protected expression, Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, post, p. 73 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Paradoxically, Mr. Justice Brennan indicates that suppression of unprotected obscene material is permissible to avoid exposure to un-consenting adults, as in this case, and to juveniles, although he gives no indication of how the division between protected and nonprotected materials may be drawn with greater precision for these purposes than for regulation of commercial exposure to consenting adults only. Nor does he indicate where in the Constitution he finds the authority to distinguish between a willing “adult” one month past the state law age of majority and a willing “juvenile” one month younger.
Under the holdings announced today, no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive “hard core” sexual conduct specifically defined by the regulating state law, as written or construed. We are satisfied that these specific prerequisites will provide fair notice to a dealer in such materials that his public and commercial activities may bring prosecution. See Roth v. United States, supra, at 491-492. Cf. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S., at 643. If the inability to define regulated materials with ultimate, god-like precision altogether removes the power of the States or the Congress to regulate, then “hard core” pornography may be exposed without limit to the juvenile, the passerby, and the consenting adult alike, as, indeed, Mr. Justice Douglas contends. As to Mr. Justice Douglas’ position, see United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U. S. 363, 379-380 (1971) (Black, J., joined by Douglas, J., dissenting); Ginzburg v. United States, supra, at 476, 491-492 (Black, J., and Douglas, J., dissenting); Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, at 196 (Black, J., joined by Douglas, J., concurring); Roth, supra, at 508-514 (Douglas, J., dissenting). In this belief, however, Mr. Justice Douglas now stands alone.
Mr. Justice Brennan also emphasizes “institutional stress” in justification of his change of view. Noting that “[t]he number of obscenity cases on our docket gives ample testimony to the burden that has been placed upon this Court,” he quite rightly remarks that the examination of contested materials “is hardly a source of edification to the members of this Court.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, post, at 92, 93. He also notes, and we agree, that “uncertainty of the standards creates a continuing source of tension between state and federal courts... “The problem is... that one cannot say with certainty that material is obscene until at least five members of this Court, applying inevitably obscure standards, have pronounced it so.” Id., at 93, 92.
It is certainly true that the absence, since Roth, of a single majority view of this Court as to proper standards for testing obscenity has placed a strain on both state and federal courts. But today, fojr the first time since Roth was decided in 1957j a majority of this Court has agreed on concrete guidelines to isolate “hard core” pornography from expression protected fey the First Amendment. Now we may abandon the casual practice of Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967), and attempt to provide positive guidance to federal' and state courts alike.
This may not be an easy road, free from difficulty. But no amount of “fatigue” should lead us to adopt a convenient “institutional” rationale — an absolutist, “anything goes” view of the First Amendment — because it will lighten our burdens. “Such an abnegation of judicial supervision in this field would be inconsistent with our duty to uphold the constitutional guarantees.” Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, at 187-188 (opinion of Brennan, J.). Nor should we remedy “tension between state and federal courts” by arbitrarily depriving the States of a power reserved to them under the Constitution, a power which they have enjoyed and exercised continuously from before the adoption of the First Amendment to this day. See Roth v. United States, supra, at 482-485. “Our duty admits of no'substitute for facing up to the tough individual problems of constitutional judgment involved in every obscenity case.’ [Roth v. United States, supra, at 498]; see Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478, 488 (opinion of Harlan, J.) [footnote omitted].” Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, at 188 (opinion of Brennan, J.).
III.
Under a National Constitution, fundamental First Amendment limitations on the powers of the States do not vary from community to community, but this does not mean that there are, or should or can be, fixed, uniform national standards of precisely what appeals to the “prurient interest” or is “patently offensive.” These are essentially questions of fact, and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus exists. When triers of fact are asked to decide whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would consider certain materials “prurient,” it would be unrealistic to require that the answer be based on some abstract formulation. The adversary system, with lay jurors as the usual ultimate factfinders in criminal prosecutions, has historically permitted triers of fact to draw on the standards of their community, guided always by limiting instructions on the law. To require a State to structure obscenity proceedings around evidence of a national “community standard” would be an exercise in futility.
As noted before, this case was tried on the theory that the California obscenity statute sought to incorporate the tripartite test of Memoirs. This, a “national” standard of First Amendment protection enumerated by a plurality of this Court, was correctly regarded at the time of trial as limiting state prosecution under the controlling case law. The jury, however, was explicitly instructed that, in determining whether the "dominant theme of the material as a whole... appeals to the prurient interest” and in determining whether the material “goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor and affronts contemporary community standards of decency,” it was to apply “contemporary community standards of the State of California.”
During the trial, both the prosecution and the defense assumed that the relevant “community standards” in making the factual determination of obscenity were those of the State of California, not some hypothetical standard of the entire United States of America. Defense counsel at trial never objected to the testimony of the State's expert on community standards or to the instructions of the trial judge on “statewide” standards. On appeal to the Appellate Department, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, appellant for the first time contended that application of state, rather than national, standards violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
We conclude that neither the State’s alleged failure to offer evidence of “national standards,” nor the trial court’s charge that the jury consider state community standards, were constitutional errors. Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must consider hypothetical and unascertainable “national standards” when attempting to determine whether certain materials are obscene as a matter of fact. Mr. Chief Justice Warren pointedly commented in his dissent in Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, at 200:
“It is my belief that when the Court said in Both that obscenity is to be defined by reference to 'community standards/ it meant community standards — not a national standard, as is sometimes argued. I believe that there is no provable 'national standard’.... At all events, this Court has not been able to enunciate one, and it would be unreasonable to expect local courts to divine one.”
It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas, or New York City. See Hoyt v. Minnesota, 399 U. S. 524-525 (1970) (Black-MUN, J., dissenting); Walker v. Ohio, 398 U. S. 434 (1970) (Burgee, C. J., dissenting); id., at 434-435 (Harlan, J., dissenting); Cain v. Kentucky, 397 U. S. 319 (1970) (Burger, C. J., dissenting); id., at 319-320 (Harlan, J., dissenting); United States v. Groner, 479 F. 2d, at 581-583; O’Meara & Shaffer, Obscenity in The Supreme Court: A Note on Jacobellis v. Ohio, 40 Notre Dame Law. 1, 6-7 (1964). See also Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S., at 458 (Harlan, J., dissenting); Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, at 203-204 (Harlan, J., dissenting); Roth v. United States, supra, at 505-506 (Harlan, J., concurring and dissenting). People in different States vary in their tastes and attitudes, and this diversity is not to be strangled by the absolutism of imposed uniformity. As the Court made clear in Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S., at 508-509, the primary concern with requiring a jury to apply the standard of “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” is to be certain that, so far as material is not aimed at a deviant group, it will be judged by its impact on an average person, rather than a particularly susceptible or sensitive person — or indeed a totally insensitive one. See Roth v. United States, supra, at 489. Cf. the now discredited test in Regina v. Hicklin, [1868] L. R. 3 Q. B. 360. We hold that the requirement that the jury evaluate the materials with reference to “contemporary standards of the State of California” serves this protective purpose and is constitutionally adequate.
IV
The dissenting Justices sound the alarm of repression. But, in our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom. It is a “misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press... Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S., at 645. The First Amendment protects works which, taken as a whole, have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, regardless of whether the government or a majority of the people approve of the ideas these works represent. “The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people/' Roth v. United States, supra, at 484 (emphasis added). See Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U. S., at 230-232; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S., at 101-102. But the public portrayal of hard-core sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the ensuing commercial gain, is a different matter.
There is no evidence, empirical or historical, that the stern 19th century American censorship of public distribution and display of material relating to sex, see Roth v. United States, supra, at 482-485, in any way limited or affected expression of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific ideas. On the contrary, it is beyond any question that the era following Thomas Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt was an “extraordinarily vigorous period,” not just in economics and politics, but in belles lettres and in “the outlying fields of social and political philosophies.” We do not see the harsh hand of censorship of ideas — good or bad, sound or unsound— and “repression” of political liberty lurking in every state regulation of commercial exploitation of human interest in sex.
Mr. Justice Brennan finds “it is hard to see how state-ordered regimentation of our minds can ever be forestalled.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, post, at 110 (Brennan, J., dissenting). These doleful anticipations assume that courts cannot distinguish commerce in ideas, protected by the First Amendment, from commercial exploitation of obscene material. Moreover, state regulation of hard-core pornography so as to make it unavailable to nonadults, a regulation which Mr. Justice Brennan finds constitutionally permissible, has all the elements of “censorship” for adults; indeed even more rigid enforcement techniques may be called for with such dichotomy of regulation. See Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U. S., at 690. One can concede that the “sexual revolution” of recent years may have had useful byproducts in striking layers of prudery from a subject long irrationally kept from needed ventilation. But it does not follow that no regulation of patently offensive “hard core” materials is needed or permissible; civilized people do not allow unregulated access to heroin because it is a derivative of medicinal morphine.
In sum, we (a) reaffirm the Both holding that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment; (b) hold that such material can be regulated by the States, subject to the specific safeguards enunciated above, without a showing that the material is “utterly without redeeming social value”; and (c) hold that obscenity is to be determined by applying “contemporary community standards,” see Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, and Roth v. United States, supra, at 489, not “national standards.” The judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, Orange County, California, is vacated and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the First Amendment standards established by this opinion. See United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, post, at 130 n. 7.
Vacated and remanded.
At the time of the commission of the alleged offense, which was prior to June 25, 1969, §§ 311.2 (a) and 311 of the California Penal Code read in relevant part:
Ҥ 311.2 Sending or bringing into state for sale or distribution; printing, exhibiting, distributing or possessing within state
“(a) Every person who knowingly: sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state prepares, publishes, prints, exhibits, distributes, or offers to distribute, or has in his possession with intent to distribute or to exhibit or offer to distribute, any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor....”
Ҥ 311. Definitions
“As used in this chapter:
“(a) 'Obscene’ means that to the average person, applying contemporary standards, the predominant appeal of the matter, taken as a whole, is to prurient interest, i. e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and is matter which is utterly without redeeming social importance.
“(b) ‘Matter’ means any book, magazine, newspaper, or other printed or written material or any picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture, or other pictorial representation or any statue or other figure, or any recording, transcription or mechanical, chemical or electrical reproduction or any other articles, equipment, machines or materials.
“(c) ‘Person’ means any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation, or other legal entity.
“(d) ‘Distribute’ means to transfer possession of, whether with or without consideration.
“(e) ‘Knowingly’ means having knowledge that the matter is obscene.”
Section 311 (e) of the California Penal Code, supra, was amended on June 25, 1969, to read as follows:
“(e) ‘Knowingly’ means being aware of the character of the matter.”
Cal. Amended Stats. 1969, c. 249, § 1, p. 598. Despite appellant’s contentions to the contrary, the record indicates that the new § 311 (e) was not applied ex post facto to his case, but only the old § 311 (e) as construed by state decisions prior to the commission of the alleged offense. See People v. Pinkus, 256 Cal. App. 2d 941, 948-950, 63 Cal. Rptr. 680, 685-686 (App. Dept., Superior Ct., Los Angeles, 1967); People v. Campise, 242 Cal. App. 2d 905, 914, 51 Cal. Rptr. 815, 821 (App. Dept., Superior Ct., San Diego, 1966). Cf. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964). Nor did § 311.2, supra, as applied, create any “direct, immediate burden on the per-formanee of the postal functions,” or infringe on congressional commerce powers under Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 494 (1957), quoting Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi, 326 U. S. 88, 96 (1945). See also Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, 506 (1966); Smith v. California, 361 U, S. 147, 150-152 (1959).
This Court has defined “obscene material” as “material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest,” Roth v. United States, supra, at 487, but the Roth definition does not reflect the precise meaning of “obscene” as traditionally used in the English language. Derived from the Latin obscaenus, ob, to, plus caenum, filth, “obscene” is defined in the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged 1969) as “la: disgusting to the senses... b: grossly repugnant to the generally accepted notions of what is appropriate... 2: offensive or revolting as countering or violating some ideal or principle.” The Oxford English Dictionary (1933 ed.) gives a similar definition, “[o]ffensive to the senses, or to taste or refinement; disgusting, repulsive, filthy, foul, abominable, loathsome.”
The material we are discussing in this case is more accurately defined as “pornography” or "pornographic material.” “Pornography” derives from the Greek {pome, harlot, and graphos, writing). The word now means “1: a description of prostitutes or prostitution 2: a depiction (as in writing or painting) of licentiousness or lewdness: a portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, supra. Pornographic material which is obscene forms a sub-group of all “obscene” expression, but not the whole, at least as the word “obscene” is now used in our language. We note, therefore, that the words "obscene material,” as used in this case, have a specific judicial meaning which derives from the Both case, i. e., obscene material “which deals with sex.” Roth, supra, at 487. See also ALI Model Penal Code § 251.4 (1) “Obscene Defined.” (Official Draft 1962.)
In the absence of a. majority view, this Court was compelled to embark on the practice of summarily reversing convictions for the dissemination of materials that at least five members of the Court, applying their separate tests, found to be protected by the First Amendment. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967). Thirty-one cases have been decided in this manner. Beyond the necessity of circumstances, however, no justification has ever been offered in support of the Redrwp “policy.” See Walker v. Ohio, 398 U. S. 434-435 (1970) (dissenting -opinions of Burger, C. J., and Harlan, J.). The Redrwp procedure has cast us in the role of an unreviewable board of censorship for the 50 States, subjectively judging each piece of material brought' before us.
See the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice BreNNan in Paris Adult Theatre 1 v. Slaton, post, p. 73.
As Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated, dissenting, in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 200 (1964) :
“For all the sound and fury that the Both test has generated, it has not been proved unsound, and I believe that we should try to live with it — at least until a more satisfactory definition is evolved. No government — be it federal, state, or local — should be forced to choose between repressing all material, including that within the realm of decency, and allowing unrestrained license to publish any material, no matter how vile. There must be a rule of reason in this as in other areas of the law, and we have attempted in the Roth case to provide such a rule.”
See, e. g., Oregon Laws 1971, c. 743, Art. 29, §§ 255-262, and Hawaii Penal Code, Tit. 37, §§ 1210-1216, 1972 Hawaii Session Laws, Act 9, c. 12, pt. II, pp. 126-129, as examples of state laws directed at depiction of defined physical conduct, as opposed to expression. Other state formulations could be equally valid in this respect. In giving the Oregon and Hawaii statutes as examples, we do not wish to be understood as approving of them in all
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court:
This case involves the validity of the Government’s revocation of security clearance granted to petitioner, an aeronautical engineer employed by a private manufacturer which, produced goods for the armed services. Petitioner was discharged from his employment solely as a consequence of the revocation because his access to classified information was required by the nature of his job. After his discharge, petitioner was unable to secure employment as an aeronautical engineer and for all practical. purposes that field of endeavor is now closed to him.
Petitioner was vice president and general manager of Engineering and Research Corporation (ERCO), a business devoted primarily to developing and manufacturing various mechanical and electronic products. He began this employment in 1937 soon after his graduation from the Guggenheim School of Aeronautics and, except for a brief leave of absence, he stayed with the firm until his discharge in 1953. He was first employed as a junior engineer and draftsman. Because of the excellence of his work he eventually became a chief executive officer of the firm. During his career with ERCO, he was credited with the expedited development of a complicated electronic flight simulator and with the design of a rocket launcher, both of which were produced by ERCO and long used- by the Navy.
During the post-World War II period, petitioner was given security clearances on three occasions. These were required by the nature of the projects undertaken by ERCO for the various armed services. On November 21, 1951, however, the Army-Navy-Air Force Personnel Security Board (PSB) advised ERCO that the company’s clearances fpr access to classified information were in jeopardy because of a tentative decision to deny petitioner access to classified Department of Defense information and to revoke his clearance for security reasons. ERCO was invited to respond to this notification. The corporation, through its president, informed PSB that petitioner had taken an extended furlough due to the Board’s action. The ERCO executive also stated that in his opinion petitioner was a loyal and discreet United States citizen and that his absence denied to the firm the- services of an outstanding engineer and administrative executive. On December 11, 1951, petitioner was informed by the Board that it had “decided that, access by you to contract work and information [at ERCO]... would be inimical to the best interests of the United States.” Accordingly, the PSB revoked ■ petitioner’s clearances. He was informed that he could seek a héaring before the Industrial Employment Review Board (IERB), and he took this course. Prior to the hearing, petitioner received a letter informing him that the PSB action was based on information indicating that between 1943 and 1947 he had associated with Communists, visited officials of the Russian Embassy, and attended a dinner given by an allegedly Communist Front organization.
On January 23,1952, petitioner, with counsel, appeared before the IERB. He was questioned in detail concerning his background and the information disclosed in the IERB letter. In response to numerous, and searching questions he explained in substance that specific “suspect” persons with whom he was said to have associated were actually friends of his ex-wife. He explained in some detail that during his first marriage, which lasted from 1942 through 1947, his then wife held views with which he did not concur and was friendly with associates and other persons with whom he had little in common. He stated that these basic disagreements were the prime reasons that the marriage ended in failure; He attributed to his then wife his attendance at the dinner, his membership in a bookshop association which purportedly was a “front” organization, and the presence in his home of “Communist” publications. He denied categorically that he had ever been a “Communist” and he spoke at length about his dislike for “a theory of Government which has for its object the common ownership of property.” Lastly, petitioner explained that his visits to persons in various foreign embassies (including the Russian Embassy) were made in connection with his attempts to sell ERCO’s products to their Governments. Petitioner’s witnesses, who included top-level- executives of ERCO and a number of military officers who had worked with petitioner in the past, corroborated many of petitioner’s statements and testified in substance that he was a loyal and discreet citizen. These top-level executives of ERCO, whose right to clearance was never challenged, corroborated petitioner’s testimony concerning his reasons for visiting the Russian Embassy.
The Government presented no witnesses. It was obvious, however, from the questions posed to petitioner and to his witnesses, that the Board relied on confidential reports which were never made available to petitioner. These reports apparently were compilations of statements taken from various persons contacted by an investigatory agency. Petitioner had no opportunity to confront and question persons whose statements reflected adversely on him or to confront the government investigators who took their statements. Moreover, it seemed- evident that the Board itself had never questioned the investigators and had never seen those persons whose statements were the subject of their reports.
On January 29, 1952, the IERB, on the basis of the testimony given at the hearing and the confidential reports, reversed the action of the PSB' and informed petitioner and ERGO that petitioner was authorized to work on Secret contract work.
On March 27, 1953, the Sécretary of Defense abolished the PSB and IERB and directed the Secretaries of the three armed services to establish regional Industrial Personnel Security Boards to coordinate the industrial security program. The Secretaries were also instructed to establish uniform standards, criteria, and procedures. Cases pending before the PSB and IERB were referred to these new Boards. During the interim period between the abolishment of the old program and the implementation of the new one, the Secretaries considered themselves charged with administering clearance activities under previously stated criteria.
On April 17, 1953, respondent Anderson, the Secretary of the Navy, wrote ERCO that he had reviewed petitioner’s case and had concluded that petitioner’s “continued access to Navy classified security information [was] inconsistent with the best interests of National Security.” No hearing preceded this notification. He requested ERCO to exclude petitioner “from any part of your plants, factories or sites at which classified Navy projects are being carried out and to bar him access to all Navy classified information.” He also advised the corporation that petitioner’s case was being referred to the Secretary of Defense with the'recommendation that the IERB’s decision of January 29, 1952, be overruled. ERCO had no choice but to comply with the request. This led to petitioner’s discharge.. ERCO informed the. Navy of what had occurred and requested an opportunity to discuss the matter in view of pétitioner’s importance to the firm. The Navy replied that “ [a] s far as the Navy, Department is concerned, any further discussion on this problem at this time will serve no useful purpose.”
Petitioner asked for reconsideration of the decision. On October 13, 1953, the Navy wrote to him stating that it had requested the Eastern Industrial Personnel Security Board (EIPSB) to accept jurisdiction and to arrive at a final determination concerning petitioner’s status. Various letters were subsequently exchanged between petitioner’s counsel and the EIPSB. These resulted finally in generalized charges, quoted in the margin, incorporating the information previously discussed with petitioner at his 1952 hearing before the IERB.
On April 28, 1954, more than one year after the Secretary took action, and for the two days thereafter, petitioner presented his case to the EIPSB and was cross-examined in detail. The hearing began with a statement by the Chairman, which included the following passage:
“The transcript to be made of this hearing will not include all material in the file of the case, in that, it will not include reports of investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigative agencies which ¿re confidential. Neither will it contain information concerning the identity of confidential informants or information which will reveal the source of confidential evidence. The transcript will contain only the Statement of Reasons, your answer thereto and the testimony actually taken at this hearing.”
Petitioner was again advised that the revocation of his security clearance was based on incidents occurring between 1942 and 1947, including his associations with alleged Communists, his visits with officials of the Russian Embassy, and the presence in his house of Communist literature.
Petitioner, in response to a question, stated at the outset of the hearing that he was then employed at a salary of $4,700 per year as an architectural draftsman and that he h¿d' been receiving $18,000 per year as Vice President and General Manager of ERCO. He later explained that after his discharge from ERCO he had unsuccessfully tried to' obtain employment in the aeronautics field but had been barricaded from it because of lack of clearance.
Petitioner was subjected to an intense examination sim-'ilar to that which he experienced before the IERB in 1952..During the course of the examination, the Board injected new subjects of inquiry and made it evident that it was relying on various investigatory reports and statements of confidential informants which were not made available to petitioner. Petitioner reiterated in great detail the explanations' previously given before the IERB. He was subjected to intense cross-examination, however, concerning reports that he had agreed with the views held by his ex-wife.
Petitioner again presented a number of witnesses who testified that he was loyal, that he had spoken approvingly of the United States and its economic system, that he was a valuable engineer, and that he had made valuable and significant contributions to this country’s war efforts during World War II and the Korean War.
Soon'after the conclusion of the hearing, the-EIPSB notified petitioner that it had affirmed the Secretary’s action and that it had decided that the granting of clearance to petitioner for access to classified information was “not clearly consistent with the interests of national security.” Petitioner requested that he be furnished with a detailed statement of findings supporting the Board’s decision. He was informed, however, that s'ecurity considerations prohibited such disclosure.- On September 16, 1955, petitioner requested review by the Industrial Personnel Security Review Board. On March 12, 1956, almost three years after the Secretary’s action and nearly one year after the second hearing, he received a letter from the Director of the Office of Industrial Personnel Security Review informing him that the EIPSB had found that from 1942-1947 petitioner associated closely with his then wife and her friends, knowing that they were active in behalf of and sympathized with the Communist Party, that during part of this period petitioner maintained a sympathetic association with a number of officials of the Russian Embassy, that during this period petitioner’s political views were similar to those of his then wife, that petitioner had been a member of a suspect bookshop association, had invested money in a suspect radio station, had attended a suspect dinner, and had, on occasion,,. Communist publications in his home, and that petitioner’s credibility as a witness in the proceedings was doubtful. The letter also stated that the doubts concerning petitioner’s credibility affected the Board’s evaluation of his trustworthiness and that only trustworthy persons could be afforded access to classified information. The EIPSB determination was affirmed..
After the EIPSB decision in 1954, petitioner filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asking for a declaration that the revocation was unlawful and void and for an order restraining respondents from acting' pursuant to it. He also asked for an order requiring respondents to advise ERCO that the clearance revocation was void. Following the affirmance of the EIPSB order by the Industrial Personnel Review Board, petitioner moved for summary judgment in the District Court. The Government cross-filed for dismissal of the complaint or summary judgment. The District Court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment, 150 F. Supp. 958, and the' Court of Appeals affirmed that disposition, 103 U. S. App. D. C. 87, 254 F. 2d 944.
The Court of Appeals recognized that petitioner had suffered substantial harm from the clearance revocation. But in that court’s view, petitioner’s suit presented no “justiciable controversy” — no controversy which the courts could finally and effectively decide. This conclusion followed from the Court of Appeals’ reasoning that the Executive Department alone is competent to evaluate the competing considerations which exist in determining the persons who are to be afforded security clearances. The court also rejected petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of his livelihood without the traditional- safeguards required by “due process of law” such as-confrontation of his accusers and access to confidential reports used to determine his fitness. Central to this determination was the. court’s unwillingness to order the Government to choose between disclosing the identities of informants or giving petitioner clearance.
Petitioner contends that the action of the Department of Defense in barring him from access to classified information on the' basis óf statements of confidential informants made to investigators was not authorized by either Congress or the President and has' denied him “liberty” and “property” without “due process of Ism” in contravention of the Fifth Amendment. The alleged property is petitioner’s employment; the alleged liberty is petitioner’s freedom to practice his chosen profession. Respondents admit,-as they must, that the revocation of security clearance caused petitioner to lose his.job with ERCO and has seriously affected, if not destroyed, his ability to obtain employment' in the aeronautics field. Although the right to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the “liberty” and “property” concepts of the Fifth Amendment, Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232; Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331, 352 (concurring opinion); cf. Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U. S. 551; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 41; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 589-590; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 684, respondents contend that the admitted interferences which have occurred are indirect by-products of necessary governmental action to protect the integrity of secret information and hence are not unreasonable and do not constitute deprivations within the meaning, of the Amendment. Alternatively, respondents urge that even if petitioner has been restrained in the enjoyment of constitutionally protected rights, he was accorded due process of law in that he was permitted to utilize those procedural safeguards consonant with an effective clearance program, in the administration of which the identity of informants and their statements are kept secret to insure an unimpaired flow to the Government of information concerning subversive conduct. But in view of our conclusion that this case should be decided on the narrower ground of “authorization,” we find that we need not determine the answers to these questions.
The issue, as we see it, is whether the Department of Defense has been authorized to create an industrial security clearance program under which affected persons may lose their jobs and may be restrained in following their chosen professions on the basis of fact determinations concerning their fitness for clearance made in proceedings in which they are denied the traditional procedural safeguards of confrontation and cross-examination.
Prior to World War II, only sporadic efforts were made to control the clearance of persons who worked in private. establishments which manufactured materials for national defense. Report.of the Commission on Government Security, 1957, S. Doc. No. 64, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 236. During World War II the War Department instituted a formalized program to obtain the discharge from war plants of persons engaged in sabotage, espionage, and willful activity designed to disrupt the national defense program. Id., at 237. In 1946, the War Department began to require contractors, before being given access to classified information, to sign secrecy agreements which required consent before their employees were permitted access to Top Secret or Secret information. Id., at 238. At the outset, each armed service administered its own industrial clearance program. Id., at 239. Later, the PSB and IERB were established by the' Department of Defense and the Secretaries of the armed services to administer a more centralized program. Ibid. Confusion existed concerning the criteria and procedures to be employed by these boards. Ibid. Eventually, generalized procedures were established with the approval of the Secretaries which provided in part that before the IERB “[t]he hearing will be conducted in such manner as to protect from disclosure information affecting the national security or tending to' compromise investigative sources or methods....” See “Procedures, Governing Appeals to the Industrial Employment Review Board, dated 7 November 1949,” note 4, supra, §4(c). After abolition of these boards in 1953, and the establishment of the IPSB, various new sets of procedures were promulgated which likewise provided for the non-disclosure of information “tending to compromise investigative sources or methods or the indentity of confidential informants.”
All of these programs and procedures were established.by directives issued by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force'. None was the creature of statute or of an' Executive Order issued by the President.
Respondents maintain that congressional authorization to the President to fashion a program which denies security clearance to persons on the basis of confidential information which the individuals have no opportunity to confront and test is unnecessary because the President has inherent authority to maintain military secrets inviolate. And respondents argue that if a statutory grant of power is necessary, such a grant can readily be inferred “as a necessarily implicit authority from the generalized provisions” of legislation dealing with the armed services. But the question which must be decided in this case is not whether the. President has inherent power to act or whether Congress has granted him such a power; rather, it is whether either the President or Congress exercised such a power and delegated to the Department of Defense the authority to fashion such a program.
Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Government’s case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue. While this is important in the case of documentary evidence, it is even more important, where the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty of who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy. We have formalized these protections in the requirements of confrontation and cross-examinátion. They have ancient roots. They find expression in the Sixth Amendment which provides that in all criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This Court has been zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken out not only in criminal cases, e. g., Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 242-244; Kirby v. United States, 174 U. S. 47; Motes v. United States, 178 U. S. 458, 474; In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273, but also in all types of cases where administrative and regulatory actions were under scrutiny. E. g., Southern R. Co. v. Virginia, 290 U. S. 190; Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 301 U. S. 292; Morgan v. United States, 304 U. S. 1, 19; Carter v. Kubler, 320 U. S. 243; Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 U. S. 269. Nor, as it has been pointed out; has Congress ignored these fundamental requirements in enacting regulatory legislation. Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 168-169 (concurring opinion).'
Professor Wigmore, commenting on the importance of cross-examination, states in his treatise, 5 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 1367:
“For two centuries past, the policy of the Anglo-American system of Evidence has been to regard the necessity of testing by cross-examination as a vital feature of the law. The belief that no safeguard for testing the value of human statements is comparable to that furnished by cross-examination, and the conviction that no statement (unless by special exception) should be used as testimony until it has been probed and sublimated by that test, has found increasing strength in lengthening experience.”
Little need be added to this incisive summary statement except to point out that under the present clearance procedures not only is the testimony of absent witnesses allowed to stand without the probing questions of the person under attack which often uncover inconsistencies, lapses of recollection,- and bias, but, in addition, even the members of the clearance boards do not see the informants. or know their identities, but normally rely on an investigator’s summary report of what the. informant said without even examining the investigator personally.
We must determine against this background, whether the President or Congress has delegated to the Department of Defense the authority to by-pass these traditional and well-recognized safeguards in an industrial security cleárance program which can operate to injure individuals substantially by denying to them the opportunity to follow chosen private professions. Respondents cite two Executive Orders which they believe show presidential delegation. The first, Exec. Order No. 10290, 16 Fed. Reg. 9795, was entitled “Prescribing Regulations Establishing Minimum Standards For' The Classification, Transmission, And Handling, By Departments And Agencies of the Executive Branch, Of Official Information Which Requires Safeguarding In The Interest Of The Security Of The United States.” It provided, in relevant part:
“Part V — Dissemination of Classified Security Information
“29. General, a. No person shall be entitled to knowledge or possession of, or access to, classified security information solely by virtue of his office or position.
“b. Classified security information shall not be discussed with or in the presence of unauthorized persons, and the latter shall not be permitted to inspect or have access to such information.
“c. The head of each agency shall establish a system for controlling the dissemination of classified security information adequate to the needs of his agency.
“30. Limitations on dissemination — a. Within the Executive Branch. The dissemination of classified' security information shall be limited to persons whose official duties require knowledge of such information. Special measures shall be. employed to limit the dissemination of ‘Top Secret’ security information to the absolute minimum. Only that portion of ‘Top Secret’ security information necessary to the proper planning and appropriate action of any organizational unit or individual shall be released to such unit or individual.
“b. Outside ■ the Executive Branch. Classified security information shall not be disseminated outside the Executive Branch by any person or agency having access thereto or knowledge thereof except under conditions and through channels authorized by the head of the disseminating agency, even though such person or agency may have been solely or partly responsible for its production.”
The second, Exec. Order No. 10501, 18 Fed. Reg. 7049, which revoked Exec. Order No. 10290, is entitled “Safeguarding Official Information In The Interests Of The Defense Of The United States” and provides in relevant part:
“Sec. 7. Accountability and Dissemination.
“ (b) Dissemination Outside the Executive Branch. Classified defense information shall not be disseminated outside the executive branch except under conditions and through channels authorized by the head of the disseminating department or agency, even though the person or agency to which dissemination of such information is proposéd to be made may have been solely or partly responsible for its production.”
Clearly, neither of these orders empowers any executive agency to fashion security programs whereby persons are deprived of their present civilian employment and of the opportunity of continued activity in their chosen professions without being accorded the chance to challenge effectively the evidence and testimony upon which an adverse security determination might rest.
Turning to the legislative enactments which might be deemed as delegating authority to the Department of Defense to fashion programs under which persons may be seriously restrained in their employment opportunities through a denial of clearance without the safeguards of cross-examination and confrontation, we note the Government’s own assertion, made in its brief, that “[w]ith petitioner’s contention that the Industrial Security Program is not explicitly authorized by statute we may readily agree...
The first proffered statute is the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 5 U. S. C. § 171 et seq. That Act created the Department of Defense and gave to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the armed services the authority to administer their departments. Nowhere in the Act, or its amendments, is there found specific authority to create a clearance program similar to the one now in effect.
Another Act cited by respondents is the Armed Service Procurement Act of 1947, as amended. It provides in 10 U. S. C. § 2304 that:
“(a) Purchases of and contracts, for property or services covered by this chapter shall be made, by formal advertising. However, the head of an agency may negotiate such a purchase or contract, if—
“(12) the purchase or contract is for property or services whose procurement he determines should not be publicly disclosed because of their character, ingredients, or components.”
It further provides in 10 U. S. C. § 2306:
“(a) The cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost system of contracting may not be used. Subject to this limitation and subject to subsections (b)-(e), the head of an agency may, in negotiating contracts under section 2304 of this title, make any kind of contract that he considers will promote the best interests of the United States.”
Respondents argue that these statutes, together with 18 U. S. C. § 798, which makes it a crime willfully and knowingly to communicate to unauthorized persons information concerning cryptographic or intelligence activities, and 50 U. S. C. § 783 (b), which makes it a crime for an officer or employee of the United States to communicate classified information to agents of foreign governments or officers and members of “Communist organizations,” reflect a recognition by Congress of.the existence of military secrets and the necessity of keeping those secrets inviolate.
Although these statutes make it apparent that Congress recognizes the existence of military secrets, they hardly constitute an authorization to create an elaborate clearance program which embodies procedures traditionally believed to be inadequate to protect affected persons.
Lastly, the Government urges that if we refuse to adopt its “inferred” authorization reasoning, nevertheless, congressional ratification is apparent by the continued appropriation of funds to finance aspects of the program fashioned by the Department of Defense. Respondents refer us to Hearings before the House Committee on Appropriations on Department of Defense Appropriations for 1956, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. 774-781. At those hearings, the Committee was asked to approve the appropriation of funds to finance a program under which reimbursement for lost wages would be made to employees of government contractors who were temporarily denied, but later granted, security clearance. Apparently, such reimbursements had been made prior to that time out of general appropriations. Although a specific appropriation was eventually made for this purpose, it could not conceivably constitute a ratification of the hearing procedures, for the procedures were in no way involved in the special reimbursement program.
Respondents’ argument on delegation resolves itself into the following: The President, in general terms, has authorized the Department of Defense to create procedures to restrict the dissemination of classified information and has apparently acquiesced in the elaborate program established by the Secretary of Defense even where application of the program results in restraints on traditional freedoms without the use of long-required procedural protections. Similarly, Congress, although it has not enacted specific legislation relating to clearance procedures to be utilized for industrial workers, has acquiesced in the existing Department of Defense program and has ratified it by specifically appropriating funds to finance one aspect of it.
If acquiescence or implied ratification were enough to show delegation of authority to take actions within the area of questionable constitutionality, we might agree with respondents that delegation has been shown here. In many circumstances, where the Government’s freedom to act is clear, and the Congress or the President has provided general standards of action and has acquiesced in administrative interpretation, delegation may be inferred. Thus, even in the absence of specific delegation, •we have no difficulty in finding, as we do, that the Department of Defense has been authorized to fashion and apply an industrial clearance program which affords affected persons the safeguards of confrontation and cross-examination. But this case does not present that situation. We deal here with substantial restraints on employment opportunities of numerous persons imposed in a manner which is in conflict with our long-accepted notions of fair procedures. Before we are asked to judge whether, in the context of security clearance cases, a person may be deprived of the right to follow his chosen profession without full hearings where accusers may be confronted, it must be made clear that the President or Congress, within their respective constitutional powers, specifically has decided that the imposed procedures are necessary and warranted and has authorized their use. Cf. Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178; Scull v. Virginia, 359 U. S. 344. Such decisions cannot be assumed by acquiescence or non-action. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116; Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331; Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283, 301-302. They must be made explicitly.not only to assure that individuals are not deprived of cherished rights under procedures not actually authorized, see Peters v. Hobby, supra, but also because explicit action, especially in areas of doubtful constitutionality, requires careful and purposeful consideration by those responsible for enacting and implementing our laws. Without explicit action by lawmakers, decisions of great constitutional import and effect would be relegated by default to administrators who, under our system of government, are not endowed with authority to decide them.
Where administrative action has raised serious constitutional problems, the Court has assumed that Congress or the President intended to afford those affected by the action the traditional safeguards of due process. See, e. g., The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 101; Dismuke v. United States, 297 U. S. 167, 172; Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283, 299-300; American Power Co. v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n, 329 U. S. 90, 107-108; Hannegan v. Esquire, 327 U. S. 146, 156; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 49. Cf. Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 337; United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41. These cases reflect the Court’s concern that traditional forms of fair procedure not be restricted by implication or without the most explicit action by the Nation’s lawmakers, even in areas where it is possible that the Constitution presents no inhibition.
In the instant case, petitioner’s work opportunities have been severely limited on the basis of a fact determination rendered after a hearing which failed to comport with our traditional ideas of fair procedure. The type of hearing was the product of administrative decision not explicitly, authorized by either Congress or the President. Whether those procedures under the circumstances comport with the Constitution we do not decide. Nor do we decide whether the President has inherent authority to create such a program, whether congressional action is necessary, or what the limits on executive or legislative authority may be. We decide only that in the absence of explicit authorization from either the President or Congress the respondents were not empowered to deprive petitioner of his job in a proceeding in which he was not afforded the safeguards of confrontation and cross-examination.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whittaker concur in the judgment on the ground that it has not been shown that either Congress or the President authorized the procedures whereby petitioner’s security clearance was revoked, intimating no viéws as to the validity of those procedures.
Petitioner was given a Confidential clearance by the Army on August 9, 1949, a Top Secret clearance by the Assistant Chief of Staff G-2, Military. District of.Washington on November 9, 1949, and a Top Secret clearance by the Air Materiel Command on February 3,1950.'
ERCO did classified contract work for the various services. In 1951, in connection with a classified research project for the Navy, it entered into a security agreement in which it undertook “to provide and maintain a system of security controls within its... own organization in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Defense Industrial Security Manual....” The Manual, in turn, provided in paragraphs 4 (e) and 6:
“The Contractor shall exclude (this does not imply the dismissal or separation of any employee) from any part of its plants, factories, or sites at which work for any military department is being performed, any person or persons whom the Secretary of the military department concerned or his duly authorized representative, in the interest of security, may designate in writing.
“No individual shall.be permitted to have access to classified matter unless cleared by the Government or the Contractor, as the case may be, as specified in the following subparagraphs and then he will be given access to siich matter only to the extent of his clearance....”
The PSB was created pursuant to an interim agreement dated October 9, 1947, between the Army, Navy, and Air Force and pursuant-to a memorandum of agreement between the Provost Marshal General and- the Air Provost Marshal, dated March 17, 1948. “It was a three-man board, with one representative from each of the military departments.... Its functions were to grant or deny clearance for employment on aeronautical or classified contract work when such consent was required, and to suspend individuals, whose continued employment was considered inimical to the security interests of the United States, from employment on classified work.” Report of the Commission on Government Security, 1957, S. Doc. No. 64, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 239. It established its own. procédures which were approved by the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. See “Procedures Governing the Army-Navy-Air Force Personnel Security Board, dated 19 June 1950.”
The IERB was a four-member board which was given jurisdiction to hear and review appeals from decisions of the PSB. Its charter, dated 7 November 1949 and signed by the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, contemplated that it would afford hearings to persons denied clearance. And see “Procedures Governing Appeals to the Industrial Employment Review Board, dated 7 November 1949.”
The letter read, in part:
“That over a period of years, 1943-1947, at or near Washington, D. C., you have closely and sympathetically associated with persons who are reported to be or to have been members of the Communist Party; that during the period 1944-1947 you entertained and were visited at your home by military representatives of the Russian Embassy, Washington, D. C.; that, further, you attended social functions during the period 1944-1947 at the Russian Embassy, Washington, D. C.; and on 7 April 1947 attended the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, Third Annual Dinner, Statler Hotel, Washington, D. C. (Cited as Communist Front organization, Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities).”
The Boards were abolished pursuant to a memorandum of March 27, 1953, issued by the Secretary of Defense to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and to the Chairman of the Munitions Board. It provided in part:
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
To enforce the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures," this Court has at times required courts to exclude evidence obtained by unconstitutional police conduct. But the Court has also held that, even when there is a Fourth Amendment violation, this exclusionary rule does not apply when the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits. In some cases, for example, the link between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of the evidence is too attenuated to justify suppression. The question in this case is whether this attenuation doctrine applies when an officer makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop; learns during that stop that the suspect is subject to a valid arrest warrant; and proceeds to arrest the suspect and seize incriminating evidence during a search incident to that arrest. We hold that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer's discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.
I
This case began with an anonymous tip. In December 2006, someone called the South Salt Lake City police's drug-tip line to report "narcotics activity" at a particular residence. App. 15. Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell investigated the tip. Over the course of about a week, Officer Fackrell conducted intermittent surveillance of the home. He observed visitors who left a few minutes after arriving at the house. These visits were sufficiently frequent to raise his suspicion that the occupants were dealing drugs.
One of those visitors was respondent Edward Strieff. Officer Fackrell observed Strieff exit the house and walk toward a nearby convenience store. In the store's parking lot, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff, identified himself, and asked Strieff what he was doing at the residence.
As part of the stop, Officer Fackrell requested Strieff's identification, and Strieff produced his Utah identification card. Officer Fackrell relayed Strieff's information to a police dispatcher, who reported that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell then arrested Strieff pursuant to that warrant. When Officer Fackrell searched Strieff incident to the arrest, he discovered a baggie of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
The State charged Strieff with unlawful possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the evidence was inadmissible because it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor conceded that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop but argued that the evidence should not be suppressed because the existence of a valid arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the contraband.
The trial court agreed with the State and admitted the evidence. The court found that the short time between the illegal stop and the search weighed in favor of suppressing the evidence, but that two countervailing considerations made it admissible. First, the court considered the presence of a valid arrest warrant to be an " 'extraordinary intervening circumstance.' " App. to Pet. for Cert. 102 (quoting United States v. Simpson, 439 F.3d 490, 496 (C.A.8 2006) ). Second, the court stressed the absence of flagrant misconduct by Officer Fackrell, who was conducting a legitimate investigation of a suspected drug house.
Strieff conditionally pleaded guilty to reduced charges of attempted possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, but reserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of the suppression motion. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. 2012 UT App ¶ 245, 286 P.3d 317.
The Utah Supreme Court reversed. 2015 UT ¶ 2, 357 P.3d 532. It held that the evidence was inadmissible because only "a voluntary act of a defendant's free will (as in a confession or consent to search)" sufficiently breaks the connection between an illegal search and the discovery of evidence. Id., at 536. Because Officer Fackrell's discovery of a valid arrest warrant did not fit this description, the court ordered the evidence suppressed. Ibid.
We granted certiorari to resolve disagreement about how the attenuation doctrine applies where an unconstitutional detention leads to the discovery of a valid arrest warrant. 576 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 27, 192 L.Ed.2d 997 (2015). Compare, e.g., United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 522-523 (C.A.7 1997) (holding that discovery of the warrant is a dispositive intervening circumstance where police misconduct was not flagrant), with, e.g., State v. Moralez, 297 Kan. 397, 415, 300 P.3d 1090, 1102 (2013) (assigning little significance to the discovery of the warrant). We now reverse.
II
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." Because officers who violated the Fourth Amendment were traditionally considered trespassers, individuals subject to unconstitutional searches or seizures historically enforced their rights through tort suits or self-help. Davies, Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 547, 625 (1999). In the 20th century, however, the exclusionary rule-the rule that often requires trial courts to exclude unlawfully seized evidence in a criminal trial-became the principal judicial remedy to deter Fourth Amendment violations. See, e.g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).
Under the Court's precedents, the exclusionary rule encompasses both the "primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure" and, relevant here, "evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality," the so-called " 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' " Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984). But the significant costs of this rule have led us to deem it "applicable only... where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs." Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Suppression of evidence... has always been our last resort, not our first impulse." Ibid.
We have accordingly recognized several exceptions to the rule. Three of these exceptions involve the causal relationship between the unconstitutional act and the discovery of evidence. First, the independent source doctrine allows trial courts to admit evidence obtained in an unlawful search if officers independently acquired it from a separate, independent source. See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 537, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988). Second, the inevitable discovery doctrine allows for the admission of evidence that would have been discovered even without the unconstitutional source. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443-444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). Third, and at issue here, is the attenuation doctrine: Evidence is admissible when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that "the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained." Hudson, supra, at 593, 126 S.Ct. 2159.
B
Turning to the application of the attenuation doctrine to this case, we first address a threshold question: whether this doctrine applies at all to a case like this, where the intervening circumstance that the State relies on is the discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant. The Utah Supreme Court declined to apply the attenuation doctrine because it read our precedents as applying the doctrine only "to circumstances involving an independent act of a defendant's 'free will' in confessing to a crime or consenting to a search." 357 P.3d, at 544. In this Court, Strieff has not defended this argument, and we disagree with it, as well. The attenuation doctrine evaluates the causal link between the government's unlawful act and the discovery of evidence, which often has nothing to do with a defendant's actions. And the logic of our prior attenuation cases is not limited to independent acts by the defendant.
It remains for us to address whether the discovery of a valid arrest warrant was a sufficient intervening event to break the causal chain between the unlawful stop and the discovery of drug-related evidence on Strieff's person. The three factors articulated in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), guide our analysis. First, we look to the "temporal proximity" between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence to determine how closely the discovery of evidence followed the unconstitutional search. Id., at 603, 95 S.Ct. 2254. Second, we consider "the presence of intervening circumstances." Id., at 603-604, 95 S.Ct. 2254. Third, and "particularly" significant, we examine "the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct." Id., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254. In evaluating these factors, we assume without deciding (because the State conceded the point) that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion to initially stop Strieff. And, because we ultimately conclude that the warrant breaks the causal chain, we also have no need to decide whether the warrant's existence alone would make the initial stop constitutional even if Officer Fackrell was unaware of its existence.
1
The first factor, temporal proximity between the initially unlawful stop and the search, favors suppressing the evidence. Our precedents have declined to find that this factor favors attenuation unless "substantial time" elapses between an unlawful act and when the evidence is obtained. Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 633, 123 S.Ct. 1843, 155 L.Ed.2d 814 (2003) (per curiam ). Here, however, Officer Fackrell discovered drug contraband on Strieff's person only minutes after the illegal stop. See App. 18-19. As the Court explained in Brown, such a short time interval counsels in favor of suppression; there, we found that the confession should be suppressed, relying in part on the "less than two hours" that separated the unconstitutional arrest and the confession. 422 U.S., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254.
In contrast, the second factor, the presence of intervening circumstances, strongly favors the State. In Segura, 468 U.S. 796, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599, the Court addressed similar facts to those here and found sufficient intervening circumstances to allow the admission of evidence. There, agents had probable cause to believe that apartment occupants were dealing cocaine. Id., at 799-800, 104 S.Ct. 3380. They sought a warrant. In the meantime, they entered the apartment, arrested an occupant, and discovered evidence of drug activity during a limited search for security reasons. Id., at 800-801, 104 S.Ct. 3380. The next evening, the Magistrate Judge issued the search warrant. Ibid. This Court deemed the evidence admissible notwithstanding the illegal search because the information supporting the warrant was "wholly unconnected with the [arguably illegal] entry and was known to the agents well before the initial entry." Id., at 814, 104 S.Ct. 3380.
Segura, of course, applied the independent source doctrine because the unlawful entry "did not contribute in any way to discovery of the evidence seized under the warrant." Id., at 815, 104 S.Ct. 3380. But the Segura Court suggested that the existence of a valid warrant favors finding that the connection between unlawful conduct and the discovery of evidence is "sufficiently attenuated to dissipate the taint." Ibid. That principle applies here.
In this case, the warrant was valid, it predated Officer Fackrell's investigation, and it was entirely unconnected with the stop. And once Officer Fackrell discovered the warrant, he had an obligation to arrest Strieff. "A warrant is a judicial mandate to an officer to conduct a search or make an arrest, and the officer has a sworn duty to carry out its provisions." United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920, n. 21, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). Officer Fackrell's arrest of Strieff thus was a ministerial act that was independently compelled by the pre-existing warrant. And once Officer Fackrell was authorized to arrest Strieff, it was undisputedly lawful to search Strieff as an incident of his arrest to protect Officer Fackrell's safety. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 339, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (explaining the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest).
Finally, the third factor, "the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct," Brown, supra, at 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254, also strongly favors the State. The exclusionary rule exists to deter police misconduct. Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236-237, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011). The third factor of the attenuation doctrine reflects that rationale by favoring exclusion only when the police misconduct is most in need of deterrence-that is, when it is purposeful or flagrant.
Officer Fackrell was at most negligent. In stopping Strieff, Officer Fackrell made two good-faith mistakes. First, he had not observed what time Strieff entered the suspected drug house, so he did not know how long Strieff had been there. Officer Fackrell thus lacked a sufficient basis to conclude that Strieff was a short-term visitor who may have been consummating a drug transaction. Second, because he lacked confirmation that Strieff was a short-term visitor, Officer Fackrell should have asked Strieff whether he would speak with him, instead of demanding that Strieff do so. Officer Fackrell's stated purpose was to "find out what was going on [in] the house." App. 17. Nothing prevented him from approaching Strieff simply to ask. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) ("[A] seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions"). But these errors in judgment hardly rise to a purposeful or flagrant violation of Strieff's Fourth Amendment rights.
While Officer Fackrell's decision to initiate the stop was mistaken, his conduct thereafter was lawful. The officer's decision to run the warrant check was a "negligibly burdensome precautio[n]" for officer safety. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1616, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). And Officer Fackrell's actual search of Strieff was a lawful search incident to arrest. See Gant, supra, at 339, 129 S.Ct. 1710.
Moreover, there is no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct. To the contrary, all the evidence suggests that the stop was an isolated instance of negligence that occurred in connection with a bona fide investigation of a suspected drug house. Officer Fackrell saw Strieff leave a suspected drug house. And his suspicion about the house was based on an anonymous tip and his personal observations.
Applying these factors, we hold that the evidence discovered on Strieff's person was admissible because the unlawful stop was sufficiently attenuated by the pre-existing arrest warrant. Although the illegal stop was close in time to Strieff's arrest, that consideration is outweighed by two factors supporting the State. The outstanding arrest warrant for Strieff's arrest is a critical intervening circumstance that is wholly independent of the illegal stop. The discovery of that warrant broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of evidence by compelling Officer Fackrell to arrest Strieff. And, it is especially significant that there is no evidence that Officer Fackrell's illegal stop reflected flagrantly unlawful police misconduct.
2
We find Strieff's counterarguments unpersuasive.
First, he argues that the attenuation doctrine should not apply because the officer's stop was purposeful and flagrant. He asserts that Officer Fackrell stopped him solely to fish for evidence of suspected wrongdoing. But Officer Fackrell sought information from Strieff to find out what was happening inside a house whose occupants were legitimately suspected of dealing drugs. This was not a suspicionless fishing expedition "in the hope that something would turn up." Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 691, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982).
Strieff argues, moreover, that Officer Fackrell's conduct was flagrant because he detained Strieff without the necessary level of cause (here, reasonable suspicion). But that conflates the standard for an illegal stop with the standard for flagrancy. For the violation to be flagrant, more severe police misconduct is required than the mere absence of proper cause for the seizure. See, e.g., Kaupp, 538 U.S., at 628, 633, 123 S.Ct. 1843 (finding flagrant violation where a warrantless arrest was made in the arrestee's home after police were denied a warrant and at least some officers knew they lacked probable cause). Neither the officer's alleged purpose nor the flagrancy of the violation rise to a level of misconduct to warrant suppression.
Second, Strieff argues that, because of the prevalence of outstanding arrest warrants in many jurisdictions, police will engage in dragnet searches if the exclusionary rule is not applied. We think that this outcome is unlikely. Such wanton conduct would expose police to civil liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) ; see also Segura, 468 U.S., at 812, 104 S.Ct. 3380. And in any event, the Brown factors take account of the purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct. Were evidence of a dragnet search presented here, the application of the Brown factors could be different. But there is no evidence that the concerns that Strieff raises with the criminal justice system are present in South Salt Lake City, Utah.
* * *
We hold that the evidence Officer Fackrell seized as part of his search incident to arrest is admissible because his discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized from Strieff incident to arrest. The judgment of the Utah Supreme Court, accordingly, is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins as to Parts I, II, and III, dissenting.
The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer's violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion's technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants-even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.
I
Minutes after Edward Strieff walked out of a South Salt Lake City home, an officer stopped him, questioned him, and took his identification to run it through a police database. The officer did not suspect that Strieff had done anything wrong. Strieff just happened to be the first person to leave a house that the officer thought might contain "drug activity." App. 16-19.
As the State of Utah concedes, this stop was illegal. App. 24. The Fourth Amendment protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures." An officer breaches that protection when he detains a pedestrian to check his license without any evidence that the person is engaged in a crime. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) ; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The officer deepens the breach when he prolongs the detention just to fish further for evidence of wrongdoing. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1615-1616, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). In his search for lawbreaking, the officer in this case himself broke the law.
The officer learned that Strieff had a "small traffic warrant." App. 19. Pursuant to that warrant, he arrested Strieff and, conducting a search incident to the arrest, discovered methamphetamine in Strieff's pockets.
Utah charged Strieff with illegal drug possession. Before trial, Strieff argued that admitting the drugs into evidence would condone the officer's misbehavior. The methamphetamine, he reasoned, was the product of the officer's illegal stop. Admitting it would tell officers that unlawfully discovering even a "small traffic warrant" would give them license to search for evidence of unrelated offenses. The Utah Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Strieff. A majority of this Court now reverses.
II
It is tempting in a case like this, where illegal conduct by an officer uncovers illegal conduct by a civilian, to forgive the officer. After all, his instincts, although unconstitutional, were correct. But a basic principle lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment: Two wrongs don't make a right. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). When "lawless police conduct" uncovers evidence of lawless civilian conduct, this Court has long required later criminal trials to exclude the illegally obtained evidence. Terry, 392 U.S., at 12, 88 S.Ct. 1868 ; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). For example, if an officer breaks into a home and finds a forged check lying around, that check may not be used to prosecute the homeowner for bank fraud. We would describe the check as " 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' " Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Fruit that must be cast aside includes not only evidence directly found by an illegal search but also evidence "come at by exploitation of that illegality." Ibid.
This "exclusionary rule" removes an incentive for officers to search us without proper justification. Terry, 392 U.S., at 12, 88 S.Ct. 1868. It also keeps courts from being "made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions." Id., at 13, 88 S.Ct. 1868. When courts admit only lawfully obtained evidence, they encourage "those who formulate law enforcement polices, and the officers who implement them, to incorporate Fourth Amendment ideals into their value system." Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 492, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). But when courts admit illegally obtained evidence as well, they reward "manifest neglect if not an open defiance of the prohibitions of the Constitution." Weeks, 232 U.S., at 394, 34 S.Ct. 341.
Applying the exclusionary rule, the Utah Supreme Court correctly decided that Strieff's drugs must be excluded because the officer exploited his illegal stop to discover them. The officer found the drugs only after learning of Strieff's traffic violation; and he learned of Strieff's traffic violation only because he unlawfully stopped Strieff to check his driver's license.
The court also correctly rejected the State's argument that the officer's discovery of a traffic warrant unspoiled the poisonous fruit. The State analogizes finding the warrant to one of our earlier decisions, Wong Sun v. United States. There, an officer illegally arrested a person who, days later, voluntarily returned to the station to confess to committing a crime. 371 U.S., at 491, 83 S.Ct. 407. Even though the person would not have confessed "but for the illegal actions of the police," id., at 488, 83 S.Ct. 407 we noted that the police did not exploit their illegal arrest to obtain the confession, id., at 491, 83 S.Ct. 407. Because the confession was obtained by "means sufficiently distinguishable" from the constitutional violation, we held that it could be admitted into evidence. Id., at 488, 491, 83 S.Ct. 407. The State contends that the search incident to the warrant-arrest here is similarly distinguishable from the illegal stop.
But Wong Sun explains why Strieff's drugs must be excluded. We reasoned that a Fourth Amendment violation may not color every investigation that follows but it certainly stains the actions of officers who exploit the infraction. We distinguished evidence obtained by innocuous means from evidence obtained by exploiting misconduct after considering a variety of factors: whether a long time passed, whether there were "intervening circumstances," and whether the purpose or flagrancy of the misconduct was "calculated" to procure the evidence. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-604, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975).
These factors confirm that the officer in this case discovered Strieff's drugs by exploiting his own illegal conduct. The officer did not ask Strieff to volunteer his name only to find out, days later, that Strieff had a warrant against him. The officer illegally stopped Strieff and immediately ran a warrant check. The officer's discovery of a warrant was not some intervening surprise that he could not have anticipated. Utah lists over 180,000 misdemeanor warrants in its database, and at the time of the arrest, Salt Lake County had a "backlog of outstanding warrants" so large that it faced the "potential for civil liability." See Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 (2015) (Systems Survey) (Table 5a), online at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf (all Internet materials as last visited June 16, 2016); Inst. for Law and Policy Planning, Salt Lake County Criminal Justice System Assessment 6.7 (2004), online at http://www.slco.org/cjac/resources/SaltLakeCJSAfinal.pdf. The officer's violation was also calculated to procure evidence. His sole reason for stopping Strieff, he acknowledged, was investigative-he wanted to discover whether drug activity was going on in the house Strieff had just exited. App. 17.
The warrant check, in other words, was not an "intervening circumstance" separating the stop from the search for drugs. It was part and parcel of the officer's illegal "expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up." Brown, 422 U.S., at 605, 95 S.Ct. 2254. Under our precedents, because the officer found Strieff's drugs by exploiting his own constitutional violation, the drugs should be excluded.
III
A
The Court sees things differently. To the Court, the fact that a warrant gives an officer cause to arrest a person severs the connection between illegal policing and the resulting discovery of evidence. Ante, at 2062-2063. This is a remarkable proposition: The mere existence of a warrant not only gives an officer legal cause to arrest and search a person, it also forgives an officer who, with no knowledge of the warrant at all, unlawfully stops that person on a whim or hunch.
To explain its reasoning, the Court relies on Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984). There, federal agents applied for a warrant to search an apartment but illegally entered the apartment to secure it before the judge issued the warrant. Id., at 800-801, 104 S.Ct. 3380. After receiving the warrant, the agents then searched the apartment for drugs. Id., at 801, 104 S.Ct. 3380. The question before us was what to do with the evidence the agents then discovered. We declined to suppress it because "[t]he illegal entry into petitioners' apartment did not contribute in any way to discovery of the evidence seized under the warrant." Id., at 815, 104 S.Ct. 3380.
According to the majority, Segura involves facts "similar" to this case and "suggest[s]" that a valid warrant will clean up whatever illegal conduct uncovered it. Ante, at 2062 - 2063. It is difficult to understand this interpretation. In Segura, the agents' illegal conduct in entering the apartment had nothing to do with their procurement of a search warrant. Here, the officer's illegal conduct in stopping Strieff was essential to his discovery of an arrest warrant. Segura would be similar only if the agents used information they illegally obtained from the apartment to procure a search warrant or discover an arrest warrant. Precisely because that was not the case, the Court admitted the untainted evidence. 468 U.S., at 814, 104 S.Ct. 3380.
The majority likewise misses the point when it calls the warrant check here a " 'negligibly burdensome precautio[n]' " taken for the officer's "safety." Ante, at 2063 (quoting Rodriguez, 575 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1615 ). Remember, the officer stopped Strieff without suspecting him of committing any crime. By his own account, the officer did not fear Strieff. Moreover, the safety rationale we discussed in Rodriguez, an opinion about highway patrols, is conspicuously absent here. A warrant check on a highway "ensur[es] that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly." Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1615. We allow such checks during legal traffic stops because the legitimacy of a person's driver's license has a "close connection to roadway safety." Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1615. A warrant check of a pedestrian on a sidewalk, "by contrast, is a measure aimed at 'detect[ing] evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.' " Ibid. (quoting Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40-41, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) ). Surely we would not allow officers to warrant-check random joggers, dog walkers, and lemonade vendors just to ensure they pose no threat to anyone else.
The majority also posits that the officer could not have exploited his illegal conduct because he did not violate the Fourth Amendment on purpose. Rather, he made "good-faith mistakes." Ante, at 2063. Never mind that the officer's sole purpose was to fish for evidence. The majority casts his unconstitutional actions as "negligent"
and therefore incapable of being deterred by the exclusionary rule. Ibid.
But the Fourth Amendment does not tolerate an officer's unreasonable searches and seizures just because he did not know any better. Even officers prone to negligence can learn from courts that exclude illegally obtained evidence. Stone, 428 U.S., at 492, 96 S.Ct. 3037. Indeed, they are perhaps the most in need of the education, whether by the judge's opinion, the prosecutor's future guidance, or an updated manual on criminal procedure. If the officers are in doubt about what the law requires, exclusion gives them an "incentive to err on the side of constitutional behavior." United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 561, 102 S.Ct. 2579, 73 L.Ed.2d 202 (1982).
B
Most striking about the Court's opinion is its insistence that the event here was "isolated," with "no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct." Ante, at 2063. Respectfully, nothing about this case is isolated.
Outstanding warrants are surprisingly common. When a person with a traffic ticket misses a fine payment or court appearance, a court will issue a warrant. See, e.g., Brennan Center for Justice, Criminal Justice Debt 23 (2010), online at https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Fees% 20and% 20Fines% 20FINAL.pdf. When a person on probation drinks alcohol or breaks curfew, a court will issue a warrant. See, e.g., Human Rights Watch, Profiting from Probation 1, 51 (2014), online at https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/05/profiting-probation/americas-offender-funded-probation-industry. The States and Federal Government maintain databases with over 7.8 million outstanding warrants, the vast majority of which appear to be for minor offenses. See Systems Survey (Table 5a). Even these sources may not track the "staggering" numbers of warrants, " 'drawers and drawers' " full, that many cities issue for traffic violations and ordinance infractions. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department 47, 55 (2015) (Ferguson Report), online at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf. The county in this case has had a "backlog" of such warrants. See supra, at 2066. The Department of Justice recently reported that in the town of Ferguson, Missouri, with a population of 21,000, 16,000 people had outstanding warrants against them. Ferguson Report, at 6, 55.
Justice Department investigations across the country have illustrated how these astounding numbers of warrants can be used by police to stop people without cause. In a
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Appellant San Diego Gas & Electric Company, a California corporation, asks this Court to rule that a State must provide a monetary remedy to a landowner whose property allegedly has been “taken” by a regulatory ordinance claimed to violate the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This question was left open last Term in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 263 (1980). Because we conclude that we lack jurisdiction in this case, we again must leave the issue undecided.
I
Appellant owns a 412-acre parcel of land in Sorrento Valley, an area in the northwest part of the city of San Diego, Cal. It assembled and acquired the acreage in 1966, at a cost of about $1,770,000, as a possible site for a nuclear power plant to be constructed in the 1980’s. Approximately 214 acres of the parcel lie within or near an estuary known as the Los Penasquitos Lagoon. These acres are low-lying land which serves as a drainage basin for three river systems. About a third of the land is subject to tidal action from the nearby Pacific Ocean. The 214 acres are unimproved, except for sewer and utility lines.
When appellant acquired the 214 acres, most of the land was zoned either for industrial use or in an agricultural “holding” category. The city’s master plan, adopted in 1967, designated nearly all the area for industrial use.
Several events that occurred in 1973 gave rise to this litigation. First, the San Diego City Council rezoned parts of the property. It changed 39 acres from industrial to agricultural, and increased the minimum lot size in some of the agricultural areas from 1 acre to 10 acres. The Council recommended, however, that 50 acres of the agricultural land be considered for industrial development upon the submission of specific development plans.
Second, the city, pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code Ann. § 65563 (West Supp. 1981), established an open-space plan. This statute required each California city and county to adopt a plan “for the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open-space land within its jurisdiction.” The plan adopted by the city of San Diego placed appellant’s property among the city’s open-space areas, which it defined as “any urban land of water surface that is essentially open or natural in character, and which has appreciable utility for park and recreation purposes, conservation of land, water or other natural resources or historic or scenic purposes.” App. 159. The plan acknowledged appellant’s intention to construct a nuclear power plant on the property, stating that such a plant would not necessarily be incompatible with the open-space designation. The plan proposed, however, that the city acquire the property to preserve it as parkland.
Third, the City Council proposed a bond issue in order to obtain funds to acquire open-space lands. The Council identified appellant’s land as among those properties to be acquired with the proceeds of the bond issue. The proposition, however, failed to win the voters’ approval. The open-space plan has remained in effect, but the city has made no attempt to acquire appellant’s property.
On August 15, 1974, appellant instituted this action in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego against the city and a number of its officials. It alleged that the city had taken its property without just compensation, in violation of the Constitutions of the United States and California. Appellant’s theory was that the city had deprived it of the entire beneficial use of the property through the rezoning and the adoption of the open-space plan. It alleged that the city followed a policy of refusing to approve any development that was inconsistent with the plan, and that the only beneficial use of the property was as an industrial park, a use that would be inconsistent with the open-space designation. The city disputed this allegation, arguing that appellant had never asked its approval for any development plan for the property. It also contended that, as a charter city, it was not bound by the open-space plan, even if appellant’s proposed development would be inconsistent with the plan, citing Cal. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 65700, 65803 (West 1966 and Supp. 1981).
Appellant sought damages of $6,150,000 in inverse condemnation, as well as mandamus and declaratory relief. Prior to trial, the court dismissed the mandamus claim, holding that “mandamus is not the proper remedy to challenge the validity of a legislative act.” , Clerk’s Tr. 42. After a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, the court granted judgment for appellant, finding that:
“29. [Due to the] continuing course of conduct of the defendant City culminating in June of 1973, and, in particular, the designation of substantially all of the subject property as open space . . . , plaintiff has been deprived of all practical,, beneficial or economic use of the property designated as open space, and has further suffered severance damage with respect to the balance of the subject property.
“30. No development could proceed on the property-designated as open space unless it was consistent with open space. In light of the particular characteristics of the said property, there exists no practical, beneficial or economic use of the said property designated as open space which is consistent with open space.
“31. Since June 19, 1973, the property designated as open space has been devoted to use by the public as open space.
“32. Following the actions of the defendant City in June of 1973, it would have been totally impractical and futile for plaintiff to have applied to defendant City for the approval of any development of the property designated as open space or the remainder of the subject property.
“33. Since the actions of the defendant City in June of 1973, the property designated as open space and the remainder of the larger parcel is unmarketable in that no other person would be willing to purchase the property, and the property has at most a nominal fair market value.” App. 41-42.
The court concluded that these findings established that the city had taken the property and that just compensation was required by the Constitutions of both the United States and California. A subsequent jury trial on the question of damages resulted in a judgment for appellant for over $3 million.
On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, affirmed. App. to Juris. Statement B-l; see 146 Cal. Rptr. 103 (1978). It held that neither a change in zoning nor the adoption of an open-space plan automatically entitled a property owner to compensation for any resulting diminution in the value of the property. In this case, however, the record revealed that the city followed the policy of enacting and enforcing zoning ordinances that were consistent with its open-space plan. The Court of Appeal also found that the evidence supported the conclusion that industrial use was the only feasible use for the property and that the city would have denied any application for industrial development because it would be incompatible with the open-space designation. Appellant’s failure to present a plan for developing the property therefore did not preclude an award of damages in its favor. The Court of Appeal, with one judge dissenting, denied the city’s petition for rehearing. See 146 Cal. Rptr., at 118.
The Supreme Court of California, however, on July 13, 1978, granted the city’s petition for a hearing. This action automatically vacated the Court of Appeal’s decision, depriving it of all effect. Knouse v. Nimocks, 8 Cal. 2d 482, 483-484, 66 P. 2d 438 (1937). See also Cal. Rules of Court 976 (d) and 977 (West 1981). Before the hearing, the Supreme Court in June 1979 retransferred the case to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the intervening decision in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d 266, 598 P. 2d 25 (1979), aff’d, 447 U. S. 255 (1980). The California court in Agins held that an owner who is deprived of substantially all beneficial use of his land by a zoning regulation is not entitled to an award of damages in an inverse condemnation proceeding. Rather, his exclusive remedy is invalidation of the regulation in an action for mandamus or declaratory relief. Agins also held that the plaintiffs in that case were not entitled to such relief because the zoning ordinance at issue permitted the building of up to five residences on their property. Therefore, the court held, it did not deprive those plaintiffs of substantially all reasonable use of their land.
When the present case was retransferred, the Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, reversed the judgment of the Superior Court. App. 63. It relied upon the California decision in Agins and held that appellant could not recover compensation through inverse condemnation. It, however, did not invalidate either the zoning ordinance or the open-space plan. Instead, it held that factual disputes precluded such relief on the present state of the record:
“[Appellant] complains it has been denied all use of its land which is zoned for agriculture and manufacturing but lies within the open space area of the general plan. It has not made application to use or improve the property nor has it asked [the] City what development might be permitted. Even assuming no use is acceptable to the City, [appellant’s] complaint deals with the alleged overzealous use of the. police power by [the] City. Its remedy is mandamus or declaratory relief, not inverse condemnation. [Appellant] did in its complaint seek these remedies asserting that [the] City had arbitrarily exercised its police power by enacting an unconstitutional zoning law and general plan element or by applying the zoning and general plan unconstitutionally. However, on the present record these are disputed fact issues not covered by the trial court in its findings and conclusions. They can be dealt with anew should [appellant] elect to retry the case.” App. 66.
The Supreme Court of California denied further review. App. to Juris. Statement 1-1. Appellant appealed to this Court, arguing that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require that compensation be paid whenever private property is taken for public use. Appellant takes issue with the California Supreme Court’s holding in Agins that its remedy is limited to invalidation of the ordinance in a proceeding for mandamus or declaratory relief. We postponed consideration of our jurisdiction until the hearing on the merits. 447 U. S. 919 (1980). We now conclude that the appeal must be dismissed because of the absence of a final judgment.
II
In Agins, the California Supreme Court held that mandamus or declaratory relief is available whenever a zoning regulation is claimed to effect an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court of Appeal’s failure, therefore, to award such relief in this case clearly indicates its conclusion that the record does not support appellant’s claim that an uncompensated taking has occurred. Because the court found that the record presented “disputed fact issues not covered by the trial court in its findings and conclusions,” App. 66, it held that manda-mua and declaratory relief would be available “should [appellant] elect to retry the case.” Ibid. While this phrase appears to us to be somewhat ambiguous, we read it as meaning that appellant is to have an opportunity on remand to convince the trial court to resolve the disputed issues in its favor. We do not believe that the Court of Appeal was holding that judgment must be entered for the city. It certainly did not so direct.- This indicates that appellant is free to pursue its quest for relief in the Superior Court. The logical course of action for an appellate court that finds unresolved factual disputes in the record is to remand the case for the resolution of those disputes. We therefore conclude that the Court of Appeal’s decision contemplates further proceedings in the trial court.
^
Ever since this Court’s decision in Grays Harbor Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U. S. 251 (1917), a state court’s holding that prívate property has been taken in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and that further proceedings are necessary to determine the compensation that must be paid has been regarded as a classic example of a decision not reviewable in this Court because it is not “final.” In such a case, “the remaining litigation may raise other federal questions that may later come here.” Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 127 (1945). This is because “the federal constitutional question embraces not only a taking, but a taking on payment of just compensation. A state judgment is not final unless it covers both aspects of that integral problem.” North Dakota Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc., 414 U. S. 156, 163 (1973).
This case presents the reverse aspect of that situation. The Court of Appeal has decided that monetary compensation is not an appropriate remedy for any taking of appellant’s property that may have occurred, but it has not decided whether any other remedy is available because it has not decided whether any taking in fact has occurred. Thus, however we might rule with respect to the Court of Appeal’s decision that appellant is not entitled to a monetary remedy— and we are frank to say that the federal constitutional aspects of that issue are not to be cast aside lightly — further proceedings are necessary to resolve the federal question whether there has been a taking at all. The court’s decision, therefore, is not final, and we are without jurisdiction to review it.
Because § 1257 permits us to review only “[fjinal judgments or decrees” of a state court, the appeal must be, and is, dismissed-
It is so ordered.
“[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The Fifth Amendment's prohibition applies against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 239 (1897); Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S. 155, 160 (1980).
Appellant claims that only the 214 acres have been taken by the city of San Diego. Throughout this opinion, “the property” and any similar phrase refers to this smaller portion of the 412 acres owned by appellant.
Apparently other portions of the 412-acre parcel have been developed to some extent, and some parts sold.
The city had classified 116 acres as M-1A (industrial) and 112 acres as A-l-1 (agricultural). The latter classification was reserved for “undeveloped areas not yet ready for urbanization and awaiting development, those areas where agricultural usage may be reasonably expected to persist or areas designated as open space in the general plan.” San Diego Ordinance No. 8706 (New Series) § 101.0404 (1962), reproduced in Brief for Appellees C-l. A small amount of the land was zoned for residential development. (These figures total more than 214 acres. When the California courts described the zoning of the property, they did not distinguish between the 214 acres that allegedly were taken and 15 other acres that the trial court found had been damaged by the severance.)
The portion of the plan that discussed the Los Penasquitos Lagoon area stated: “[T]he San Diego Gas & Electric Company has a large (240 acre) ownership which it intends to utilize as the location of a nuclear power plant sometime in the 1980’s. . . . [S]uch a facility, if sensitively designed and sited, could be compatible with open space preservation in this subsystem; however, a number of approvals and clearances must be obtained prior to the plant’s construction becoming a reality.” App. 160.
AppeEant abandoned its plan to construct a nuclear power plant after the discovery of an off-shore fault that rendered the project unfeasible. Tr. 73. Its witnesses acknowledged that only about 150 acres were usable as an industrial park, and that 1.25 million cubic yards of fill would be needed to undertake such a development. Id., at 711, 905.
The retransfer order cited Agins as 23 Cal. 3d 605. App. to Juris. Statement E-l. The court’s opinion, however, later was modified and reprinted with the citations noted in the text.
Contrary to the dissent’s argument, the California Supreme Court’s Agins decision did not hold that a zoning ordinance never could be a “taking” and thus never could violate the Just Compensation Clause. It simply limited the remedy available for any such violation to nonmonetary relief. Immediately following the passage quoted by the dissent, post, at 640-641, that court stated:
“This conclusion is supported by a leading authority (1 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3d rev. ed. 1978) Nature and Origin of Power, §1.42 (1), pp. 1-116 — 1-121), who expresses his view in this manner: ‘Not only is an actual physical appropriation, under an attempted exercise of the police power, in practical effect an exercise of the power of eminent domain, but if regulative legislation is so unreasonable or arbitrary as virtually to deprive a' person of the complete use and enjoyment of his property, it comes within the purview of the law of eminent domain. Such legislation is an invalid exercise of the police power since it is clearly unreasonable and arbitrary. It is invalid as an exercise of the power of eminent domain since no provision is made for compensation.”’ 24 Cal. 3d, at 272, 598 P. 2d, at 28. (Emphasis added by the California court.)
See also id., at 273-274, 598 P. 2d, at 29:
“While acknowledging the power of government to preserve and improve the quality of life for its citizens through the regulation of the use of private land, we cannot countenance the service of this legitimate need through the uncompensated destruction of private property rights.”
And see id., at 276, 598 P. 2d, at 30:
“ ‘Determining that a particular land-use control requires compensation is an appropriate function of the judiciary. . . . But it seems a usurpation of legislative power for a court to force compensation/ ” quoting Note, Inverse Condemnation: Its Availability in Challenging the Validity of a Zoning Ordinance, 26 Stan. L. Rev. 1439, 1451 (1974).
When Agins was appealed here, we unanimously agreed that “[t]he State Supreme Court determined that the appellants could not recover damages for inverse condemnation even if the zoning ordinances constituted a taking. The court stated that only mandamus and declaratory judgment are remedies available to such a landowner.” 447 U. S., at 263. We believe, therefore, that it is the dissent that “fundamentally mischaracterizes,” post, at 637, the California ruling.
This Court’s affirmance of the California court’s judgment in Agins was on the ground that there was no taking. 447 U. S., at 263.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1257 grants jurisdiction to this Court to review only “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.” Because the finality requirement of § 1257 applies to this Court’s review of state-court judgments both by appeal and by certiorari, we do not address the city’s contention that, inasmuch as the Court of Appeal did not uphold any statute against a constitutional challenge, this is not a proper appeal under § 1257 (2).
We recognize that this is inconsistent with the Court of Appeal’s first ruling in this case, but, as has been noted, that decision was deprived of all effect by the Supreme Court’s order granting a hearing.
The dissent’s statement that the Court of Appeal “concluded as a matter of law that no Fifth Amendment ‘taking’ had occurred,” post, at 645, is premised upon its misreading of the Agins opinion. See n. 8, supra. The Court of Appeal simply refused to award appellant the only remedy held to be available for a “taking” because there were disputed factual issues to be resolved.
Although its initial opinion affirmed the trial court’s finding that any application by appellant to develop the property would have been rejected, it is clear that the Court of Appeal reconsidered that finding in the light of Agins. In Agins, the California Supreme Court held that landowners who had not “made application to use or improve their property” following the passage of a zoning ordinance and had not “sought or received any definitive statement as to how many dwelling units they could build on their land,” 24 Cal. 3d, at 271, 598 P. 2d, at 27, had not shown that the ordinance took their property without just compensation, since it permitted up to five residences to be built on the plaintiffs’ property. We agreed that no violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments had been shown, since the landowners were “free to pursue their reasonable investment expectations by submitting á development plan to local officials.” 447 U. S., at 262.
In this case, city witnesses testified that some development of appellant’s property would be consistent with the open-space plan. App. 134-135, 140, 149-150. Indeed, the plan holds out the possibility that a nuclear power plant could be built on the site, see n. 5, supra, and the witnesses testified that other forms of industrial development might be permitted as well. App. 140, 149-150. The trial court’s opinion does not explain why it concluded in light of this evidence that any attempt to obtain the city’s permission for development of the property would be futile.
When the Court of Appeal reconsidered its decision in light of Agins, we believe that its reference to “disputed fact issues not covered by the trial court in its findings,” App. 66, referred to this controversy. Its opinion states that damages would be unavailable “[e]ven assuming no use is acceptable to the City.” Ibid. The Court of Appeal declined to award mandamus or declaratory relief because it could not make this “assumption” in light of the factual disputes.
Appellant’s counsel shares this view:
“QUESTION: Mr. Goebel, your second and third cause of action in your complaint were petitions for mandate and the relief prayed in paragraph 3 of your complaint was that the Court order the City of San Diego to set aside the rezoning and to set aside the adoption of the open space element of its general plan. As I understand it, on remand, the trial court may grant that relief, theoretically.
“MR. GOEBEL: That’s correct, Your Honor.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 18.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Louisiana Revised Statutes § 18:1174.1 provides that in all primary, general or special elections, the nomination papers and ballots shall designate the race of candidates for elective office. The question involved in this appeal is whether this requirement violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A three-judge United States District Court, convened under 28 U. S. C. § 2284, upheld the constitutionality of the statute by a 2-to-l vote, 206 F. Supp. 700. On direct appeal, 28 U. S. C. § 1253, we noted probable jurisdiction, 372 U. S. 904.
I.
Appellants, residents of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are Negroes. Each sought election to the School Board of that parish in the 1962 Democratic Party primary election. Prior to the election they filed this suit against the Secretary of State of Louisiana seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Act 538 of the 1960 Louisiana Legislature, § 1174.1 of Title 18 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, which requires the Secretary to print, in parentheses, the race of each candidate opposite his name on all ballots. Asserting that the statute violated, inter alia, the Fourteenth and. Fifteenth Amendments, appellants sought both preliminary and permanent' injunctions and a temporary restraining order. A United States district judge denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and a three-judge court was convened. After a hearing on the merits, the preliminary injunction was denied with one judge dissenting. Thereafter the appellants sought to amend their complaint so as to show that the primary election had been held and that both appellants had been defeated because of the operation and enforcement of the statute here under attack. They further alleged that they “intend to be candidates in the next duly constituted democratic primary election for nomination as members of the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board . . . Leave to amend was denied by the district judge and the three-judge court thereafter denied the request for a permanent injunction. We have concluded that the compulsory designation by Louisiana of the race of the candidate on the ballot operates as a discrimination against appellants and is therefore violative of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In view of this we do not reach appellants’ other contentions.
I — 1
At the outset it is well that we point out what this case does not involve. It has nothing whatever to do with the right of a citizen to cast his vote for whomever he chooses and for whatever reason he pleases or to receive all information concerning a candidate which is necessary to a proper exercise of his franchise. It has to do only with the right of a State to require or encourage its voters to discriminate upon the grounds of race. In the abstract, Louisiana imposes no restriction upon anyone’s candidacy nor upon an elector’s choice in the casting of his ballot. But by placing a racial label on a candidate at the most crucial stage in the electoral process — the instant before the vote is cast — the State furnishes a vehicle by which racial prejudice may be so aroused as to operate against one group because of race and for another. This is true because by directing the citizen’s attention to the single consideration of race or color, the State indicates that a candidate’s race or color is an important— perhaps paramount — consideration in the citizen’s choice, which may decisively influence the citizen to cast his ballot along racial lines. Hence in a State or voting district where Negroes predominate, that race is likely to be favored by a racial designation on the ballot, while in those communities where other races are in the majority, they may be preferred. The vice lies not in the resulting injury but in the placing of the power of the State behind a racial classification that induces racial prejudice at the polls.
III.
As we said in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 463 (1958): “The crucial factor is the interplay of governmental and private action . . . .” Here the statute under attack prescribes the form and content of the official ballot used in all elections in Louisiana. The requirement that “[e]very application for or notification or declaration of candidacy, and every certificate of nomination and every nomination paper filed . . . shall show for each candidate named therein, whether such candidate is of the Caucasian race, the Negro race or other specified race” was not placed in the statute until 1960. Prior to that time the primary election ballot contained no information on the candidates other than their names; nor did the general election ballot, which only grouped the named candidates according to their respective political party. The 1960 amendment added “race” as the single item of information other than the name of the candidate. This addition to the statute in the light of “private attitudes and pressures” towards Negroes at the time of its enactment could only result in that “repressive effect” which “was brought to bear only after the exercise of governmental power.” Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 524 (1960).
Nor can the attacked provision be deemed to be reasonably designed to meet legitimate governmental interests in informing the electorate as to candidates. We see no relevance in the State’s pointing up the race of the candidate as bearing upon his qualifications for office. Indeed, this factor in itself “underscores the purely racial character and purpose” of the statute. Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 683, 688 (1963).
The State contends that its Act is nondiscriminatory because the labeling provision applies equally to Negro and white. Obviously, Louisiana may not bar Negro citizens from offering themselves as candidates for public office, nor can it encourage its citizens to vote for a candidate solely on account of race. Cf. Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192, 203 (1944). And that which cannot be done by express statutory prohibition cannot be done by indirection. Therefore, we view the alleged equality as superficial. Race is the factor upon which the statute operates and its involvement promotes the ultimate discrimination which is sufficient to make it invalid. Goss v. Board of Education, supra, at 688. The judgment is therefore
Reversed.
La. Rev. Stat. (1960 Supp.) §18:1174.1:
“Designation of race of candidates on paper and ballots
“A. Every application for or notification or declaration of candidacy, and every certificate of nomination and every nomination paper filed in any state or local primary, general or special election for any elective office in this state shall show for each candidate named therein, whether such candidate is of the Caucasian race, the Negro race or other specified race.
“B. Chairmen of party committees, party executive committees, presidents of boards of supervisors of election or any person or persons required by law to certify to the secretary of state the names of candidates to be placed on the ballots shall cause to be shown in such certification whether each candidate named therein is of the Caucasian race, Negro race or other specified race, which information shall be obtained from the applications for or notifications or declarations of candidacy or froln the certificates of nomination or nomination papers, as the case may be.
“C. On the ballots to be used in any state or local primary, general or special election the secretary of state shall cause to be printed within parentheses () beside the name of each candidate, the race of the candidate, whether Caucasian, Negro, or other specified race, which information shall be obtained from the documents described in Sub-section A or B of this Section. The racial designation on the ballots shall be in print of the same size as the print in the names of the candidates on the ballots.”
Anderson was defeated in the primary and Belton in a subsequent run-off.
“No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U. S. Const., Amend. XIV, § 1.
See Woliett, Race Relations, 21 La: L. Rev. 85 (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: | 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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to apply the materiality requirement of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 48 Stat. 881, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78a et seq., and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule 10b-5, 17 CPR § 240.10b-5 (1987), promulgated thereunder, in the context of preliminary corporate merger discussions. We must also determine whether a person who traded a corporation’s shares on a securities exchange after the issuance of a materially misleading statement by the corporation may invoke a rebut-table presumption that, in trading, he relied on the integrity of the price set by the market.
I
Prior to December 20,1978, Basic Incorporated was a publicly traded company primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing chemical refractories for the steel industry. As early as 1965 or 1966, Combustion Engineering, Inc., a company producing mostly alumina-based refractories, expressed some interest in acquiring Basic, but was deterred from pursuing this inclination seriously because of antitrust concerns it then entertained. See App. 81-83. In 1976, however, regulatory action opened the way to a renewal of Combustion’s interest. The “Strategic Plan,” dated October 25, 1976, for Combustion’s Industrial Products Group included the objective: “Acquire Basic Inc. $30 million.” App. 337.
Beginning in September 1976, Combustion representatives had meetings and telephone conversations with Basic officers and directors, including petitioners here, concerning the possibility of a merger. During 1977 and 1978, Basic made three public statements denying that it was engaged in merger negotiations. On December 18, 1978, Basie asked the New York Stock Exchange to suspend trading in its shares and issued a release stating that it had been “approached” by another company concerning a merger. Id., at 413. On December 19, Basic’s board endorsed Combustion’s offer of $46 per share for its common stock, id., at 335, 414-416, and on the following day publicly announced its approval of Combustion’s tender offer for all outstanding shares.
Respondents are former Basic shareholders who sold their stock after Basic’s first public statement of October 21, 1977, and before the suspension of trading in December 1978. Respondents brought a class action against Basic and its directors, asserting that the defendants issued three false or misleading public statements and thereby were in violation of § 10(b) of the 1934 Act and of Rule 10b-5. Respondents alleged that they were injured by selling Basic shares at artificially depressed prices in a market affected by petitioners’ misleading statements and in reliance thereon.
The District Court adopted a presumption of reliance by members of the plaintiff class upon petitioners’ public statements that enabled the court to conclude that common questions of fact or law predominated over particular questions pertaining to individual plaintiffs. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(b)(3). The District Court therefore certified respondents’ class. On the merits, however, the District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. It held that, as a matter of law, any misstatements were immaterial: there were no negotiations ongoing at the time of the first statement, and although negotiations were taking place when the second and third statements were issued, those negotiations were not “destined, with reasonable certainty, to become a merger agreement in principle.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 103a.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the class certification, but reversed the District Court’s summary judgment, and remanded the case. 786 F. 2d 741 (1986). The court reasoned that while petitioners were under no general duty to disclose their discussions with Combustion, any statement the company voluntarily released could not be “‘so incomplete as to mislead.’” Id., at 746, quoting SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F. 2d 833, 862 (CA2 1968) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Coates v. SEC, 394 U. S. 976 (1969). In the Court of Appeals’ view, Basic’s statements that no negotiations were taking place, and that it knew of no corporate developments to account for the heavy trading activity, were misleading. With respect to materiality, the court rejected the argument that preliminary merger discussions are immaterial as a matter of law, and held that “once a statement is made denying the existence of any discussions, even discussions that might not have been material in absence of the denial are material because they make the statement made untrue.” 786 F. 2d, at 749.
The Court of Appeals joined a number of other Circuits in accepting the “fraud-on-the-market theory” to create a rebut-table presumption that respondents relied on petitioners’ material misrepresentations, -noting that without the presumption it would be impractical to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). See 786 F. 2d, at 750-751.
We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 1083 (1987), to resolve the split, see Part III, infra, among the Courts of Appeals as to the standard of materiality applicable to preliminary merger discussions, and to determine whether the courts below properly applied a presumption of reliance in certifying the class, rather than requiring each class member to show direct reliance on Basic’s statements.
II
The 1934 Act was designed to protect investors against manipulation of stock prices. See S. Rep. No. 792, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1-5 (1934). Underlying the adoption of extensive disclosure requirements was a legislative philosophy: “There cannot be honest markets without honest publicity. Manipulation and dishonest practices of the market place thrive upon mystery and secreey.” H. R. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 11 (1934). This Court “repeatedly has described the ‘fundamental purpose’ of the Act as implementing a ‘philosophy of full disclosure.’” Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U. S. 462, 477-478 (1977), quoting SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U. S. 180, 186 (1963).
Pursuant to its authority under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78j, the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated Rule 10b-5. Judicial interpretation and application, legislative acquiescence, and the passage of time have removed any doubt that a private cause of action exists for a violation of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and constitutes an essential tool for enforcement of the 1934 Act’s requirements. See, e. g., Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 196 (1976); Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 730 (1975).
The Court previously has addressed various positive and common-law requirements for a violation of § 10(b) or of Rule 10b-5. See, e. g., Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, supra (“manipulative or deceptive” requirement of the statute); Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, supra (“in connection with the purchase or sale” requirement of the Rule); Dirks v. SEC, 463 U. S. 646 (1983) (duty to disclose); Chiarella v. United States, 445 U. S. 222 (1980) (same); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra (scienter). See also Carpenter v. United States, 484 U. S. 19 (1987) (confidentiality). The Court also explicitly has defined a standard of materiality under the securities laws, see TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U. S. 438 (1976), concluding in the proxy-solicitation context that “[a]n omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote.” Id., at 449. Acknowledging that certain information concerning corporate developments could well be of “dubious significance,” id., at 448, the Court was careful not to set too low a standard of materiality; it was concerned that a minimal standard might bring an overabundance of information within its reach, and lead management “simply to bury the shareholders in an avalanche of trivial information — a result that is hardly conducive to informed decisionmaking.” Id., at 448-449. It further explained that to fulfill the materiality requirement “there must be a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available.” Id., at 449. We now expressly adopt the TSC Industries standard of materiality for the § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 context.
Ill
The application of this materiality standard to preliminary merger discussions is not self-evident. Where the impact of the corporate development on the target’s fortune is certain and clear, the TSC Industries materiality definition admits straightforward application. Where, on the other hand, the event is contingent or speculative in nature, it is difficult to ascertain whether the “reasonable investor” would have considered the omitted information significant at the time. Merger negotiations, because of the ever-present possibility that the contemplated transaction will not be effectuated, fall into the latter category.
A
Petitioners urge upon us a Third Circuit test for resolving this difficulty. See Brief for Petitioners 20-22. Under this approach, preliminary merger discussions do not become material until “agreement-in-principle” as to the price and structure of the transaction has been reached between the would-be merger partners. See Greenfield v. Heublein, Inc., 742 F. 2d 751, 757 (CA3 1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1215 (1985). By definition, then, information concerning any negotiations not yet at the agreement-in-principle stage could be withheld or even misrepresented without a violation of Rule 10b-5.
Three rationales have been offered in support of the “agreement-in-principle” test. The first derives from the concern expressed in TSC Industries that an investor not be overwhelmed by excessively detailed and trivial information, and focuses on the substantial risk that preliminary merger discussions may collapse: because such discussions are inherently tentative, disclosure of their existence itself could mislead investors and foster false optimism. See Greenfield v. Heublein, Inc., 742 F. 2d, at 756; Reiss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 711 F. 2d 11, 14 (CA2 1983). The other two justifications for the agreement-in-principle standard are based on management concerns: because the requirement of “agreement-in-principle” limits the scope of disclosure obligations, it helps preserve the confidentiality of merger discussions Where earlier disclosure might prejudice the negotiations; and the test also provides a usable, bright-line rule for determining when disclosure must be made. See Greenfield v. Heublein, Inc., 742 F. 2d, at 757; Flamm v. Eberstadt, 814 F. 2d 1169, 1176-1178 (CA7), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 853 (1987).
None of these policy-based rationales, however, purports to explain why drawing the line at agreement-in-principle reflects the significance of the information upon the investor’s decision. The first rationale, and the only one connected to the concerns expressed in TSC Industries, stands soundly rejected, even by a Court of Appeals that otherwise has accepted the wisdom of the agreement-in-principle test. “It assumes that investors are nitwits, unable to appreciate— even when told — that mergers are risky propositions up until the closing.” Flamm v. Eberstadt, 814 F. 2d, at 1175. Disclosure, and not paternalistic withholding of accurate information, is the policy chosen and expressed by Congress. We have recognized time and again, a “fundamental purpose” of the various Securities Acts, “was to substitute a philosophy of full.disclosure for the philosophy of caveat emptor and thus to achieve a high standard of business ethics in the securities industry.” SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U. S., at 186. Accord, Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U. S. 128, 151 (1972); Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U. S., at 477. The role of the materiality requirement is not to “attribute to investors a child-like simplicity, an inability to grasp the probabilistic significance of negotiations,” Flamm v. Eberstadt, 814 F. 2d, at 1175, but to filter out essentially useless information that a reasonable investor would not consider significant, even as part of a larger “mix” of factors to consider in making his investment decision. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U. S., at 448-449.
The second rationale, the importance of secrecy during the early stages of merger discussions, also seems irrelevant to an assessment whether their existence is significant to the trading decision of a reasonable investor. To avoid a “bidding war” over its target, an acquiring firm often will insist that negotiations remain confidential, see, e. g., In re Car nation Co., Exchange Act Release No. 22214, 33 S. E. C. Docket 1025 (1985), and at least one Court of Appeals has stated that “silence pending settlement of the price and structure of a deal is beneficial to most investors, most of the time.” Flamm v. Eberstadt, 814 F. 2d, at 1177.
We need not ascertain, however, whether secrecy necessarily maximizes shareholder wealth — although we note that the proposition is at least disputed as a matter of theory and empirical research — for this case does not concern the timing of a disclosure; it concerns only its accuracy and completeness. We face here the narrow question whether information concerning the existence and status of preliminary merger discussions is significant to the reasonable investor’s trading decision. Arguments based on the premise that some disclosure would be “premature” in a sense are more properly considered under the rubric of an issuer’s duty to disclose. The “secrecy” rationale is simply inapposite to the definition of materiality.
The final justification offered in support of the agreement-in-principle test seems to be directed solely at the comfort of corporate managers. A bright-line rule indeed is easier to follow than a standard that requires the exercise of judgment in the light of all the circumstances. But ease of application alone is not an excuse for ignoring the purposes of the Securities Acts and Congress’ policy decisions. Any approach that designates a single fact or occurrence as always determinative of an inherently fact-specific finding such as materiality, must necessarily be overinclusive or underinclusive. In TSC Industries this Court explained: “The determination [of materiality] requires delicate assessments of the inferences a ‘reasonable shareholder’ would draw from a given set of facts and the significance of those inferences to him....” 426 U. S., at 450. After much study, the Advisory Committee on Corporate Disclosure cautioned the SEC against administratively confining materiality to a rigid formula. Courts also would do well to heed this advice.
We therefore find no valid justification for artificially excluding from the definition of materiality information concerning merger discussions, which would otherwise be considered significant to the trading decision of a reasonable investor, merely because agreement-in-principle as to price and structure has not yet been reached by the parties or their representatives.
B
The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the agreement-in-principle test, as we do today, but in its place adopted a rule that, if taken literally, would be equally insensitive, in our view, to the distinction between materiality and the other elements of an action under Rule 10b-5:
“When a company whose stock is publicly traded makes a statement, as Basic did, that ‘no negotiations’ are underway, and that the corporation knows of ‘no reason for the stock’s activity,’ and that ‘management is unaware of any present or pending corporate development that would result in the abnormally heavy trading activity,’ information concerning ongoing acquisition discussions becomes material by virtue of the statement denying their existence....
“... In analyzing whether information regarding merger discussions is material such that it must be affirmatively disclosed to avoid a violation of Rule 10b-5, the discussions and their progress are the primary considerations. However, once a statement is made denying the existence of any discussions, even discussions that might not have been material in absence of the denial are material because they make the statement made untrue.” 786 F. 2d, at 748-749 (emphasis in original).
This approach, however, fails to recognize that, in order to prevail on a Rule 10b-5 claim, a plaintiff must show that the statements were misleading as to a material fact. It is not enough that a statement is false or incomplete, if the misrepresented fact is otherwise insignificant.
C
Even before this Court’s decision in TSC Industries, the Second Circuit had explained the role of the materiality requirement of Rule 10b-5, with respect to contingent or speculative information or events, in a manner that gave that term meaning that is independent of the other provisions of the Rule. Under such circumstances, materiality “will depend at any given time upon a balancing of both the indicated probability that the event will occur and the anticipated magnitude of the event in light of the totality of the company activity.” SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F. 2d, at 849. Interestingly, neither the Third Circuit decision adopting the agreement-in-principle test nor petitioners here take issue with this general standard. Rather, they suggest that with respect to preliminary merger discussions, there are good reasons to draw a line at agreement on price and structure.
In a subsequent decision, the late Judge Friendly, writing for a Second Circuit panel, applied the Texas Gulf Sulphur probability/magnitude approach in the specific context of preliminary merger negotiations. After acknowledging that materiality is something to be determined on the basis of the particular facts of each case, he stated:
“Since a merger in which it is bought out is the most important event that can occur in a small corporation’s life, to wit, its death, we think that inside information, as regards a merger of this sort, can become material at an earlier stage than would be the case as regards lesser transactions — and this even though the mortality rate of mergers in such formative stages is doubtless high.” SEC v. Geon Industries, Inc., 531 F. 2d 39, 47-48 (1976).
We agree with that analysis.
Whether merger discussions in any particular case are material therefore depends on the facts. Generally, in order to assess the probability that the event will occur, a factfinder will need to look to indicia of interest in the transaction at the highest corporate levels. Without attempting to catalog all such possible factors, we note by way of example that board resolutions, instructions to investment bankers, and actual negotiations between principals or their intermediaries may serve as indicia of interest. To assess the magnitude of the transaction to the issuer of the securities allegedly manipulated, a factfinder will need to consider such facts as the size of the two corporate entities and of the potential premiums over market value. No particular event or factor short of closing the transaction need be either necessary or sufficient by itself to render merger discussions material.
As we clarify today, materiality depends on the significance the reasonable investor would place on the withheld or misrepresented information. The fact-specific inquiry we endorse here is consistent with the approach a number of courts have taken in assessing the materiality of merger negotiations. Because the standard of materiality we have adopted differs from that used by both courts below, we remand the case for reconsideration of the question whether a grant of summary judgment is appropriate on this record.
IV
A
We turn to the question of reliance and the fraud-on-the-market theory. Succinctly put:
“The fraud on the market theory is based on the hypothesis that, in an open and developed securities market, the price of a company’s stock is determined by the available material information regarding the company and its business.... Misleading statements will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the misstatements.... The causal connection between the defendants’ fraud and the plaintiffs’ purchase of stock in such a case is no less significant than in a case of direct reliance on misrepresentations.” Peil v. Speiser, 806 F. 2d 1154, 1160-1161 (CA3 1986).'
Our task, of course, is not to assess the general validity of the theory, but to consider whether it was proper for the courts below to apply a rebuttable presumption of reliance, supported in part by the fraud-on-the-market theory. Cf. the comments of the dissent, post, at 252-255.
This case required resolution of several common questions of law and fact concerning the falsity or misleading nature of the three public statements made by Basic, the presence or absence of scienter, and the materiality of the misrepresentations, if any. In their amended complaint, the named plaintiffs alleged that in reliance on Basic’s statements they sold their shares of Basic stock in the depressed market created by petitioners. See Amended Complaint in No. C79-1220 (ND Ohio), ¶¶ 27, 29, 35, 40; see also id., ¶33 (alleging effect on market price of Basic’s statements). Requiring proof of individualized reliance from each member of the proposed plaintiff class effectively would have prevented respondents from proceeding with a class action, since individual issues then would have overwhelmed the common ones. The District Court found that the presumption of reliance created by the fraud-on-the-market theory provided “a practical resolution to the problem of balancing the substantive requirement of proof of reliance in securities cases against the procedural requisites of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23.” The District Court thus concluded that with reference to each public statement and its impact upon the open market for Basic shares, common questions predominated over individual questions, as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) and (b)(3).
Petitioners and their amici complain that the fraud-on-the-market theory effectively eliminates the requirement that a plaintiff asserting a claim under Rule 10b-5 prove reliance. They note that reliance is and long has been an element of common-law fraud, see, e. g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 525 (1977); W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 108 (5th ed. 1984), and argue that because the analogous express right of action includes a reliance requirement, see, e. g., § 18(a) of the 1934 Act, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78r(a), so too must an action implied under § 10(b).
We agree that reliance is an element of a Rule 10b-5 cause of action. See Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S., at 206 (quoting Senate Report). Reliance provides the requisite causal connection between a defendant’s misrepresentation and a plaintiff’s injury. See, e. g., Wilson v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp., 648 F. 2d 88, 92 (CA2 1981); List v. Fashion Park, Inc., 340 F. 2d 457, 462 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. List v. Lerner, 382 U. S. 811 (1965). There is, however, more than one way to demonstrate the causal connection. Indeed, we previously have dispensed with a requirement of positive proof of reliance, where a duty to disclose material information had been breached, concluding that the necessary nexus between the plaintiffs’ injury and the defendant’s wrongful conduct had been established. See Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U. S., at 153-154. Similarly, we did not require proof that material omissions or misstatements in a proxy statement decisively affected voting, because the proxy solicitation itself, rather than the defect in the solicitation materials, served as an essential link in the transaction. See Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S. 375, 384-385 (1970).
The modern securities markets, literally involving millions of shares changing hands daily, differ from the face-to-face transactions contemplated by early fraud cases, and our understanding of Rule 10b-5’s reliance requirement must encompass these differences.
“In face-to-face transactions, the inquiry into an investor’s reliance upon information is into the subjective pricing of that information by that investor. With the presence of a market, the market is interposed between seller and buyer and, ideally, transmits information to the investor in the processed form of a market price. Thus the market is performing a substantial part of the valuation process performed by the investor in a face-to-face transaction. The market is acting as the unpaid agent of the investor, informing him that given all the information available to it, the value of the stock is worth the market price.” In re LTV Securities Litigation, 88 F. R. D. 134, 143 (ND Tex. 1980).
Accord, e. g., Peil v. Speiser, 806 F. 2d, at 1161 (“In an open and developed market, the dissemination of material misrepresentations or withholding of material information typically affects the price of the stock, and purchasers generally rely on the price of the stock as a reflection of its value”); Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F. 2d 891, 908 (CA9 1975) (“[T]he same causal nexus can be adequately established indirectly, by proof of materiality coupled with the common sense that a stock purchaser does not ordinarily seek to purchase a loss in the form of artificially inflated stock”), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 816 (1976).
B
Presumptions typically serve to assist courts in managing circumstances in which direct proof, for one reason or another, is rendered difficult. See, e. g., 1 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence 541-542 (1977). The courts below accepted a presumption, created by the fraud-on-the-market theory and subject to rebuttal by petitioners, that persons who had traded Basic shares had done so in reliance on the integrity of the price set by the market, but because of petitioners’ material misrepresentations that price had been fraudulently depressed. Requiring a plaintiff to show a speculative state of facts, i. e., how he would have acted if omitted material information had been disclosed, see Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U. S., at 153-154, or if the misrepresentation had not been made, see Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand, 649 F. 2d 175, 188 (CA3 1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 938 (1982), would place an unnecessarily unrealistic evidentiary burden on the Rule 10b-5 plaintiff who has traded on an impersonal market. Cf. Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S., at 385.
Arising out of considerations of fairness, public policy, and probability, as well as judicial economy, presumptions are also useful devices for allocating the burdens of proof between parties. See E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 968-969 (3d ed. 1984); see also Fed. Rule Evid. 301 and Advisory Committee Notes, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 685. The presumption of reliance employed in this case is consistent with, and, by facilitating Rule 10b-5 litigation, supports, the congressional policy embodied in the 1934 Act. In drafting that Act, Congress expressly relied on the premise that securities markets are affected by information, and enacted legislation to facilitate an investor’s reliance on the integrity of those markets:
“No investor, no speculator, can safely buy and sell securities upon the exchanges without having an intelli.gent basis for forming his judgment as to the value of the securities he buys or sells. The idea of a free and open public market is built upon the theory that competing judgments of buyers and sellers as to the fair price of a security brings [sic] about a situation where the market price reflects as nearly as possible a just price. Just as artificial manipulation tends to upset the true function of an open market, so the hiding and secreting of important information obstructs the operation of the markets as in-dices of real value.” H. R. Rep. No. 1383, at 11.
See Lipton v. Domination, Inc., 734 F. 2d 740, 748 (CA11 1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1132 (1985).
The presumption is also supported by common sense and probability. Recent empirical studies have tended to confirm Congress’ premise that the market price of shares traded on well-developed markets reflects all publicly available information, and, hence, any material misrepresentations. It has been noted that “it is hard to imagine that there ever is a buyer or seller who does not rely on market integrity. Who would knowingly roll the dice in a crooked crap game?” Schlanger v. Four-Phase Systems Inc., 555 F. Supp. 535, 538 (SDNY 1982). Indeed, nearly every court that has considered the proposition has concluded that where materially misleading statements have been disseminated into an impersonal, well-developed market for securities, the reliance of individual plaintiffs on the integrity of the market price may be presumed. Commentators generally have applauded the adoption of one variation or another of the fraud-on-the-market theory. An investor who buys or sells stock at the price set by the market does so in reliance on the integrity of that price. Because most publicly available information is reflected in market price, an investor’s reliance on any public material misrepresentations, therefore, may be presumed for purposes of a Rule 10b-5 action.
C
The Court of Appeals found that petitioners “made public, material misrepresentations and [respondents] sold Basic stock in an impersonal, efficient market. Thus the class, as defined by the district court, has established the threshold facts for proving their loss.” 786 F. 2d, at 751. The court acknowledged that petitioners may rebut proof of the elements giving rise to the presumption, or show that the misrepresentation in fact did not lead to a distortion of price or that an individual plaintiff traded or would have traded despite his knowing the statement was false. Id., at 750, n. 6.
Any showing that severs the link between the alleged misrepresentation and either the price received (or paid) by the plaintiff, or his decision to trade at a fair market price, will be sufficient to rebut the presumption of reliance. For example, if petitioners could show that the “market makers” were privy to the truth about the merger discussions here with Combustion, and thus that the market price would not have been affected by their misrepresentations, the causal connection could be broken: the basis for finding that the fraud had been transmitted through market price would be gone. Similarly, if, despite petitioners’ allegedly fraudulent attempt to manipulate market price, news of the merger discussions credibly entered the market and dissipated the effects of the misstatements, those who traded Basic shares after the corrective statements would have no direct or indirect connection with the fraud. Petitioners also could rebut the presumption of reliance as to plaintiffs who would have divested themselves of their Basic shares without relying on the integrity of the market. For example, a plaintiff who believed that Basic’s statements were false and that Basic was indeed engaged in merger discussions, and who consequently believed that. Basic stock was artificially underpriced, but sold his shares nevertheless because of other unrelated concerns, e. g., potential antitrust problems, or political pressures to divest from shares of certain businesses, could not be said to have relied on the integrity of a price he knew had been manipulated.
V
In summary:
1. We specifically adopt, for the § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 context, the standard of materiality set forth in TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U. S., at 449.
. 2. We reject “agreement-in-principle as to price and structure” as the bright-line rule for materiality.
3. We also reject the proposition that “information becomes material by virtue of a public statement denying it.”
4. Materiality in the merger context depends on the probability that the transaction will be consummated, and its significance to the issuer of the securities. Materiality depends on the facts and thus is to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
5. It is not inappropriate to apply a presumption of reliance supported by the fraud-on-the-market theory.
6. That presumption, however, is rebuttable.
7. The District Court’s certification of the class here was appropriate when made but is subject on remand to such adjustment, if any, as developing circumstances demand.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In what are known as the Kaiser-Lavino proceedings, the Federal Trade Commission took the position in 1976 that basic or chemical refractories were in a market separate from nonbasic or acidic or alumina refractories; this would remove the antitrust barrier to a merger between Basic and Combustion’s refractories subsidiary. On October 12,1978, the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge confirmed that position. See In re Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 93 F. T. C. 764, 771, 809-810 (1979). See also the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, 786 F. 2d 741, 745 (CA6 1986).
In addition to Basie itself, petitioners are individuals who had been members of its board of directors prior to 1979: Anthony M. Caito, Samuel Eels, Jr., John A. Gelbach, Harley C. Lee, Max Muller, H. Chapman Rose, Edmund G. Sylvester, and John C. Wilson, Jr. Another former director, Mathew J. Ludwig, was a party to the proceedings below but died on July 17, 1986, and is not a petitioner here. See Brief for Petitioners ii.
In light of our disposition of this case, any further characterization of these discussions must await application, on remand, of the materiality standard adopted today.
On October 21,1977, after heavy trading and a new high in Basic stock, the following news item appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
“[Basic] President Max Muller said the company knew no reason for the stock’s activity and that no negotiations were under way with any company for a merger. He said Flintkote recently denied Wall Street rumors that it would make a tender offer of $25 a share for control of the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
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: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
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: | 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 writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated.and the case is remanded for consideration in light of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U. S. 278, 291.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to review a state court order enjoining the operation of a school desegregation plan. The action was brought in the Superior Court of Clarke County, Georgia, by parents of children attending public elementary schools in that county. Named as defendants were the Superintendent of Education and members of the Clarke County Board of Education. The trial court denied respondents’ request for an injunction, but on appeal the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed, 226 Ga. 456, 175 S. E. 2d 649 (1970). This Court then granted certiorari, 400 U. S. 804 (1970).
Beginning in 1963, the Clarke County Board of Education began a voluntary program to desegregate its public schools. The student-assignment plan presently at issue, involving only elementary schools, has been in effect since the start of the 1969 academic year. The plan, adopted by the Board of Education and approved by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, relies primarily upon geographic attendance zones drawn to achieve greater racial balance. Additionally, the pupils in five heavily Negro “pockets” either walk or are transported by bus to schools located in other attendance zones. As a consequence the Negro enrollment of each elementary school in the system varies generally between 20% and 40%, although two schools have a 50% Negro enrollment. The white-Negro ratio of elementary pupils in the system is approximately two to one.
Respondents contend in this action that the board’s desegregation plan violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Title IY of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld both contentions, concluding first that the plan violated the Equal Protection Clause “by treating students differently because of their race.” The court concluded also that Title IV prohibited the board from “requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another ... in order to achieve such racial balance . . . .” We reject these contentions.
The Clarke County Board of Education, as part of its affirmative duty to disestablish the dual school system, properly took into account the race of its elementary school children in drawing attendance lines. To have done otherwise would have severely hampered the board’s ability to deal effectively with the task at hand. School boards that operated dual school systems are “clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch.” Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S. 430, 437-438 (1968). In this remedial process, steps will almost invariably require that students be assigned “differently because of their race.” See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, ante, p. 1; Youngblood v. Board of Public Instruction, 430 F. 2d 625, 630 (CA5 1970). Any other approach would freeze the status quo that is the very target of all desegregation processes.
Nor is the board’s plan barred by Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The sections relied upon by respondents (42 U. S. C. §§ 2000c (b), 2000c-6) are directed only at federal officials and are designed simply to foreclose any interpretation of the Act as expanding the powers of federal officials to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. Swann, supra, at 17. Title IV clearly does not restrict state school authorities in the exercise of their discretionary powers to assign students within their school systems.
Reversed.
It may well be that the Board of Education adopted the present student-assignment plan because of urgings of federal officials and fear of losing federal financial assistance. The state trial court, however, made no findings on these matters. No federal officials are parties in this case.
Where the distance between the student's residence and his assigned school is more than 1% miles, free transportation is provided. There is no challenge here to the feasibility of the transportation provisions of the plan. The annual transportation expenses of the present plan are reported in the record to be $11,070 less than the school system spent on transportation during the 1968-1969 school year under dual operation.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On October 4, 1964, a murder by stabbing took place in an elevator of an apartment building where petitioner Morales’ mother lived and where Morales frequently visited. On October 13, his mother informed Morales by telephone that the police wished to talk with him; petitioner said that he would come that evening to his mother’s place of business. This he did. He was apprehended by police officers and taken to the police station, arriving at 8:30 p. m. Within 15 minutes he had confessed to the crime and by 9:05 p. m. he had written and signed a statement. In response to subsequent questioning by police officers, Morales later repeated the substance of this confession. At the trial, the court held a separate hearing on the voluntariness of the confessions, found them voluntary, and admitted them over Morales’ objection. Morales was convicted, the jury apparently rejecting his alibi defense that he was with his mother at the time of the murder. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed without opinion. People v. Morales, 27 App. Div. 2d 904, 280 N. Y. S. 2d 520 (1967). In the New York Court of Appeals, Morales for the first time raised a Fourth Amendment issue, claiming that there was no probable cause for his detention at the time of his confessions and that the confessions, even if voluntary, were inadmissible fruits of the illegal detention. The State asserted that the issue had not been decided below and that there had hence been no opportunity to make a record of the relevant facts; moreover, the State claimed that Morales had voluntarily surrendered himself for questioning and that in any event the voluntary confessions were the result of an independent choice by Morales such that the legality of the detention was irrelevant to the admissibility of the confessions.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, accepting without discussion the trial court’s finding as to the voluntariness of Morales’ confessions. People v. Morales, 22 N. Y. 2d 55, 238 N. E. 2d 307 (1968). The court dealt with and rejected the Fourth Amendment claim not on the ground that there was probable cause to arrest but rather on the ground that the police conduct involved was reasonable under the circumstances of the case. Although Morales was not free to leave at the time he was apprehended and would have been restrained had he attempted to flee, the Court of Appeals stated that his detention was not a formal arrest under New York law and that had he refused to answer questions in the police station (where he was entitled to have a lawyer if he desired one) he would have been free to leave. The Court of Appeals held that the State had authority under the Fourth Amendment to conduct brief custodial interrogation of “those persons reasonably suspected of possessing knowledge of the crime under investigation in circumstances involving crimes presenting, a high degree of public concern affecting the public safety.” 22 N. Y. 2d, at 65, 238 N. E. 2d, at 314. We granted certiorari, 394 U. S. 972 (1969).
After considering the full record, we do not disturb the determination of the trial court, affirmed by the New York appellate courts, that Morales’ confessions were voluntarily given. The trial occurred prior to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confessions shows that the confessions were voluntary, not coerced.
We should not, however, decide on the record before us whether Morales’ conviction should otherwise be affirmed. The ruling below, that the State may detain for custodial questioning on less than probable cause for a traditional arrest, is manifestly important, goes beyond our subsequent decisions in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), and Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40 (1968), and is claimed by petitioner to be at odds with Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969). But we have concluded after considering the parties’ briefs and hearing oral argument that there is merit in the State’s position that the record does not permit a satisfactory evaluation of the facts surrounding the apprehension and detention of Morales. A lengthy hearing was held on the question of the voluntariness of the confessions, but the basis for the apprehension of Morales does not appear to have been fully explored since no challenge to the lawfulness of the apprehension was raised until the case came to the Court of Appeals. Although that court stated that “[i]t may be conceded that the apprehending detectives did not have probable cause to justify an arrest of defendant at the time they took him into custody,” 22 N. Y. 2d, at 58, 238 N. E. 2d, at 310, the court later said that “[t]he checkerboard square of the police investigation, although resting upon circumstantial evidence, pointed only to defendant. ... In fact, defendant was the only person the police could have reasonably detained for questioning based upon the instant record.” 22 N. Y. 2d, at 64, 238 N. E. 2d, at 313.
Given an opportunity to develop in an evidentiary hearing the circumstances leading to the detention of Morales and his confessions, the State may be able to show that there was probable cause for an arrest or that Morales’ confrontation with the police was voluntarily undertaken by him or that the confessions were not the product of illegal detention. In any event, in the absence of a record that squarely and necessarily presents the issue and fully illuminates the factual context in which the question arises, we choose not to grapple with the question of the legality of custodial questioning on less than probable cause for a full-fledged arrest.
We accordingly vacate the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black dissents and would affirm.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Enmeshed in a tangled skein of procedural and state-law issues is a ruling on an important federal question that was critical to the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The court’s ultimate holding was that a Bankruptcy Court’s injunction against the assessment of a state sales tax upon the proceeds of a trustee’s liquidation sale of an inventory of skis also barred the collection of a use tax from the purchaser’s lessees. In the process of reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit rejected an argument that a case well known to California bankruptcy lawyers as “Goggin II” was wrongly decided. The three-judge panel that heard the case concluded that it was not within its power — “and not within its heart — to change a rule of this circuit that has been in force for over thirty years.” In re China Peak Resort, 847 F. 2d 570, 572 (1988). Because the rule of “Goggin II” conflicts with the rule applied in other Circuits, and because we have both the power and the duty to resolve the conflict, we granted certiorari. 488 U. S. 992 (1988).
The Goggin cases concerned the attempt by the California State Board of Equalization, petitioner here, to assess sales and use taxes on a bankruptcy liquidation sale. In Goggin I, 191 F. 2d 726 (1951), cert. denied, 342 U. S. 909 (1952), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Board’s attempt to assess a nondiscriminatory sales tax imposed on retailers to a liquidation sale made by a bankruptcy trustee under court order. Although the court based its decision on a construction of state law that excluded the trustee from the definition of retailer, Judge Fee in concurrence wrote that the assessment constituted an unlawful tax upon court processes. Six years later, Judge Fee, writing for the Circuit panel in Goggin II, made those views law. 245 F. 2d 44, cert. denied, 353 U. S. 961 (1957). At issue was a California law which required the bankruptcy trustee to collect and remit use taxes imposed on the use of goods from a liquidation sale on which no sales tax had been paid. The court held the tax unlawful, finding that while it was nondiscriminatory it nonetheless burdened the “essential processes” of the bankruptcy court.
The Goggin opinions were based on two premises, each of which respondent argues supports the judgment here. First, the court held that a tax on liquidation sales places a burden on the federal function of the bankruptcy court and therefore violates principles of intergovernmental tax immunity first recognized in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). Second, it found that a federal statute specifically authorizing the States to impose taxes on business operations of the bankruptcy trustee negated by implication their power to tax bankruptcy liquidations. Neither argument is persuasive.
The argument that a tax on a bankruptcy liquidation sale places an undue burden on a governmental operation derives from the once established view that a state tax on income or assets an individual receives from a contract with the Federal Government constituted a tax on the contract and thereby imposed a burden on governmental operations. See, e. g., Panhandle Oil Co. v. Knox, 277 U. S. 218 (1928); Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113 (1871); Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435 (1842); Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 (1829). The Court drew a distinction between a tax imposed on a Government agent’s property and a tax imposed on its operations. While the former was permissible, the latter was constitutionally proscribed. See, e. g., Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5, 33 (1873); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., at 345; see also James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 163 (1937) (footnotes omitted) (Roberts, J., dissenting) (“No tax can be laid upon th[e] franchises or operations [of government instrumentalities], but their local property is subject to non-discriminating state taxation”). Thus, although this Court held as early as 1904 that States could impose a property tax on a bankruptcy estate, see Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U. S. 441 (1904), other courts reasonably concluded that the State could not tax the operations of the bankruptcy trustee. See, e. g., In re Flat-bush Gum Co., 73 F. 2d 283 (CA2 1934), cert. denied sub nom. New York v. Arnold, 294 U. S. 713 (1935).
In James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134 (1937), however, this Court rejected the distinction between a tax on the property of an agent and a tax on the agent’s operations. With the Court’s decision in Dravo Contracting, “the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity started a long path in decline and [it] has now been ‘thoroughly repudiated.’” Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, ante, at 174 (quoting South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U. S. 505, 520 (1988)). “[U]nder current intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine the States can never tax the United States directly but can tax any private parties with whom it does business, even though the financial burden falls on the United States, as long as the tax does not discriminate against the United States or those with whom it deals.” Id., at 523. Absolute tax immunity is appropriate only when the tax is 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, at least insofar as the activity being taxed is concerned.” United States v. New Mexico, 455 U. S. 720, 735 (1982).
It is evident that whatever immunity the bankruptcy estate once enjoyed from taxation on its operations has long since eroded and that there is now no constitutional impediment to the imposition of a sales tax or use tax on a liquidation sale. There is no claim, nor could there be, that the tax discriminates against bankruptcy trustees or those with whom they deal. As Judge Augustus Hand observed on similar facts in 1936: “The purchaser at the judicial sale was only required to pay the same tax he would have been bound to pay if he had purchased from anyone else.” In re Leavy, 85 F. 2d 25, 27 (CA2). Nor is the bankruptcy trustee so closely connected to the Federal Government that the two “cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities.” United States v. New Mexico, supra, at 735. The bankruptcy trustee is “the representative of the estate [of the debtor],” 11 U. S. C. § 323(a); cf. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Weintraub, 471 U. S. 343 (1985), not “an arm of the Government,” Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355, 359-360 (1966), and the tax on the estate is an administrative expense of the debtor, not of the Federal Government, 11 U. S. C. § 503(b)(1)(B) (1982 ed. and Supp. V). Cf. Missouri v. Gleick, 135 F. 2d 134, 137 (CA8 1943). For the purposes of absolute tax immunity under the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, there is no material distinction between those municipal and state withholding and property taxes on the bankruptcy trustee which we have upheld, see Otte v. United States, 419 U. S. 43, 52-54 (1974); Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U. S., at 444, and the tax on the liquidation sale presented here.
The Goggin courts also based their proscription of state sales and use taxes on an implied prohibition that they found in 28 U. S. C. § 960. The Goggin II court read § 960 as setting forth “the sole area where the state is permitted to impose a tax of any type” and reasoned that because Congress had not specifically granted the States authority to impose sales and use taxes on liquidation, “essential sales in liquidation [were] inevitably free from such imposition.” 245 F. 2d, at 46. That view is contrary to our general approach to claims that the States’ power to tax have been pre-empted and to the plain meaning and legislative history of this particular statutory provision.
Although Congress can confer an immunity from state taxation, see Washington v. United States, 460 U. S. 536, 540 (1983); First Agricultural Nat. Bank v. State Tax Comm’n, 392 U. S. 339 (1968); United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U. S. 466, 474 (1958), we have stated that “[a] court must proceed carefully when asked to recognize an exemption from state taxation that Congress has not clearly expressed,” Rockford Life Ins. Co. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 482 U. S. 182, 191 (1987). See also Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. United States, 319 U. S. 598, 607 (1943); Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, 479 (1939). Section 960 is not such a clear expression of an exemption from state taxation. It was passed in 1934, at the height of the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, in response to a Federal District Court decision holding that a bankruptcy receiver operating a gasoline and oil distributing business was not liable as a matter of state law for a state sales tax on motor fuel. See H. R. Rep. No. 1138, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934); S. Rep. No. 1372, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). Read most naturally, the statute evinces an intention that a State be permitted to tax a bankruptcy estate notwithstanding any intergovernmental immunity objection that might be interposed, cf. Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 813 (1989), and that, as a matter of federal law, “a business in receivership, or conducted under court order, should be subject to the same tax liability as the owner would have been if in possession and operating the enterprise,” Palmer v. Webster and Atlas Nat. Bank of Boston, 312 U. S. 156, 163 (1941). The statute “indicates a Congressional purpose to facilitate — not to obstruct — enforcement of state laws.” Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U. S. 57, 60-61 (1939). Nothing in the plain language of the statute, its legislative history, or the structure of the Bankruptcy Code indicates that Congress intended to exclude taxes on the liquidation process from those taxes the States may impose on the bankruptcy estate.
Eighty-five years ago, in Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U. S. 441 (1904), we held that property in the hands of a bankruptcy trustee was subject to taxation by state and municipal authorities. The appellant in that case argued, in much the same manner as respondent does here, that the transfer of assets to a bankruptcy trustee vested the Federal Government with exclusive control of the bankruptcy estate and that “no other sovereignty, be it State or foreign, is permitted to exercise any power that burdens or in any manner interferes with the distribution prescribed by the act.” Statement, Specification of Error and Argument for Appellant in Swarts v. Hammer, O. T. 1902, No. 238, p. 4. We responded that “[b]y the transfer to the trustee no mysterious or peculiar ownership or qualities are given to the property,” and that “there is nothing in that to withdraw it from the necessity of protection by the State and municipality, or which should exempt it from its obligations to either.” 194 U. S., at 444. If Congress wished to declare otherwise, its intent would have to “be clearly expressed, not left to be collected or inferred from disputable considerations of convenience in administering the estate of the bankrupt.” Ibid. The law that has intervened in the last 85 years, rejecting any distinction between a tax on property and a tax on operations, only gives force to our conclusion that the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine does not proscribe the tax sought to be assessed here.
We therefore vacate the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
California State Board of Equalization v. Goggin, 245 F. 2d 44 (CA9), cert. denied, 353 U. S. 961 (1957). The case known as “Goggin I” is California State Board of Equalization v. Goggin, 191 F. 2d 726 (CA9 1951), cert. denied, 342 U. S. 909 (1952).
Compare In re Hatfield Construction Co., 494 F. 2d 1179 (CA5 1974) (holding that sales tax can be imposed on liquidation sale); In re Leavy, 85 F. 2d 25 (CA2 1936) (same), with In re Cusato Brothers Int’l, Inc., 750 F. 2d 887 (CA11) (holding that bankruptcy trustee is not liable for excise taxes), cert. denied sub nom. Florida v. Great American Bank of Broward County, 472 U. S. 1010 (1985). See also In re Warmings A. G. Food Center, 50 B. R. 748 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Me.), summarily aff’d, 782 F. 2d 1024 (CA1 1985); In re Sunrise Constmction Co., 39 B. R. 668 (Wyo. 1984); In re Hughes Drilling Co., 75 B. R. 196 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Okla. 1987); In re Hubs Repair Shop, Inc., 28 B. R. 858 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ND Iowa 1983) (all holding that States can tax liquidation sales), and In re Sheldon’s Inc. of Maine, 28 B. R. 568 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Me. 1983); In re Rhea, 17 B. R. 789 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Okla. 1982) (holding that States cannot tax liquidation sales).
In its brief on the merits, respondent argues that the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court that States may not impose taxes on a liquidation sale is res judicata and therefore not properly before us. Petitioner argued that the Goggin cases were incorrectly decided before the Court of Appeals, see Brief for Appellant in No. 87-2542 (CA9), pp. 28-33, however, and that court reached the merits of the question. At no time previous to its brief on the merits before this Court did respondent argue that the question might not be properly presented. In these circumstances we may decide the question decided by the Court of Appeals. See Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378, 383-385 (1989); Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 815-816 (1985); see also Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U. S. 408, 414 (1964).
Judge Hand added:
“What the trustee is really complaining of is, not that a burden has been imposed upon the exercise of his functions, but of his inability to sell to a purchaser who would be exempt from a tax and because of such an exemption would pay a higher price to him than would ordinarily be paid for the goods sold. It seems unreasonable to treat the absence of an exemption from taxes as a burden upon the normal exercise of a governmental function.” 85 F. 2d, at 27.
Under 11 U. S. C. §346(c)(2) (1982 ed., Supp. V), the trustee is required to “make any tax return otherwise required by State or local law to be filed by or on behalf of” a corporation or partnership in bankruptcy “in the same manner and form as such corporation or partnership, as the ease may be, is required to make such return.”
It follows, a fortiori, that when, as in this case, the debtor is permitted to remain in possession, the same duties may be imposed on the debtor-in-possession. See 11 U. S. C. § 1107(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V) (debtor-in-possession shall perform all the functions and duties of trustee).
The commentators are in agreement. See Wurzel, Taxation During Bankruptcy Liquidation, 55 Harv. L. Rev. 1141, 1166-1169 (1942) (footnote omitted) (“[TJhere is no implied immunity of a federal instrumentality from a state tax that is general and nondiscriminatory if its effects upon the Federal Government are merely ‘incidental.’ A general and nondiscriminatory tax on a trustee fulfills this requirement. . . . The tax does not place a financial burden upon the United States; nor will it — unless it is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional — render the trustee’s task more difficult or cumbersome”); Note, State Taxation of Bankruptcy Liquidations: Federalism Misconceived, 67 Yale L. J. 335, 340 (1957) (footnotes omitted) (“Case law suggests that a sales or use tax should be upheld even in the absence of an applicable federal waiver. The immunity of one sovereign from taxation by another originated in the belief that the taxing power is necessarily destructive. This rationale has been repudiated, and Graves [v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U. S. 466 (1939),] indicates that only taxes which can be so manipulated should be invalidated. Absent discriminatory application against sellers and buyers at liquidation sales, a sales or use tax should not seriously impede the federal bankruptcy process”).
Title 28 U. S. C. §960 provides:
“Any officers and agents conducting any business under authority of a United States court shall be subject to all Federal, State and local taxes applicable to such business to the same extent as if it were conducted by an individual or corporation.”
The original provision, as passed by Congress in 1934, provided:
“That any receiver, liquidator, referee, trustee, or other officers or agents appointed by any United States court who is authorized by said court to conduct any business, or who does conduct any business, shall, from and after the enactment of this Act, be subject to all State and local taxes applicable to such business the same as if such business were conducted by an individual or corporation: Provided, however, That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to prohibit or prejudice the collection of any such taxes which accrued prior to the approval of this Act, in the event that the United States court having final jurisdiction of the subject matter under existing law should adjudge and decide that the imposition of such taxes was a valid exercise of the taxing power by the State or States, or by the civil subdivisions of the State or States imposing the same.” Act of June 18, 1934, ch. 585, 48 Stat. 993.
The changes in language were made in 1948 as part of the general revision of the Judicial Code and impart no significant change in meaning. See Finley v. United States, ante, at 554.
See also 78 Cong. Rec. 6656 (1934) (statement of Rep. MeKeown) (“A great many receivers in oil cases have been held by the court not liable to pay taxes. They do not pay the gasoline taxes to the State. There are thousands of dollars being lost to the State, because these receivers in gasoline and oil cases are not liable to pay those taxes. In the receivers for bank eases they do not have to pay the taxes to the State”). Ironically, the District Court decision in Howe v. Atlantic, Pacific & Gulf Oil Co., 4 F. Supp. 162 (WD Mo. 1933), that precipitated passage of the Act was reversed on state-law grounds even before the Act was signed into law. See Kansas City v. Johnson, 70 F. 2d 360 (CA8), cert. denied, 293 U. S. 617 (1934).
“If the terms of the Louisiana statute had specifically provided for the levy of a tax against the trustee or receiver, there could be no doubt that the trustee would be liable for the franchise tax. There were controversies between state taxing authorities and the various liquidating agencies appointed by the Federal courts as to the liability for such taxes. Congress has, in the interest of justice or good will, by this Act directed the trustee to pay rather than litigate these tax claims. By the sweeping terms of this statute all doubts have been resolved in favor of the state taxes.” Thompson v. State of Louisiana, 98 F. 2d 108, 111 (CA8 1938). See also 3A Collier on Bankruptcy §62.14, p. 1526 (14th ed. 1975) (“The true meaning of the Act of June 18, 1934, would seem to be a declaration of policy: if States decide not to exempt from tax a business conducted by the officer of a federal bankruptcy court, such tax should be paid and bankruptcy, though governed by federal law, should not be raised as a defense, allowing bankrupt businesses to compete at an advantage with non-bankrupt businesses”); Pepper, Application of State Franchise Taxes to Trustees in Bankruptcy, 14 Taxes 259 (1936) (“All that Congress said in its enactment is that if a state imposes a tax upon a trustee, he cannot claim exemption by reason of the fact that he is a trustee”). '
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) of Title 18, United States Code, criminalizes, in certain specified circumstances, the pandering or solicitation of child pornography. This case presents the question whether that statute is overbroad under the First Amendment or impermissibly vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
I
A
We have long held that obscene speech — sexually explicit material that violates fundamental notions of decency — is not protected by the First Amendment. See Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476,484-485 (1957). But to protect explicit material that has social value, we have limited the scope of the obscenity exception, and have overturned convictions for the distribution of sexually graphic but nonobscene material. See Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 23-24 (1973); see also, e. g., Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153, 161 (1974).
Over the last 25 years, we have confronted a related and overlapping category of proscribable speech: child pornography. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002); Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U. S. 103 (1990); New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747 (1982). This consists of sexually explicit visual portrayals that feature children. We have held that a statute which proscribes the distribution of all child pornography, even material that does not qualify as obscenity, does not on its face violate the First Amendment. See id., at 751-753, 756-764. Moreover, we have held that the government may criminalize the possession of child pornography, even though it may not criminalize the mere possession of obscene material involving adults. Compare Os borne, supra, at 111, with Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 568 (1969).
The broad authority to proscribe child pornography is not, however, unlimited. Four Terms ago, we held facially over-broad two provisions of the federal Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S., at 258. The first of these banned the possession and distribution of “ ‘any visual depiction’ ” that “ ‘is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,’” even if it contained only youthful-looking adult actors or virtual images of children generated by a computer. Id., at 239-241 (quoting 18 U. S. C. § 2256(8)(B)). This was invalid, we explained, because the child-protection rationale for speech restriction does not apply to materials produced without children. See 535 U. S., at 249-251, 254. The second provision at issue in Free Speech Coalition criminalized the possession and distribution of material that had been pandered as child pornography, regardless of whether it actually was that. See id., at 257 (citing 18 U. S. C. § 2256(8)(D)). A person could thus face prosecution for possessing unobjectionable material that someone else had pandered. 535 U. S., at 258. We held that this prohibition, which did “more than prohibit pandering,” was also facially overbroad. Ibid.
After our decision in Free Speech Coalition, Congress went back to the drawing board and produced legislation with the unlikely title of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003,117 Stat. 650. We shall refer to it as the Act. Section 503 of the Act amended 18 U. S. C. § 2252A to add a new pandering and solicitation provision, relevant portions of which now read as follows:
“(a) Any person who—
“(3) knowingly—
“(B) advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains—
“(1) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
“(ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,
“shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).” §2252A(a)(3)(B) (2000 ed., Supp. V).
Section 2256(2)(A) defines “‘sexually explicit conduct’” as
“actual or simulated—
“(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
“(ii) bestiality;
“(iii) masturbation;
“(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
“(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.”
Violation of § 2252A(a)(3)(B) incurs a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and a maximum of 20 years. 18 U. S. C. § 2252A(b)(l).
The Act’s express findings indicate that Congress was concerned that limiting the child-pornography prohibition to material that could be proved to feature actual children, as our decision in Free Speech Coalition required, would enable many child pornographers to evade conviction. See § 501(9), (10), 117 Stat. 677. The emergence of new technology and the repeated retransmission of picture files over the Internet could make it nearly impossible to prove that a particular image was produced using real children — even though “[t]here is no substantial evidence that any of the child pornography images being trafficked today were made other than by the abuse of real children,” virtual imaging being prohibitively expensive. §501(5), (7), (8), (11), id., at 676-678; see also Dept. of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, R. Wortley & S. Smallbone, Child Pornography on the Internet 9 (May 2006), online at http://www. cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=1729 (hereinafter Child Pornography on the Internet) (as visited Jan. 7, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file).
B
The following facts appear in the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit, 444 F. 3d 1286, 1288 (2006). On April 26, 2004, respondent Michael Williams, using a sexually explicit screen name, signed in to a public Internet chat room. A Secret Service agent had also signed in to the chat room under the moniker “Lisa n Miami.” The agent noticed that Williams had posted a message that read: “Dad of toddler has ‘good’ pics of her an [sic] me for swap of your toddler pics, or live cam.” The agent struck up a conversation with Williams, leading to an electronic exchange of nonpornographic pictures of children. (The agent’s picture was in fact a doctored photograph of an adult.) Soon thereafter, Williams messaged that he had photographs of men molesting his 4-year-old daughter. Suspicious that “Lisa n Miami” was a law-enforcement agent, before proceeding further Williams demanded that the agent produce additional pictures. When he did not, Williams posted the following public message in the chat room: “HERE ROOM; I CAN PUT UPLINK CUZ IM FOR REAL — SHE CANT.” Appended to this declaration was a hyperlink that, when clicked, led to seven pictures of actual children, aged approximately 5 to 15, engaging in sexually explicit conduct and displaying their genitals. The Secret Service then obtained a search warrant for Williams’s home, where agents seized two hard drives containing at least 22 images of real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, some of it sadomasochistic.
Williams was charged with one count of pandering child pornography under § 2252A(a)(3)(B) and one count of possessing child pornography under §2252A(a)(5)(B). He pleaded guilty to both counts but reserved the right to challenge the constitutionality of the pandering conviction. The District Court rejected his challenge, and imposed concurrent 60-month prison terms on the two counts and a statutory assessment of $100 for each count, see 18 U. S. C. § 3013. No. 04-20299-CR-MIDDLEBROOKS (SD Fla., Aug. 20, 2004), App. B to Pet. for Cert. 46a-69a. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the pandering conviction, holding that the statute was both over-broad and impermissibly vague. 444 F. 3d, at 1308-1309.
We granted certiorari. 549 U. S. 1304 (2007).
II
A
According to our First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, a statute is facially invalid if it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech. The doctrine seeks to strike a balance between competing social costs. Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U. S. 113, 119-120 (2003). On the one hand, the threat of enforcement of an overbroad law deters people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech, inhibiting the free exchange of ideas. On the other hand, invalidating a law that in some of its applications is perfectly constitutional — particularly a law directed at conduct so antisocial that it has been made criminal — has obvious harmful effects. In order to maintain an appropriate balance, we have vigorously enforced the requirement that a statute’s overbreadth be substantial, not only in.an absolute sense, but also relative to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep. See Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, 492 U. S. 469, 485 (1989); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 615 (1973). Invalidation for overbreadth is “ ‘ “strong medicine” ’ ” that is not to be “casually employed.” Los Angeles Police Dept. v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 528 U. S. 32, 39 (1999) (quoting Ferber, 458 U. S., at 769).
The first step in overbreadth analysis is to construe the challenged statute; it is impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute covers. Generally speaking, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) prohibits offers to provide and requests to obtain child pornography. The statute does not require the actual existence of child pornography. In this respect, it differs from the statutes in Ferber, Osborne, and Free Speech Coalition, which prohibited the possession or distribution of child pornography. Rather than targeting the underlying material, this statute bans the collateral speech that introduces such material into the child-pornography distribution network. Thus, an Internet user who solicits child pornography from an undercover agent violates the statute, even if the officer possesses no child pornography. Likewise, a person who advertises virtual child pornography as depicting actual children also falls within the reach of the statute.
The statute’s definition of the material or purported material that may not be pandered or solicited precisely tracks the material held constitutionally proscribable in Ferber and Miller: obscene material depicting (actual or virtual) children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and any other material depicting actual children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. See Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S., at 245-246 (stating that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity or pornography produced with actual children); id., at 256 (holding invalid the challenged provision of the CPPA because it “eover[ed] materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and-Miller”).
A number of features of the statute are important to our analysis: <
First, the statute includes a scienter requirement. The first word of § 2252A(a)(3) — “knowingly”—applies to both of the immediately following subdivisions, both the previously existing § 2252A(a)(3)(A) and the new § 2252A(a)(3)(B) at issue here. We think that the best reading of the term in context is that it applies to every element of the two provisions. This is not a case where grammar or structure enables the challenged provision or some of its parts to be read apart from the “knowingly” requirement. Here “knowingly” introduces the challenged provision itself, making clear that it applies to that provision in its entirety; and there is no grammatical barrier to reading it that way.
Second, the statute’s string of operative verbs — “advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits” — is reasonably read to have a transactional connotation. That is to say, the statute penalizes speech that accompanies or seeks to induce a transfer of child pornography — via reproduction or physical delivery — from one person to another. For three of the verbs, this is obvious: Advertising, distributing, and soliciting are steps taken in the course of an actual or proposed transfer of a product, typically but not exclusively in a commercial market. When taken in isolation, the two remaining verbs — “promotes” and “presents” — are susceptible of multiple and wide-ranging meanings. In context, however, those meanings are narrowed by the commonsense canon of noscitur a sociis — which counsels that a word is given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated. See Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303, 307 (1961); 2A N. Singer & J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction §47:16 (7th ed. 2007). “Promotes,” in a list that includes “solicits,” “distributes,” and “advertises,” is most sensibly read to mean the act of recommending purported child pornography to another person for his acquisition. See American Heritage Dictionary 1408 (4th ed. 2000) (def. 4: “To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity”). Similarly, “presents,” in the context of the other verbs with which it is associated, means showing or offering the child pornography to another person with a view to his acquisition. See id., at 1388 (def. 3a: “To make a gift or award of”). (The envisioned acquisition, of course, could be an electronic one, for example, reproduction of the image on the recipient’s computer screen.)
To be clear, our conclusion that all the words in this list relate to transactions is not to say that they relate to commercial transactions. One could certainly “distribute” child pornography without expecting payment in return. Indeed, in much Internet file sharing of child pornography each participant makes his files available for free to other participants — as Williams did in this case. “Distribution may involve sophisticated pedophile rings or organized crime groups that operate for profit, but in many cases, is carried out by individual amateurs who seek no financial reward.” Child Pornography on the Internet 9. To run afoul of the statute, the speech need only accompany or seek to induce the transfer of child pornography from one person to another.
Third, the phrase “in a manner that reflects the belief” includes both subjective and objective components. “[A] manner that reflects the belief” is quite different from “a manner that would give one cause to believe.” The first formulation suggests that the defendant must actually have held the subjective “belief” that the material or purported material was child pornography. Thus, a misdescription that leads the listener to believe the defendant is offering child pornography, when the defendant in fact does not believe the material is child pornography, does not violate this prong of the statute. (It may, however, violate the “manner... that is intended to cause another to believe” prong if the misdescription is intentional.) There is also an objective component to the phrase “manner that reflects the belief.” The statement or action must objectively manifest a belief that the material is child pornography; a mere belief, without an accompanying statement or action that would lead a reasonable person to understand that the defendant holds that belief, is insufficient.
Fourth, the other key phrase, “in a manner... that is intended to cause another to believe,” contains only a subjective element: The defendant must “intend” that the listener believe the material to be child pornography, and must select a manner of “advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting” the material that he thinks will engender that belief — whether or not a reasonable person would think the same. (Of course in the ordinary case the proof of the defendant’s intent will be the fact that, as an objective matter, the manner of “advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting” plainly sought to convey, that the material was child pornography.)
Fifth, the definition of “sexually explicit conduct” (the visual depiction of which, engaged in by an actual minor, is covered by the Act’s pandering and soliciting prohibition even when it is not obscene) is very similar to the definition of “sexual conduct” in the New York statute we upheld against an overbreadth challenge in Ferber. That defined “sexual conduct” as “ ‘actual or simülated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sadomasochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals.’ ” 458 U. S., at 751. Congress used essentially the same constitutionally approved definition in the present Act. If anything, the fact that the defined term here is “sexually explicit conduct,” rather than (as in Ferber) merely “sexual conduct,” renders the definition more immune from facial constitutional attack. “[Simulated sexual intercourse” (a phrase found in the Ferber definition as well) is even less susceptible here of application to the sorts of sex scenes found in R-rated movies — which suggest that intercourse is taking place without explicitly depicting it, and without causing viewers to believe that the actors are actually engaging in intercourse. “Sexually explicit conduct” connotes actual depiction of the sex act rather than merely the suggestion that it is occurring. And “simulated” sexual intercourse is not sexual intercourse that is merely suggested, but rather sexual intercourse that is explicitly portrayed, even though (through camera tricks or otherwise) it may not actually have occurred. The portrayal must cause a reasonable viewer to believe that the actors actually engaged in that conduct on camera. Critically, unlike in Free Speech Coalition, § 2252A(a)(3)(B)(ii)’s requirement of a “visual depiction of an actual minor” makes clear that, although the sexual intercourse may be simulated, it must involve actual children (unless it is obscene). This change eliminates any possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term “simulated sexual intercourse.”
B
We now turn to whether the statute, as we have construed it, criminalizes a substantial amount of protected expressive activity.
Offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376, 388 (1973); Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949). One would think that this principle resolves the present case, since the statute criminalizes only offers to provide or requests to obtain contraband— child obscenity and child pornography involving actual children, both of which are proscribed, see 18 U. S. C. § 1466A(a), § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (2000 ed., Supp. V), and the proscription of which is constitutional, see Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S., at 245-246, 256. The Eleventh Circuit, however, believed that the exclusion of First Amendment protection extended only to commercial offers to provide or receive contraband: “Because [the statute] is not limited to commercial speech but extends also to non-commercial promotion, presentation, distribution, and solicitation, we must subject the content-based restriction of the PROTECT Act pandering provision to strict scrutiny...444 F. 3d, at 1298.
This mistakes the rationale for the categorical exclusion. It is based not on the less privileged First Amendment status of commercial speech, see Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y, 447 U. S. 557, 562-563 (1980), but on the principle that offers to give or receive what it is unlawful to possess have no social value and thus, like obscenity, enjoy no First Amendment protection, see Pittsburgh Press, supra, at 387-389. Many long established criminal proscriptions — such as laws against conspiracy, incitement, and solicitation — criminalize speech (commercial or not) that is intended to induce or commence illegal activities. See, e. g., ALI, Model Penal Code § 5.02(1) (1985) (solicitation to commit a crime); §5.03(l)(a) (conspiracy to commit a crime). Offers to provide or requests to obtain unlawful material, whether as part of a commercial exchange or not, are similarly undeserving of First Amendment protection. It would be an odd constitutional principle that permitted the government to prohibit offers to sell illegal drugs, but not offers to give them away for free.
To be sure, there remains an important distinction between a proposal to engage in illegal activity and the abstract advocacy of illegality. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447-448 (1969) (per curiam); see also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886,928-929 (1982). The Act before us does not prohibit advocacy of child pornography, but only offers to provide or requests to obtain it. There is no doubt that this prohibition falls well within constitutional bounds. The constitutional defect we found in the pandering provision at issue in Free Speech Coalition was that it went beyond pandering to prohibit possession of material that could not otherwise be proscribed. 535 U. S., at 258.
In sum, we hold that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment. Since the Eleventh Circuit erroneously concluded otherwise, it applied strict scrutiny to §2252A(a) (3)(B), lodging three fatal objections. We address these objections because they could be recast as arguments that Congress has gone beyond the categorical exception.
The Eleventh Circuit believed it a constitutional difficulty that no child pornography need exist to trigger the statute. In its view, the fact that the statute could punish a “braggart, exaggerator, or outright liar” rendered it unconstitutional. 444 F. 3d, at 1298. That seems to us a strange constitutional calculus. Although we have held that the government can ban both fraudulent offers, see, e. g., Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 U. S. 600, 611-612 (2003), and offers to provide illegal products, the Eleventh Circuit would forbid the government from punishing fraudulent offers to provide illegal products. We see no logic in that position; if anything, such statements are doubly excluded from the First Amendment.
The Eleventh Circuit held that under Brandenburg, the “non-commercial, non-inciteful promotion of illegal child pornography” is protected, and § 2252A(a)(3)(B) therefore overreaches by criminalizing the promotion of child pornography. 444 F. 3d, at 1298. As we have discussed earlier, however, the term “promotes” does not refer to abstract advocacy, such as the statement “I believe that child pornography should be legal” or even “I encourage you to obtain child pornography.” It refers to the recommendation of a particular piece of purported child pornography with the intent of initiating a transfer.
The Eleventh Circuit found “particularly objectionable” the fact that the “reflects the belief” prong of the statute could ensnare a person who mistakenly believes that material is child pornography. Ibid. This objection has two conceptually distinct parts. First, the Eleventh Circuit thought that it would be unconstitutional to punish someone for mistakenly distributing virtual child pornography as real child pornography. We disagree. Offers to deal in illegal products or otherwise engage in illegal activity do not acquire First Amendment protection when the offeror is mistaken about the factual predicate of his offer. The pandering and solicitation made unlawful by the Act are sorts of inchoate crimes — acts looking toward the commission of another crime, the delivery of child pornography. As with other inchoate crimes — attempt and conspiracy, for example — impossibility of completing the crime because the facts were not as the defendant believed is not a defense. “All courts are in agreement that what is usually referred to as ‘factual impossibility’ is no defense to a charge of attempt.” 2 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 11.5(a)(2) (2d ed. 2003). (The author gives as an example “the intended sale of an illegal drug [that] actually involved a different substance.” Ibid.) See also United States v. Hamrick, 43 F. 3d 877, 885 (CA4 1995) (en banc) (holding that impossibility is no defense to attempt and citing the holdings of four other Circuits); ALI, Model Penal Code §5.01, Comment, p. 307 (in attempt prosecutions “the defendant’s conduct should be measured according to the circumstances as he believes them to be, rather than the circumstances as they may have existed in fact”).
Under this heading the Eleventh Circuit also thought that the statute could apply to someone who subjectively believes that an innocuous picture of a child is “lascivious.” (Clause (v) of the definition of “sexually explicit conduct” is “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.” §2256(2)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. V).) That is not so. The defendant must believe that the picture contains certain material, and that material in fact (and not merely in his estimation) must meet the statutory definition. Where the material at issue is a harmless picture of a child in a bathtub and the defendant, knowing that material, erroneously believes that it constitutes a “lascivious exhibition of the genitals,” the statute has no application.
Williams and amici raise other objections, which demonstrate nothing so forcefully as the tendency of our over-breadth doctrine to summon forth an endless stream of fanciful hypotheticals. Williams argues, for example, that a person who offers nonpornographic photographs of young girls to a pedophile could be punished under the statute if the pedophile secretly expects that the pictures will contain child pornography. Brief for Respondent 19-20. That hypothetical does not implicate the statute, because the offeror does not hold the belief or intend the recipient to believe that the material is child pornography.
Amici contend that some advertisements for mainstream Hollywood movies that depict underage characters having sex violate the statute. Brief for Free Speech Coalition et al. as Amici Curiae 9-18. We think it implausible that a reputable distributor of Hollywood movies, such as Amazon, com, believes that one of these films contains actual children engaging in actual or simulated sex on camera; and even more implausible that Amazon.com would intend to make its customers believe such a thing. The average person understands that sex scenes in mainstream movies use nonchild actors, depict sexual activity in a way that would not rise to the explicit level necessary under the statute, or, in most cases, both.
There was raised at oral argument the question whether turning child pornography over to the police might not count as “present[ing]” the material. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 9-11. An interpretation of “presents” that would include turning material over to the authorities would of course be self-defeating in a statute that looks to the prosecution of people who deal in child pornography. And it would effectively nullify § 2252A(d), which provides an affirmative defense to the possession ban if a defendant promptly delivers child pornography to a law-enforcement agency. (The possession offense would simply be replaced by a pandering offense for delivering the material to law-enforcement officers.) In any event, the verb “present” — along with “distribute” and “advertise,” as well as “give,” “lend,” “deliver,” and “transfer” — was used in the definition of “promote” in Ferber. See 458 U. S., at 751 (quoting N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §263.15 (McKinney 1980)). Despite that inclusion, we had no difficulty concluding that the New York statute survived facial challenge. And in the period since Ferber, despite similar statutory definitions in other state statutes, see, e. g., Alaska Stat. § 11.61.125(d) (2006), Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §1109(5) (2007), we are aware of no prosecution for giving child pornography to the police. We can hardly say, therefore, that there is a “realistic danger” that § 2252A(a)(3)(B) will deter such activity. New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U. S. 1, 11 (1988) (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97-98 (1940)).
It was also suggested at oral argument that the statute might cover documentary footage of atrocities being committed in foreign countries, such as soldiers raping young children. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-7. Perhaps so, if the material rises to the high level of explicitness that we have held is required. That sort of documentary footage could of course be the subject of an as-applied challenge. The courts presumably would weigh the educational interest in the dissemination of information about the atrocities against the government’s interest in preventing the distribution of materials that constitute “a permanent record” of the children’s degradation whose dissemination increases “the harm to the child.” Ferber, supra, at 759. Assuming that the constitutional balance would have to be struck in favor of the documentary, the existence of that exception would not establish that the statute is substantially overbroad. The “mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 800 (1984). In the vast majority of its applications, this statute raises no constitutional problems whatever.
Finally, the dissent accuses us of silently overruling our prior decisions in Ferber and Free Speech Coalition. See post, at 320 (opinion of Souter, J.). According to the dissent, Congress has made an end run around the First Amendment’s protection of virtual child pornography by prohibiting proposals to transact in such images rather than prohibiting the images themselves. But an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means “a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,” post, at 321. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography. The dissent would require an exception from the statute’s prohibition when, unbeknownst to one or both of the parties to the proposal, the completed transaction would not have been unlawful because it is (we have said) protected by the First Amendment. We fail to see what First Amendment interest would be served by drawing a distinction between two defendants who attempt to acquire contraband, one of whom happens to be mistaken about the contraband nature of what he would acquire. Is Congress prohibited from punishing those who attempt to acquire what they believe to be national-security documents, but which are actually fakes? To ask is to answer. There is no First Amendment exception from the general principle of criminal law that a person attempting to commit a crime need not be exonerated because he has a mistaken view of the facts.
Ill
As an alternative ground for facial invalidation, the Eleventh Circuit held that § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is void for vagueness. Vagueness doctrine is an outgrowth not of the First Amendment, but of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A conviction fails to comport with due process if the statute under which it is obtained fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703, 732 (2000); see also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 108-109 (1972). Although ordinarily “[a] plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others,” we have relaxed that requirement in the First Amendment context, permitting plaintiffs to argue that a statute is overbroad because it is unclear whether it regulates a substantial amount of protected speech. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489, 494-495, and nn. 6 and 7 (1982); see also Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 870-874 (1997). But “perfect clarity and precise guidance have never been required even of regulations that restrict expressive activity.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 794 (1989).
The Eleventh Circuit believed that the phrases “ ‘in a manner that reflects the belief’” and “‘in a manner... that is intended to cause another to believe’ ” are “so vague and standardless as to what may not be said that the public is left with no objective measure to which behavior can be conformed.” 444 F. 3d, at 1306. The court gave two examples. First, an e-mail claiming to contain photograph attachments and including a message that says “ ‘little Janie in the bath— hubba, hubba!’ ” Ibid. According to the Eleventh Circuit, given that the statute does not require the actual existence of illegal material, the Government would have “virtually unbounded discretion” to deem such a statement in violation of the “ ‘reflects the belief’ ” prong. Ibid. The court’s second example was an e-mail entitled “ ‘Good pics of kids in bed’ ” with a photograph attachment of toddlers in pajamas asleep in their beds. Ibid. The court described three hypothetical senders: a proud grandparent, a “chronic forwarder of cute photos with racy tongue-in-cheek subject lines,” and a child molester who seeks to trade the photographs for more graphic material. Id., at 1306-1307. According to the Eleventh Circuit, because the “manner” in which the photographs are sent is the same in each case, and because the identity of the sender and the content of the photographs are irrelevant under the statute, all three senders could arguably be prosecuted for pandering. Id., at 1307.
We think that neither of these hypotheticals, without further facts, would enable a reasonable juror to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the speaker believed and spoke in a manner that reflected the belief, or spoke in a manner intended to cause another to believe, that
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) mandates that an inmate exhaust "such administrative remedies as are available" before bringing suit to challenge prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The court below adopted an unwritten "special circumstances" exception to that provision, permitting some prisoners to pursue litigation even when they have failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. Today, we reject that freewheeling approach to exhaustion as inconsistent with the PLRA. But we also underscore that statute's built-in exception to the exhaustion requirement: A prisoner need not exhaust remedies if they are not "available." The briefs and other submissions filed in this case suggest the possibility that the aggrieved inmate lacked an available administrative remedy. That issue remains open for consideration on remand, in light of the principles stated below.
I
Respondent Shaidon Blake is an inmate in a Maryland prison. On June 21, 2007, two guards-James Madigan and petitioner Michael Ross-undertook to move him from his regular cell to the facility's segregation unit. According to Blake's version of the facts, Ross handcuffed him and held him by the arm as they left the cell; Madigan followed close behind. Near the top of a flight of stairs, Madigan shoved Blake in the back. Ross told Madigan he had Blake under control, and the three continued walking. At the bottom of the stairs, Madigan pushed Blake again and then punched him four times in the face, driving his head into the wall. After a brief pause, Madigan hit Blake one last time. Ross kept hold of Blake throughout the assault. And when the blows subsided, Ross helped Madigan pin Blake to the ground until additional officers arrived.
Later that day, Blake reported the assault to a senior corrections officer. That officer thought Madigan at fault, and so referred the incident to the Maryland prison system's Internal Investigative Unit (IIU). Under state law, the IIU has authority to investigate allegations of employee misconduct, including the use of "excessive force." Code of Md. Regs., tit. 12, § 11.01.05(A)(3) (2006). After conducting a year-long inquiry into the beating, the IIU issued a final report condemning Madigan's actions, while making no findings with respect to Ross. See App. 191-195. Madigan resigned to avoid being fired.
Blake subsequently sued both guards under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Madigan had used unjustifiable force and that Ross had failed to take protective action. The claim against Madigan went to a jury, which awarded Blake a judgment of $50,000. But unlike Madigan, Ross raised the PLRA's exhaustion requirement as an affirmative defense, contending that Blake had brought suit without first following the prison's prescribed procedures for obtaining an administrative remedy. As set out in Maryland's Inmate Handbook, that process-called, not very fancifully, the Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP)-begins with a formal grievance to the prison's warden; it may also involve appeals to the Commissioner of Correction and then the Inmate Grievance Office (IGO). See Maryland Div. of Correction, Inmate Handbook 30-31 (2007). Blake acknowledged that he had not sought a remedy through the ARP-because, he thought, the IIU investigation served as a substitute for that otherwise standard process. The District Court rejected that explanation and dismissed the suit, holding that "the commencement of an internal investigation does not relieve prisoners from the [PLRA's] exhaustion requirement." Blake v. Maynard, No. 8:09-cv-2367 (D.Md., Nov. 14, 2012), App. to Pet. for Cert. 38, 2012 WL 5568940, *5.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed in a divided decision. Stating that the PLRA's "exhaustion requirement is not absolute," the court adopted an extra-textual exception originally formulated by the Second Circuit. 787 F.3d 693, 698 (2015). Repeated the Court of Appeals: "[T]here are certain 'special circumstances' in which, though administrative remedies may have been available[,] the prisoner's failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements may nevertheless have been justified." Ibid. (quoting Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 676 (C.A.2 2004) ). In particular, that was true when a prisoner "reasonably"-even though mistakenly-"believed that he had sufficiently exhausted his remedies." 787 F.3d, at 695. And Blake, the court concluded, fit within that exception because he reasonably thought that "the IIU's investigation removed his complaint from the typical ARP process." Id., at 700. Judge Agee dissented, stating that the PLRA's mandatory exhaustion requirement is not "amenable" to "[j]udge-made exceptions." Id., at 703. This Court granted certiorari. 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 614, 193 L.Ed.2d 495 (2015).
II
The dispute here concerns whether the PLRA's exhaustion requirement, § 1997e(a), bars Blake's suit. Statutory text and history alike foreclose the Fourth Circuit's adoption of a "special circumstances" exception to that mandate. But Blake's suit may yet be viable. Under the PLRA, a prisoner need exhaust only "available" administrative remedies. And Blake's contention that the prison's grievance process was not in fact available to him warrants further consideration below.
A
Statutory interpretation, as we always say, begins with the text, see, e.g., Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 251, 130 S.Ct. 2149, 176 L.Ed.2d 998 (2010) -but here following that approach at once distances us from the Court of Appeals. As Blake acknowledges, that court made no attempt to ground its analysis in the PLRA's language. See 787 F.3d, at 697-698 ; Brief for Respondent 47-48, n. 20 (labeling the Court of Appeals' rule an "extra-textual exception to the PLRA's exhaustion requirement"). And that failure makes a difference, because the statute speaks in unambiguous terms opposite to what the Fourth Circuit said.
Section 1997e(a) provides: "No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." As we have often observed, that language is "mandatory": An inmate "shall" bring "no action" (or said more conversationally, may not bring any action) absent exhaustion of available administrative remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) ; accord, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) ("There is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA"). As later discussed, that edict contains one significant qualifier: the remedies must indeed be "available" to the prisoner. See infra, at 1858 - 1860. But aside from that exception, the PLRA's text suggests no limits on an inmate's obligation to exhaust-irrespective of any "special circumstances."
And that mandatory language means a court may not excuse a failure to exhaust, even to take such circumstances into account. See Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 337, 120 S.Ct. 2246, 147 L.Ed.2d 326 (2000) (explaining that "[t]he mandatory 'shall' ... normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion"). No doubt, judge-made exhaustion doctrines, even if flatly stated at first, remain amenable to judge-made exceptions. See McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969) ("The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies ... is, like most judicial doctrines, subject to numerous exceptions"). But a statutory exhaustion provision stands on a different footing. There, Congress sets the rules-and courts have a role in creating exceptions only if Congress wants them to. For that reason, mandatory exhaustion statutes like the PLRA establish mandatory exhaustion regimes, foreclosing judicial discretion. See, e.g., McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 111, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993) ("We are not free to rewrite the statutory text" when Congress has strictly "bar[red] claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies"). Time and again, this Court has taken such statutes at face value-refusing to add unwritten limits onto their rigorous textual requirements. See, e.g., id., at 111, 113 S.Ct. 1980 ; Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc ., 529 U.S. 1, 12-14, 120 S.Ct. 1084, 146 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000) ; see also 2 R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.3, p. 1241 (5th ed. 2010) (collecting cases).
We have taken just that approach in construing the PLRA's exhaustion provision-rejecting every attempt to deviate (as the Fourth Circuit did here) from its textual mandate. In Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001), for example, the prisoner argued that exhaustion was not necessary because he wanted a type of relief that the administrative process did not provide. But § 1997e(a), we replied, made no distinctions based on the particular "forms of relief sought and offered," and that legislative judgment must control: We would not read "exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where Congress has provided otherwise." Id., at 741, n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819. The next year, in Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002), the Court rejected a proposal to carve out excessive-force claims (like Blake's) from the PLRA's exhaustion regime, viewing that approach too as inconsistent with the uncompromising statutory text. And most recently, in Woodford, we turned aside a requested exception for constitutional claims. 548 U.S., at 91, n. 2, 126 S.Ct. 2378. Our explanation was familiar: "We are interpreting and applying" not a judge-made doctrine but a "statutory requirement," and therefore must honor Congress's choice. Ibid. All those precedents rebut the Court of Appeals' adoption of a "special circumstances" excuse for non-exhaustion.
So too, the history of the PLRA underscores the mandatory nature of its exhaustion regime. Section § 1997e(a)'s precursor, enacted in the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), § 7, 94 Stat. 352 (1980), was a "weak exhaustion provision." Woodford, 548 U.S., at 84, 126 S.Ct. 2378. Under CRIPA, a court would require exhaustion only if a State provided "plain, speedy, and effective" remedies meeting federal minimum standards-and even then, only if the court believed exhaustion "appropriate and in the interests of justice." § 7(a), 94 Stat. 352. That statutory scheme made exhaustion "in large part discretionary." Nussle, 534 U.S., at 523, 122 S.Ct. 983. And for that reason (among others), CRIPA proved inadequate to stem the then-rising tide of prisoner litigation. In enacting the PLRA, Congress thus substituted an "invigorated" exhaustion provision. Woodford, 548 U.S., at 84, 126 S.Ct. 2378. "[D]iffer[ing] markedly from its predecessor," the new § 1997e(a) removed the conditions that administrative remedies be "plain, speedy, and effective" and that they satisfy minimum standards. Nussle, 534 U.S., at 524, 122 S.Ct. 983. Still more, the PLRA prevented a court from deciding that exhaustion would be unjust or inappropriate in a given case. As described earlier, see supra, at 1856 - 1857, all inmates must now exhaust all available remedies: "Exhaustion is no longer left to the discretion of the district court." Woodford, 548 U.S., at 85, 126 S.Ct. 2378.
The PLRA's history (just like its text) thus refutes a "special circumstances" exception to its rule of exhaustion. That approach, if applied broadly, would resurrect CRIPA's scheme, in which a court could look to all the particulars of a case to decide whether to excuse a failure to exhaust available remedies. But as we have observed, such wide-ranging discretion "is now a thing of the past." Booth, 532 U.S., at 739, 121 S.Ct. 1819. And the conflict with the PLRA's history (as again with its text) becomes scarcely less stark if the Fourth Circuit's exception is confined, as the court may have intended, to cases in which a prisoner makes a reasonable mistake about the meaning of a prison's grievance procedures. Understood that way, the exception reintroduces CRIPA's requirement that the remedial process be "plain"-that is, not subject to any reasonable misunderstanding or disagreement. § 7(a), 94 Stat. 352. When Congress amends legislation, courts must "presume it intends [the change] to have real and substantial effect." Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 397, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). The Court of Appeals instead acted as though the amendment-from a largely permissive to a mandatory exhaustion regime-had not taken place.
B
Yet our rejection of the Fourth Circuit's "special circumstances" exception does not end this case-because the PLRA contains its own, textual exception to mandatory exhaustion. Under § 1997e(a), the exhaustion requirement hinges on the "availab[ility]" of administrative remedies: An inmate, that is, must exhaust available remedies, but need not exhaust unavailable ones. And that limitation on an inmate's duty to exhaust-although significantly different from the "special circumstances" test or the old CRIPA standard-has real content. As we explained in Booth, the ordinary meaning of the word "available" is " 'capable of use for the accomplishment of a purpose,' and that which 'is accessible or may be obtained.' "
532 U.S., at 737-738, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 150 (1993)); see also Random House Dictionary of the English Language 142 (2d ed. 1987) ("suitable or ready for use"); 1 Oxford English Dictionary 812 (2d ed. 1989) ("capable of being made use of, at one's disposal, within one's reach"); Black's Law Dictionary 135 (6th ed. 1990) ("useable"; "present or ready for immediate use"). Accordingly, an inmate is required to exhaust those, but only those, grievance procedures that are "capable of use" to obtain "some relief for the action complained of." Booth, 532 U.S., at 738, 121 S.Ct. 1819.
To state that standard, of course, is just to begin; courts in this and other cases must apply it to the real-world workings of prison grievance systems. Building on our own and lower courts' decisions, we note as relevant here three kinds of circumstances in which an administrative remedy, although officially on the books, is not capable of use to obtain relief. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29 (Solicitor General as amicus curiae acknowledging these three kinds of unavailability). Given prisons' own incentives to maintain functioning remedial processes, we expect that these circumstances will not often arise. See Woodford, 548 U.S., at 102, 126 S.Ct. 2378. But when one (or more) does, an inmate's duty to exhaust "available" remedies does not come into play.
First, as Booth made clear, an administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a simple dead end-with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates. See 532 U.S., at 736, 738, 121 S.Ct. 1819. Suppose, for example, that a prison handbook directs inmates to submit their grievances to a particular administrative office-but in practice that office disclaims the capacity to consider those petitions. The procedure is not then "capable of use" for the pertinent purpose. In Booth 's words: "[S]ome redress for a wrong is presupposed by the statute's requirement" of an "available" remedy; "where the relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief," the inmate has "nothing to exhaust." Id., at 736, and n. 4, 121 S.Ct. 1819. So too if administrative officials have apparent authority, but decline ever to exercise it. Once again: "[T]he modifier 'available' requires the possibility of some relief." Id., at 738, 121 S.Ct. 1819. When the facts on the ground demonstrate that no such potential exists, the inmate has no obligation to exhaust the remedy.
Next, an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use. In this situation, some mechanism exists to provide relief, but no ordinary prisoner can discern or navigate it. As the Solicitor General put the point: When rules are "so confusing that ... no reasonable prisoner can use them," then "they're no longer available." Tr. of Oral Arg. 23. That is a significantly higher bar than CRIPA established or the Fourth Circuit suggested: The procedures need not be sufficiently "plain" as to preclude any reasonable mistake or debate with respect to their meaning. See § 7(a), 94 Stat. 352; 787 F.3d, at 698-699 ; supra, at 1855, 1857 - 1859. When an administrative process is susceptible of multiple reasonable interpretations, Congress has determined that the inmate should err on the side of exhaustion. But when a remedy is, in Judge Carnes's phrasing, essentially "unknowable"-so that no ordinary prisoner can make sense of what it demands-then it is also unavailable. See Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1323 (C.A.11 2007) ; Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1084 (C.A.11 2008) ("Remedies that rational inmates cannot be expected to use are not capable of accomplishing their purposes and so are not available"). Accordingly, exhaustion is not required.
And finally, the same is true when prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation. In Woodford, we recognized that officials might devise procedural systems (including the blind alleys and quagmires just discussed) in order to "trip[ ] up all but the most skillful prisoners." 548 U.S., at 102, 126 S.Ct. 2378. And appellate courts have addressed a variety of instances in which officials misled or threatened individual inmates so as to prevent their use of otherwise proper procedures. As all those courts have recognized, such interference with an inmate's pursuit of relief renders the administrative process unavailable. And then, once again, § 1997e(a) poses no bar.
The facts of this case raise questions about whether, given these principles, Blake had an "available" administrative remedy to exhaust. As explained earlier, Ross's exhaustion defense rests on Blake's failure to seek relief through Maryland's ARP process, which begins with a grievance to the warden and may continue with appeals to the Commissioner of Correction and the IGO. See supra, at 1855 - 1856; Inmate Handbook, at 30-31. That process is the standard method for addressing inmate complaints in the State's prisons: The Inmate Handbook provides that prisoners may use the ARP for "all types" of grievances (subject to four exceptions not relevant here), including those relating to the use of force. Id., at 30; see App. 312. But recall that Maryland separately maintains the IIU to look into charges of staff misconduct in prisons, and the IIU did just that here. See supra, at 1855. Blake urged in the courts below that once the IIU commences such an inquiry, a prisoner cannot obtain relief through the standard ARP process-whatever the Handbook may say to the contrary. See 787 F.3d, at 697 ; App. to Pet. for Cert. 38, 2012 WL 5568940, at *5. And in this Court, that issue has taken on new life. Both Blake and Ross (as represented by the Maryland attorney general) have lodged additional materials relating to the interaction between the IIU and the ARP. And both sides' submissions, although scattershot and in need of further review, lend some support to Blake's account-while also revealing Maryland's grievance process to have, at least at first blush, some bewildering features.
Blake's filings include many administrative dispositions (gleaned from the records of other prisoner suits) indicating that Maryland wardens routinely dismiss ARP grievances as procedurally improper when parallel IIU investigations are pending. One warden, for example, wrote in response to a prisoner's complaint: "Your Request for Administrative Remedy has been received and is hereby dismissed. This issue has been assigned to the Division of Correction's Internal Investigative Unit (Case # 07-35-010621I/C), and will no longer be addressed through this process." Lodging of Respondent 1; see also, e.g., id ., at 18 ("Admin. Dismiss Final: This is being investigated outside of the ARP process by I.I.U."). In addition, Blake has submitted briefs of the Maryland attorney general (again, drawn from former prisoner suits) specifically recognizing that administrative practice. As the attorney general stated in one case: "Wilkerson filed an ARP request," but "his complaint already was being investigated by the [IIU], superceding an ARP investigation." Id ., at 23-24; see also, e.g., id., at 5 (Bacon's grievance "was dismissed because the issue had been assigned to [the] IIU and would no longer be addressed through the ARP process").
And Ross's own submissions offer some confirmation of Blake's view. Ross does not identify a single case in which a warden considered the merits of an ARP grievance while an IIU inquiry was underway. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6 (Maryland attorney general's office conceding that it had found none). To the contrary, his lodging contains still further evidence that wardens consistently dismiss such complaints as misdirected. See, e.g., Lodging of Petitioner 15 (District Court noting that "Gladhill was advised that no further action would be taken through the ARP process because the matter had been referred to the [IIU]"). Indeed, Ross' materials suggest that some wardens use a rubber stamp specially devised for that purpose; the inmate, that is, receives a reply stamped with the legend: "Dismissed for procedural reasons.... This issue is being investigated by IIU case number: ____. No further action shall be taken within the ARP process." Id., at 25, 32, 38; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-9 (Maryland attorney general's office conceding the stamp's existence and use).
Complicating the picture, however, are several cases in which an inmate refused to take a warden's jurisdictional "no" for an answer, resubmitted his grievance up the chain to the IGO, and there received a ruling on the merits, without any discussion of the ARP/IIU issue. We confess to finding these few cases perplexing in relation to normal appellate procedure. See id ., at 3-10, 13-15, 18-20 (multiple Justices expressing confusion about Maryland's procedures). If the IGO thinks the wardens wrong to dismiss complaints because of pending IIU investigations, why does it not say so and stop the practice? Conversely, if the IGO thinks the wardens right, how can it then issue merits decisions? And if that really is Maryland's procedure-that when an IIU investigation is underway, the warden (and Commissioner of Correction) cannot consider a prisoner's complaint, but the IGO can-why does the Inmate Handbook not spell this out? Are there, instead, other materials provided to prisoners that communicate how this seemingly unusual process works and how to navigate it so as to get a claim heard?
In light of all these lodgings and the questions they raise about Maryland's grievance process, we remand this case for further consideration of whether Blake had "available" remedies to exhaust. The materials we have seen are not conclusive; they may not represent the complete universe of relevant documents, and few have been analyzed in the courts below. On remand, in addition to considering any other arguments still alive in this case, the court must perform a thorough review of such materials, and then address the legal issues we have highlighted concerning the availability of administrative remedies. First, did Maryland's standard grievance procedures potentially offer relief to Blake or, alternatively, did the IIU investigation into his assault foreclose that possibility? Second, even if the former, were those procedures knowable by an ordinary prisoner in Blake's situation, or was the system so confusing that no such inmate could make use of it? And finally, is there persuasive evidence that Maryland officials thwarted the effective invocation of the administrative process through threats, game-playing, or misrepresentations, either on a system-wide basis or in the individual case? If the court accepts Blake's probable arguments on one or more of these scores, then it should find (consistent this time with the PLRA) that his suit may proceed even though he did not file an ARP complaint.
III
Courts may not engraft an unwritten "special circumstances" exception onto the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. The only limit to § 1997e(a)'s mandate is the one baked into its text: An inmate need exhaust only such administrative remedies as are "available." On remand, the court below must consider how that modifying term affects Blake's case-that is, whether the remedies he failed to exhaust were "available" under the principles set out here. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join the Court's opinion except for the discussion of Maryland's prison-grievance procedures, ante, at 1854 - 1862, which needlessly wades into respondent Shaidon Blake's questionable lodgings of new documents in this Court. Those documents are not part of the appellate record. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 10(a). We have "consistently condemned" attempts to influence our decisions by submitting "additional or different evidence that is not part of the certified record." S. Shapiro, K. Geller, T. Bishop, E. Hartnett, & D. Himmelfarb, Supreme Court Practice § 13.11(k), p. 743 (10th ed. 2013). Perhaps Blake's newfound documents are subject to judicial notice as public records. See Fed. Rule Evid. 201. But I would not take such notice for the first time in this Court. It appears that Blake had a chance to submit many of his documents to the lower courts and failed to do so. Taking notice of the documents encourages gamesmanship and frustrates our review. I would let the Court of Appeals decide on remand whether to supplement the record, see Fed. Rule App. Proc. 10(e), or take notice of Blake's lodgings.
Justice BREYER, concurring in part.
I join the opinion of the Court, with the exception that I described in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). There, I agreed that "Congress intended the term 'exhausted' to 'mean what the term means in administrative law, where exhaustion means proper exhaustion.' " Id., at 103, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (opinion concurring in judgment). Though that statutory term does not encompass "freewheeling" exceptions for any " 'special circumstanc[e],' " ante, at 1855, it does include administrative law's "well-established exceptions to exhaustion." Woodford, supra, at 103, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (opinion of BREYER, J.). I believe that such exceptions, though not necessary to the Court's disposition of this case, may nevertheless apply where appropriate.
We note that our adherence to the PLRA's text runs both ways: The same principle applies regardless of whether it benefits the inmate or the prison. We have thus overturned judicial rulings that imposed extra-statutory limitations on a prisoner's capacity to sue-reversing, for example, decisions that required an inmate to demonstrate exhaustion in his complaint, permitted suit against only defendants named in the administrative grievance, and dismissed an entire action because of a single unexhausted claim. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). "[T]hese rules," we explained, "are not required by the PLRA," and "crafting and imposing them exceeds the proper limits on the judicial role." Ibid.
Of course, an exhaustion provision with a different text and history from § 1997e(a) might be best read to give judges the leeway to create exceptions or to itself incorporate standard administrative-law exceptions. See 2 R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.3, p. 1245 (5th ed. 2010). The question in all cases is one of statutory construction, which must be resolved using ordinary interpretive techniques.
See, e.g., Davis v. Hernandez, 798 F.3d 290, 295 (C.A.5 2015) ("Grievance procedures are unavailable ... if the correctional facility's staff misled the inmate as to the existence or rules of the grievance process so as to cause the inmate to fail to exhaust such process" (emphasis deleted)); Schultz v. Pugh, 728 F.3d 619, 620 (C.A.7 2013) ("A remedy is not available, therefore, to a prisoner prevented by threats or other intimidation by prison personnel from seeking an administrative remedy"); Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 906 (C.A.7 2011) ("[I]f prison officials misled [a prisoner] into thinking that ... he had done all he needed to initiate the grievance process," then "[a]n administrative remedy is not 'available' "); Tuckel v. Grover, 660 F.3d 1249, 1252-1253 (C.A.10 2011) ("[W]hen a prison official inhibits an inmate from utilizing an administrative process through threats or intimidation, that process can no longer be said to be 'available' "); Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1323 (C.A.11 2007) (If a prison "play[s] hide-and-seek with administrative remedies," then they are not "available").
Blake further notes that in 2008, a year after his beating, Maryland amended one of its prison directives to state expressly that when the IIU investigates an incident, an ARP grievance may not proceed. See App. 367, Md. Div. of Correction, Directive 185-003, § VI(N)(4) (Aug. 27, 2008) (The Warden "shall issue a final dismissal of [an ARP] request for procedural reasons when it has been determined that the basis of the complaint is the same basis of an investigation under the authority of the [IIU]"); Brief for Respondent 17-18. According to Blake, that amendment merely codified what his submissions show had long been the practice in Maryland prisons. See ibid.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A regulation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission authorizes refusal to hire an individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health, owing to a disability. The question in this case is whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V), permits the regulation. We hold that it does.
I
Beginning in 1972, respondent Mario Echazabal worked for independent contractors at an oil refinery owned by petitioner Chevron U. S. A. Inc. Twice he applied for a job directly with Chevron, which offered to hire him if he could pass the company’s physical examination. See 42 U. S. C. § 12112(d)(3) (1994 ed.). Each time, the exam showed liver abnormality or damage, the cause eventually being identified as Hepatitis C, which Chevron’s doctors said would be aggravated by continued exposure to toxins at Chevron’s refinery. In each instance, the company withdrew the offer, and the second time it asked the contractor employing Echazabal either to reassign him to a job without exposure to harmful chemicals or to remove him from the refinery altogether. The contractor laid him off in early 1996.
Echazabal filed suit, ultimately removed to federal court, claiming, among other things, that Chevron violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA or Act) in refusing to hire him, or even to let him continue working in the plant, because of a disability, his liver condition. Chevron defended under a regulation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) permitting the defense that a worker’s disability on the job would pose a “direct threat” to his health, see 29 CFR § 1630.15(b)(2) (2001). Although two medical witnesses disputed Chevron’s judgment that Echaza-bal’s liver function was impaired and subject to further damage under the job conditions in the refinery, the District Court granted summary judgment for Chevron. It held that Echazabal raised no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the company acted reasonably in relying on its own doctors’ medical advice, regardless of its accuracy.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit asked for briefs on a threshold question not raised before, whether the EEOC’s regulation recognizing a threat-to-self defense, ibid., exceeded the scope of permissible rulemaking under the ADA. 226 F. 3d 1063, 1066, n. 3 (2000). The Circuit held that it did and reversed the summary judgment. The court rested its position on the text of the ADA itself in explicitly recognizing an employer’s right to adopt an employment qualification barring anyone whose disability would place others in the workplace at risk, while saying nothing about threats to the disabled employee himself. The majority opinion reasoned that “by specifying only threats to ‘other individuals in the workplace,’ the statute makes it clear that threats to other persons — including the disabled individual himself — are not included within the scope of the [direct threat] defense,” id., at 1066-1067, and it indicated that any such regulation would unreasonably conflict with congressional policy against paternalism in the workplace, id., at 1067-1070. The court went on to reject Chevron’s further argument that Echaza-bal was not “ ‘otherwise qualified’ ” to perform the job, holding that the ability to perform a job without risk to one’s health or safety is not an “ ‘essential function’ ” of the job. Id., at 1070.
The decision conflicted with one from the Eleventh Circuit, Moses v. American Nonwovens, Inc., 97 F. 3d 446, 447 (1996), and raised tension with the Seventh Circuit case of Koshinski v. Decatur Foundry, Inc., 177 F. 3d 599, 603 (1999). We granted certiorari, 534 U. S. 991 (2001), and now reverse.
II
Section 102 of the ADA, 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq., prohibits “discrimination] against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability ... in regard to” a number of actions by an employer, including “hiring.” 42 U. S. C. § 12112(a). The statutory definition of “discrimination]” covers a number of things an employer might do to block a disabled person from advancing in the workplace, such as “using qualification standards . . . that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability.” § 12112(b)(6). By that same definition, ibid., as well as by separate provision, § 12113(a), the Act creates an affirmative defense for action under a qualification standard “shown to be job-related for the position in question and ... consistent with business necessity.” Such a standard may include “a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace,” § 12113(b), if the individual cannot perform the job safely with reasonable accommodation, § 12113(a). By regulation, the EEOC carries the defense one step further, in allowing an employer to screen out a potential worker with a disability not only for risks that he would pose to others in the workplace but for risks on the job to his own health or safety as well: “The term ‘qualification standard’ may include a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of the individual or others in the workplace.” 29 CFR § 1680.15(b)(2) (2001).
Chevron relies on the regulation here, since it says a job in the refinery would pose a “direct threat” to Echazabal’s health. In seeking deference to the agency, it argues that nothing in the statute unambiguously precludes such a defense, while the regulation was adopted under authority explicitly delegated by Congress, 42 U. S. C. § 12116, and after notice-and-comment rulemaking. See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 227 (2001); Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-844 (1984). Echazabal, on the contrary, argues that as a matter of law the statute precludes the regulation, which he claims would be an unreasonable interpretation even if the agency had leeway to go beyond the literal text.
A
As for the textual bar to any agency action as a matter of law, Echazabal says that Chevron loses on the threshold question whether the statute leaves a gap for the EEOC to fill. See id., at 843-844. Echazabal recognizes the generality of the language providing for a defense when a plaintiff is screened out by “qualification standards” that are “job-related and consistent with business necessity” (and reasonable accommodation would not cure the difficulty posed by employment). 42 U. S. C. § 12113(a). Without more, those provisions would allow an employer to turn away someone whose work would pose a serious risk to himself. That possibility is said to be eliminated, however, by the further specification that “‘qualification standards’ may include a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace.” § 12113(b); see also §12111(3) (defining “direct threat” in terms of risk to others). Echazabal contrasts this provision with an EEOC regulation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 357, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 701 et seq., antedating the ADA, which recognized an employer’s right to consider threats both to other workers and to the threatening employee himself. Because the ADA defense provision recognizes threats only if they extend to another, Echazabal reads the statute to imply as a matter of law that threats to the worker himself cannot count.
The argument follows the reliance of the Ninth Circuit majority on the interpretive canon, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned.” United States v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55, 65 (2002). The rule is fine when it applies, but this case joins some others in showing when it does not. See, e. g., ibid.; United Dominion Industries, Inc. v. United States, 532 U. S. 822, 836 (2001); Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U. S. 680, 703 (1991).
The first strike against the expression-exclusion rule here is right in the text that Echazabal quotes. Congress included the harm-to-others provision as an example of legitimate qualifications that are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” These are spacious defensive categories, which seem to give an agency (or in the absence of agency action, a court) a good deal of discretion in setting the limits of permissible qualification standards. That discretion is confirmed, if not magnified, by the provision that “qualification standards” falling within the limits of job relation and business necessity “may include” a veto on those who would directly threaten others in the workplace. Far from supporting Echazabal’s position, the expansive phrasing of “may include” points directly away from the sort of exclusive specification he claims. United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U. S. 159, 169 (1977); Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U. S. 95, 100 (1941).
Just as statutory language suggesting exclusiveness is missing, so is that essential extrastatutory ingredient of an expression-exclusion demonstration, the series of terms from which an omission bespeaks a negative implication. The canon depends on identifying a series of two or more terms or things that should be understood to go hand in hand, which is abridged in circumstances supporting a sensible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded. E. Crawford, Construction of Statutes 337 (1940) (expressio unius “ ‘properly applies only when in the natural association of ideas in the mind of the reader that which is expressed is so set over by way of strong contrast to that which is omitted that the contrast enforces the affirmative inference’” (quoting State ex rel. Curtis v. De Corps, 134 Ohio St. 295, 299, 16 N. E. 2d 459, 462 (1938))); United States v. Vonn, supra.
Strike two in this case is the failure to identify any such established series, including both threats to others and threats to self, from which Congress appears to have made a deliberate choice to omit the latter item as a signal of the affirmative defense’s scope. The closest Echazabal comes is the EEOC’s rule interpreting the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 357, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 701 et seq., a precursor of the ADA. That statute excepts from the definition of a protected “qualified individual with a handicap” anyone who would pose a “direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals,” but, like the later ADA, the Rehabilitation Act says nothing about threats to self that particular employment might pose. 42 U. S. C. § 12113(b). The EEOC nonetheless extended the exception to cover threat-to-self employment, 29 CFR § 1613.702(f) (1990), and Echazabal argues that Congress’s adoption only of the threat-to-others exception in the ADA must have been a deliberate omission of the Rehabilitation Act regulation’s tandem term of threat-to-self, with intent to exclude it.
But two reasons stand in the way of treating the omission as an unequivocal implication of congressional intent. The first is that the EEOC was not the only agency interpreting the Rehabilitation Act, with the consequence that its regulation did not establish a clear, standard pairing of threats to self and others. While the EEOC did amplify upon the text of the Rehabilitation Act exclusion by recognizing threats to self along with threats to others, three other agencies adopting regulations under the Rehabilitation Act did not. See 28 CFR §42.540(0(1) (1990) (Department of Justice), 29 CFR § 32.3 (1990) (Department of Labor), and 45 CFR § 84.3(k)(l) (1990) (Department of Health and Human Services). It would be a stretch, then, to say that there was a standard usage, with its source in agency practice or elsewhere, that connected threats to others so closely to threats to self that leaving out one was like ignoring a twin.
Even if we put aside this variety of administrative expérience, however, and look no further than the EEOC’s Rehabilitation Act regulation pairing self and others, the congressional choice to speak only of threats to others would still be equivocal. Consider what the ADA reference to threats to others might have meant on somewhat different facts. If the Rehabilitation Act had spoken only of “threats to health” and the EEOC regulation had read that to mean threats to self or others, a congressional choice to be more specific in the ADA by listing threats to others but not threats to self would have carried a message. The most probable reading would have been that Congress understood what a failure to specify could lead to and had made a choice to limit the possibilities. The statutory basis for any agency rule-making under the ADA would have been different from its basis under the Rehabilitation Act and would have indicated a difference in the agency’s rulemaking discretion. But these are not the circumstances hére. Instead of making the ADA different from the Rehabilitation Act on the point at issue, Congress used identical language, knowing full well what the EEOC had made of that language under the earlier statute. Did Congress mean to imply that the agency had been wrong in reading the earlier language to allow it to recognize threats to self, or did Congress just assume that the agency was free to do under the ADA what it had already done under the earlier Act’s identical language? There is no way to tell. Omitting the EEOC’s reference to self-harm while using the very language that the EEOC had read as consistent with recognizing self-harm is equivocal at best. No negative inference is possible.
There is even a third strike against applying the expression-exclusion rule here. It is simply that there is no apparent stopping point to the argument that by specifying a threat-to-others defense Congress intended a negative implication about those whose safety could be considered. When Congress specified threats to others in the workplace, for example, could it possibly have meant that an employer could not defend a refiisal to hire when a worker’s disability would threaten others outside the workplace? If Typhoid Mary had come under the ADA, would a meat packer have been defenseless if Mary had sued after being turned away? See 42 U. S. C. § 12113(d). Expressio unius just fails to work here.
B
Since Congress has not spoken exhaustively on threats to a worker’s own health, the agency regulation can claim adherence under the rule in Chevron, 467 U. S., at 843, so long as it makes sense of the statutory defense for qualification standards that are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U. S. C. § 12113(a). Chevron’s reasons for calling the regulation reasonable are unsurprising: moral concerns aside, it wishes to avoid time lost to sickness, excessive turnover from medical retirement or death, litigation under state tort law, and the risk of violating the national Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1590, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §651 et seq. Although Eehazabal claims that none of these reasons is legitimate, focusing on the concern with OSHA will be enough to show that the regulation is entitled to survive.
Eehazabal points out that there is no known instance of OSHA enforcement, or even threatened enforcement, against an employer who relied on the ADA to hire a worker willing to accept a risk to himself from his disability on the job. In Echazabal’s mind, this shows that invoking OSHA policy and possible OSHA liability is just a red herring to excuse covert discrimination. But there is another side to this. The text of OSHA itself says its point is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions,” § 651(b), and Congress specifically obligated an employer to “furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards, that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees,” § 654(a)(1). Although there may be an open question whether an employer would actually be liable under OSHA for hiring an individual who knowingly consented to the particular dangers the job would pose to him, see Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 19, n. 7, there is no denying that the employer would be asking for trouble: his decision to hire would put Congress’s policy in the ADA, a disabled individual’s right to operate on equal terms within the workplace, at loggerheads with the competing policy of OSHA, to ensure the safety of “each” and “every” worker. Courts would, of course, resolve the tension if there were no agency action, but the EEOC’s resolution exemplifies the substantive choices that agencies are expected to make when Congress leaves the intersection of competing objectives both imprecisely marked but subject to the administrative leeway found in 42 U. S. C. § 12113(a).
Nor can the EEOC’s resolution be fairly called unreasonable as allowing the kind of workplace paternalism the ADA was meant to outlaw. It is true that Congress had paternalism in its sights when it passed the ADA, see § 12101(a)(5) (recognizing “overproteetive rules and policies” as a form of discrimination). But the EEOC has taken this to mean that Congress was not aiming at an employer’s refusal to place disabled workers at a specifically demonstrated risk, but was trying to get at refusals to give an even break to classes of disabled people, while claiming to act for their own good in reliance on untested and pretextual stereotypes. Its regulation disallows just this sort of sham protection, through demands for a particularized enquiry into the harms the employee would probably face. The direct threat defense must be “based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence,” and upon an expressly “individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job,” reached after considering, among other things, the imminence of the risk and the severity of the harm portended. 29 CFR § 1630.2(r) (2001). The EEOC was certainly acting within the reasonable zone when it saw a difference between rejecting workplace paternalism and ignoring specific and documented risks to the employee himself, even if the employee would take his chances for the sake of getting a job.
Finally, our conclusions that some regulation is permissible and this one is reasonable are not open to Echazabal’s objection that they reduce the direct threat provision to “surplusage,” see Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore., 515 U. S. 687, 698 (1995). The mere fact that a threat-to-self defense reasonably falls within the general “job related” and “business necessity” standard does not mean that Congress accomplished nothing with its explicit provision for a defense based on threats to others. The provision made a conclusion clear that might otherwise have been fought over in litigation or administrative rule-making. It did not lack a job to do merely because the EEOC might have adopted the same rule later in applying the general defense provisions, nor was its job any less responsible simply because the agency was left with the option to go a step further. A provision can be useful even without congressional attention being indispensable.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
We do not consider the farther issue passed upon by the Ninth Circuit, which held that the respondent is a “ ‘qualified individual’ ” who “can perform the essential functions of the employment position,” 42 U. S. C. §12111(8) (1994 ed.). 226 F. 3d 1063, 1072 (2000). That issue will only resurface if the Circuit concludes that the decision of respondent’s employer to exclude him was not based on the sort of individualized medical enquiry required by the regulation, an issue on which the District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner and which we leave to the Ninth Circuit for initial appellate consideration if warranted.
Chevron did not dispute for purposes of its summary-judgment motion that Echazabal is “disabled” under the ADA, and Echazabal did not argue that Chevron could have made a ‘“reasonable accommodation.’” App. 184, n. 6.
In saying that the expansive textual phrases point in the direction of agency leeway we do not mean that the defense provisions place no limit on agency rulemaking. Without deciding whether all safety-related qualification standards must satisfy the ADA's direct-threat standard, see Al- bertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U. S. 555, 569-570, n. 15 (1999), we assume that some such regulations are implicitly precluded by the Act’s specification of a direct-threat defense, such as those allowing “indirect” threats of “insignificant” harm. This is so because the definitional and defense provisions describing the defense in terms of “direct” threats of “significant” harm, 42 Uj S. C. §§ 12113(b), 12111(3), are obviously intended to forbid qualifications that screen out by reference to general categories pretextually applied. See infra, at 85-86, and n. 5. Recognizing the “indirect” and “insignificant” would simply reopen the door to pretext by way of defense.
In fact, we have said that the regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, which had previously been the regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, are of “particular significance” in interpreting the Rehabilitation Act because “HEW was the agency responsible for coordinating the implementation and enforcement of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U. S. C. § 794,” prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities by recipients of federal funds. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U. S. 184, 195 (2002). Unfortunately for Echazabal’s argument, the congruence of the ADA with the HEW regulations does not produce an unequivocal statement of congressional intent.
Echazabal’s contention that the Act’s legislative history is to the contrary is unpersuasive. Although some of the comments within the legislative history decry paternalism in general terms, see, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, p. 72 (1990) (“It is critical that paternalistic concerns for the disabled person’s own safety not be used to disqualify an otherwise qualified applicant”); ADA Conf. Rep., 136 Cong. Rec. 17377 (1990) (statement of Sen. Kennedy) (“[A]n employer could not use as an excuse for not hiring a person with HIV disease the claim that the employer was simply ‘protecting the individual’ from opportunistic diseases to which the individual might be exposed”), those comments that elaborate actually express the more pointed concern that such justifications are usually pretextual, rooted in generalities and misperceptions about disabilities. See, e.g., H. R. Rep. No. 101-485, at 74 (“Generalized fear about risks from the employment environment, such as exacerbation of the disability caused by stress, cannot be used by an employer to disqualify a person with a disability”); S. Rep. No. 101-116, p. 28 (1989) (“It would also be a violation to deny employment to an applicant based on generalized fears about the safety of the applicant.... By definition, such fears are based on averages and group-based predictions. This legislation requires individualized assessments”).
Similarly, Echazabal points to several of our decisions expressing concern under Title VII, which like the ADA allows employers to defend otherwise discriminatory practices that are “consistent with business necessity,” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(k), with employers adopting rules that exclude women from jobs that are seen as too risky. See, e. g., Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 335 (1977); Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U. S. 187, 202 (1991). Those cases, however, are beside the point, as they, like Title VII generally, were concerned with paternalistic judgments based on the broad category of gender, while the EEOC has required that judgments based on the direct threat provision be made on the basis of individualized risk assessments.
Respect for this distinction does not entail the requirement, as Echaza-bal claims, that qualification standards be “neutral,” stating what the job requires, as distinct from a worker’s disqualifying characteristics. Brief for Respondent 26. It is just as much business necessity for skyscraper contractors to have steelworkers without vertigo as to have well-balanced ones. See 226 F. 3d, at 1074 (Trott, J., dissenting). Reasonableness does not turn on formalism. We have no occasion, however, to try to describe how acutely an employee must exhibit a disqualifying condition before an employer may exclude him from the class of the generally qualified. See Brief for Respondent 31. This is a job for the trial courts in the first instance.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner South Florida Water Management District operates a pumping facility that transfers water from a canal into a reservoir a short distance away. Respondents Micco-sukee Tribe of Indians and the Friends of the Everglades brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act contending that the pumping facility is required to obtain a discharge permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment to respondents. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit rested their holdings on the predicate determination that the canal and reservoir are two distinct water bodies. For the reasons explained below, we vacate and remand for further development of the factual record as to the accuracy of that determination.
I
A
The Central and South Florida Flood Control Project (Project) consists of a vast array of levees, canals, pumps, and water impoundment areas in the land between south Florida’s coastal hills and the Everglades. Historically, that land was itself part of the Everglades, and its surface and ground water flowed south in a uniform and unchanneled sheet. Starting in the early 1900’s, however, the State began to build canals to drain the wetlands and make them suitable for cultivation. These canals proved to be a source of trouble; they lowered the water table, allowing saltwater to intrude upon coastal wells, and they proved incapable of controlling flooding. Congress established the Project in 1948 to address these problems. It gave the United States Army Corps of Engineers the task of constructing a comprehensive network of levees, water storage areas, pumps, and canal improvements that would serve several simultaneous purposes, including flood protection, water conservation, and drainage. These improvements fundamentally altered the hydrology of the Everglades, changing the natural sheet flow of ground and surface water. The local sponsor and day-today operator of the Project is the South Florida Water Management District (District).
Five discrete elements of the Project are at issue in this case. One is a canal called “C-ll.” C-ll collects ground water and rainwater from a 104-square-mile area in south central Broward County. App. 110. The area drained by C-ll includes urban, agricultural, and residential development, and is home to 136,000 people. At the western terminus of C-ll is the second Project element at issue here: a large pump station known as “S-9.” When the water level in C-ll rises above a set level, S-9 begins operating and pumps water out of the canal. The water does not travel far. Sixty feet away, the pump station empties the water into a large undeveloped wetland area called “WCA-3,” the third element of the Project we consider here. WCA-3 is the largest of several “water conservation areas” that are remnants of the original South Florida Everglades. The District impounds water in these areas to conserve freshwater that might otherwise flow directly to the ocean, and to preserve wetlands habitat. Id., at 112.
Using pump stations like S-9, the District maintains the water table in WCA-3 at a level significantly higher than that in the developed lands drained by the C-ll canal to the east. Absent human intervention, that water would simply flow back east, where it would rejoin the waters of the canal and flood the populated areas of the C-ll basin. That return flow is prevented, or, more accurately, slowed, by levees that hold back the surface waters of WCA-3. Two of those levees, L-33 and L-37, are the final two elements of the Project at issue here. The combined effect of L-33 and L-37, C-ll, and S-9 is artificially to separate the C-ll basin from WCA-3; left to nature, the two areas would be a single wetland covered in an undifferentiated body of surface and ground water flowing slowly southward.
B
As the above description illustrates, the Project has wrought large-scale hydrologic and environmental change in South Florida, some deliberate and some accidental. Its most obvious environmental impact has been the conversion of what were once wetlands into areas suitable for human use. But the Project also has affected those areas that remain wetland ecosystems.
Rain on the western side of the L-33 and L-37 levees falls into the wetland ecosystem of WCA-3. Rain on the eastern side of the levees, on the other hand, falls on agricultural, urban, and residential land. Before it enters the C-ll canal, whether directly as surface runoff or indirectly as ground water, that rainwater absorbs contaminants produced by human activities. The water in C-ll therefore differs chemically from that in WCA-3. Of particular interest here, C-ll water contains elevated levels of phosphorous, which is found in fertilizers used by farmers in the C-ll basin. When water from C-ll is pumped across the levees, the phosphorous it contains alters the balance of WCA-3’s ecosystem (which is naturally low in phosphorous) and stimulates the growth of algae and plants foreign to the Everglades ecosystem.
The phosphorous-related impacts of the Project are well known and have received a great deal of attention from state and federal authorities for more than 20 years. A number of initiatives are currently under way to reduce these impacts and thereby restore the ecological integrity of the Everglades. Respondents Miecosukee Tribe of Indians and the Friends of the Everglades (hereinafter simply Tribe), impatient with the pace of this progress, brought this Clean Water Act suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. They sought, among other things, to enjoin the operation of S-9 and, in turn, the conveyance of water from C-ll into WCA-3.
C
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (Act) in 1972. Its stated objective was “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 86 Stat. 816,33 U. S. C. § 1251. To serve those ends, the Act prohibits “the discharge of any pollutant by any person” unless done in compliance with some provision of the Act. § 1311(a). The provision relevant to this case, § 1342, establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES. Generally speaking, the NPDES requires dis-chargers to obtain permits that place limits on the type and quantity of pollutants that can be released into the Nation’s waters. The Act defines the phrase “‘discharge of a pollutant’” to mean “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” §1362(12). A “‘point source,’ ” in turn, is defined as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance,” such as a pipe, ditch, channel, or tunnel, “from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” § 1362(14).
According to the Tribe, the District cannot operate S-9 without an NPDES permit because the pump station moves phosphorous-laden water from C-ll into WCA-3. The District does not dispute that phosphorous is a pollutant, or that C-ll and WCA-3 are “navigable waters” within the meaning of the Act. The question, it contends, is whether the operation of the S-9 pump constitutes the “discharge of [a] pollutant” within the meaning of the Act.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether S-9 requires an NPDES permit. The District Court granted the Tribe’s motion, reasoning as follows:
“In this case an addition of pollutants exists because undisputedly water containing pollutants is being discharged through S-9 from C-ll waters into the Everglades, both of which are separate bodies of United States water with ... different quality levels. They are two separate bodies of water because the transfer of water or its contents from C-ll into the Everglades would not occur naturally.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a-29a.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It reasoned first that “in determining whether pollutants are added to navigable waters for purposes of the [Act], the receiving body of water is the relevant body of navigable water.” 280 F. 3d 1364, 1368 (CA11 2002). After concluding that pollutants were indeed being added to WCA-3, the court then asked whether that addition of pollutants was from a “point source,” so as to trigger the NPDES permitting requirement. To answer that question, it explained:
“[F]or an addition of pollutants to be from a point source, the relevant inquiry is whether — but for the point source — the pollutants would have been added to the receiving body of water. We, therefore, conclude that an addition from a point source occurs if a point source is the cause-in-fact of the release of pollutants into navigable waters.
“When a point source changes the natural flow of a body of water which contains pollutants and causes that water to flow into another distinct body of navigable water into which it would not have otherwise flowed, that point source is the cause-in-fact of the discharge of pollutants.” Ibid, (footnote omitted).
Because it believed that the water in the C-ll canal would not flow into WCA-3 without the operation of the S-9 pump station, the Court of Appeals concluded that S-9 was the cause-in-fact of the addition of pollutants to WCA-3. It accordingly affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, and held that the S-9 pump station requires an NPDES permit. We granted certiorari. 539 U. S. 957 (2003).
II
The District and the Federal Government, as amicus, advance three separate arguments, any of which would, if accepted, lead to the conclusion that the S-9 pump station does not require a point source discharge permit under the NPDES program. Two of these arguments involve the application of disputed contentions of law to agreed-upon facts, while the third involves the application of agreed-upon law to disputed facts. For reasons explained below, we decline at this time to resolve all of the parties’ legal disagreements, and instead remand for further proceedings regarding their factual dispute.
A
In its opening brief on the merits, the District argued that the NPDES program applies to a point source “only when a pollutant originates from the point source,” and not when pollutants originating elsewhere merely pass through the point source. Brief for Petitioner 20. This argument mirrors the question presented in the District’s petition for cer-tiorari: “Whether the pumping of water by a state water management agency that adds nothing to the water being pumped constitutes an ‘addition’ of a pollutant ‘from’ a point source triggering the need for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit under the Clean Water Act.” Pet. for Cert. i. Although the Government rejects the District’s legal position, Brief for United States as Ami-cus Curiae 21, it and the Tribe agree with the factual proposition that S-9 does not itself add any pollutants to the water it conveys into WCA-3.
This initial argument is untenable, and even the District appears to have abandoned it in its reply brief. Reply Brief for Petitioner 2. A point source is, by definition, a “discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance.” §1362(14) (emphasis added). That definition makes plain that a point source need not be the original source of the pollutant; it need only convey the pollutant to “navigable waters,” which are, in turn, defined as “the waters of the United States.” § 1362(7). Tellingly, the examples of “point sources” listed by the Act include pipes, ditches, tunnels, and conduits, objects that do not themselves generate pollutants but merely transport them. §1362(14). In addition, one of the Act’s primary goals was to impose NPDES permitting requirements on municipal wastewater treatment plants. See, e. g., § 1311(b)(1)(B) (establishing a compliance schedule for publicly owned treatment works). But under the District’s interpretation of the Act, the NPDES program would not cover such plants, because they treat and discharge pollutants added to water by others. We therefore reject the District’s proposed reading of the definition of “ ‘discharge of a pollutant’ ” contained in § 1362(12). That definition includes within its reach point sources that do not themselves generate pollutants.
B
Having answered the precise question on which we granted certiorari, we turn to a second argument, advanced primarily by the Government as amicus curiae in merits briefing and at oral argument. For purposes of determining whether there has been “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,” ibid., the Government contends that all the water bodies that fall within the Act’s definition of “‘navigable waters’” (that is, all “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” § 1362(7)) should be viewed unitarily for purposes of NPDES permitting requirements. Because the Act requires NPDES permits only when there is an addition of a pollutant “to navigable waters,” the Government’s approach would lead to the conclusion that such permits are not required when water from one navigable water body is discharged, unaltered, into another navigable water body. That would be true even if one water body were polluted and the other pristine, and the two would not otherwise mix. See Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. New York, 273 F. 3d 481, 492 (CA2 2001); Dubois v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 102 F. 3d 1273 (CA1 1996). Under this “unitary waters” approach, the S-9 pump station would not need an NPDES permit.
1
The “unitary waters” argument focuses on the Act’s definition of a pollutant discharge as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” § 1362(12). The Government contends that the absence of the word “any” prior to the phrase “navigable waters” in §1362(12) signals Congress’ understanding that NPDES permits would not be required for pollution caused by the engineered transfer of one “navigable water” into another. It argues that Congress intended that such pollution instead would be addressed through local nonpoint source pollution programs. Section 1314(f)(2)(F), which concerns nonpoint sources, directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to give States information on the evaluation and control of “pollution resulting from ... changes in the movement, flow, or circulation of any navigable waters or ground waters, including changes caused by the construction of dams, levees, channels, causeways, or flow diversion facilities.”
We note, however, that § 1314(f)(2)(F) does not explicitly exempt nonpoint pollution sources from the NPDES program if they also fall within the “point source” definition. And several NPDES provisions might be read to suggest a view contrary to the unitary waters approach. For example, under the Act, a State may set individualized ambient water quality standards by taking into consideration “the designated uses of the navigable waters involved.” 33 U. S. C. § 1313(c)(2)(A). Those water quality standards, in turn, directly affect local NPDES permits; if standard permit conditions fail to achieve the water quality goals for a given water body, the State must determine the total pollutant load that the water body can sustain and then allocate that load among the permit holders who discharge to the water body. § 1313(d). This approach suggests that the Act protects individual water bodies as well as the “waters of the United States” as a whole.
The Government also suggests that we adopt the “unitary waters” approach out of deference to a longstanding EPA view that the process of “transporting, impounding, and releasing navigable waters” cannot constitute an “ ‘addition’ ” of pollutants to “ ‘the watérs of the United States.’ ” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16. But the Government does not identify any administrative documents in which EPA has espoused that position. Indeed, an amicus brief filed by several former EPA officials argues that the agency once reached the opposite conclusion. See Brief for Former Administrator Carol M. Browner et al. as Amici Curiae 17 (citing In re Riverside Irrigation Dist., 1975 WL 23864 (Ofc. Gen. Coun., June 27, 1975) (irrigation ditches that discharge to navigable waters require NPDES permits even if they themselves qualify as navigable waters)). The “unitary waters” approach could also conflict with current NPDES regulations. For example, 40 CFR § 122.45(g)(4) (2003) allows an industrial water user to obtain “intake credit” for pollutants present in water that it withdraws from navigable waters. When the permit holder discharges the water after use, it does not have to remove pollutants that were in the water before it was withdrawn. There is a caveat, however: EPA extends such credit “only if the dis-charger demonstrates that the intake water is drawn from the same body of water into which the discharge is made.” The NPDES program thus appears to address the movement of pollutants among water bodies, at least at times.
Finally, the Government and numerous amici warn that affirming the Court of Appeals in this case would have significant practical consequences. If we read the Act to require an NPDES permit for every engineered diversion of one navigable water into another, thousands of new permits might have to be issued, particularly by western States, whose water supply networks often rely on engineered transfers among various natural water bodies. See Brief for Colorado et al. as Amici Curiae 2-4. Many of those diversions might also require expensive treatment to meet water quality criteria. It may be that construing the NPDES program to cover such transfers would therefore raise the costs of water distribution prohibitively, and violate Congress’ specific instruction that “the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired” by the Act. § 1251(g). On the other hand, it may be that such permitting authority is necessary to protect water quality, and that the States or EPA could control regulatory costs by issuing general permits to point sources associated with water distribution programs. See 40 CFR §§ 122.28, 123.25 (2003). Indeed, that is the position of the one State that has interpreted the Act to cover interbasin water transfers. See Brief for Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection as Amicus Curiae 11-18.
2
Because WCA-3 and C-ll are both “navigable waters,” adopting the “unitary waters” approach would lead to the conclusion that the District may operate S-9 without an NPDES permit. But despite its relevance here, neither the District nor the Government raised the unitary waters approach before the Court of Appeals or in their briefs respecting the petition for certiorari. (The District adopted the position as its own in its reply brief on the merits.) Indeed, we are not aware of any reported case that examines the unitary waters argument in precisely the form that the Government now presents it. As a result, we decline to resolve it here. Because we find it necessary to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to a third argument presented by the District, the unitary waters argument will be open to the parties on remand.
C
In' the courts below, as here, the District contended that the C-ll canal and WCA-3 impoundment area are not distinct water bodies at all, but instead are two hydrologically indistinguishable parts of a single water body. The Government agrees with the District on this point, claiming that because the C-ll canal and WCA-3 “share a unique, intimately related, hydrological association,” they “can appropriately be viewed, for purposes of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as parts of a single body of water.” Brief for United States in Opposition 13. The Tribe does not dispute that if C-ll and WCA-3 are simply two parts of the same water body, pumping water from one into the other cannot constitute an “addition” of pollutants. As the Second Circuit put it in Trout Unlimited, “[i]f one takes a ladle of soup from a pot, lifts it above the pot, and pours it back into the pot, one has not ‘added’ soup or anything else to the pot.” 273 F. 3d, at 492. What the Tribe disputes is the accuracy of the District’s factual premise; according to the Tribe, C-ll and WCA-3 are two pots of soup, not one.
The record does contain information supporting the District’s view of the facts. Although C-ll and WCA-3 are divided from one another by the L-33 and L-37 levees, that line appears to be an uncertain one. Because Everglades soil is extremely porous, water flows easily between ground and surface waters, so much so that “[g]round and surface waters are essentially the same thing.” App. Ill, 117. C-ll and WCA-3, of course, share a common underlying aquifer. Tr. of Oral Arg. 42. Moreover, the L-33 and L-37 levees continually leak, allowing water to escape from WCA-3. This means not only that any boundary between C-ll and WCA-3 is indistinct, but also that there is some significant mingling of the two waters; the record reveals that even without use of the S-9 pump station, water travels as both seepage and ground water flow between the water conservation area and the C-ll basin. App. 172; see also id., at 37 (describing flow between C-ll and WCA-3 as “cyclical”).
The parties also disagree about how the relationship between S-9 and WCA-3 should be assessed. At oral argument, counsel for the Tribe focused on the differing “biological or ecosystem characteristics” of the respective waters, Tr. of Oral Arg. 43; see also Brief for Respondent Miccosukee Tribe of Indians 6-7; Brief for Respondent Friends of the Everglades 18-22, while counsel for the District emphasizes the close hydrological connections between the two. See, e. g., Brief for Petitioner 47. Despite these disputes, the District Court granted summary judgment to the Tribe. It applied a test that neither party defends; it determined that C-ll and WCA-3 are distinct “because the transfer of water or its contents from C-ll into the Everglades would not occur naturally.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit endorsed this test. 280 F. 3d, at 1368.
We do not decide here whether the District Court’s test is adequate for determining whether C-ll and WCA-3 are distinct. Instead, we hold only that the District Court applied its test prematurely. Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317 (1986). The record before us leads us to believe that some factual issues remain unresolved. The District Court certainly was correct to characterize the flow through the S-9 pump station as a nonnatural one, propelled as it is by diesel-fired motors against the pull of gravity. And it also appears true that if S-9 were shut down, the water in the C-ll canal might for a brief time flow east, rather than west, as it now does. But the effects of shutting down the pump might extend beyond that. The limited record before us suggests that if S-9 were shut down, the area drained by C-ll would flood quite quickly. See 280 F. 3d, at 1366 (“Without the operation of the S-9 pump station, the populated western portion of Broward County would flood within days”). That flooding might mean that C-ll would no longer be a “distinct body of navigable water,” id., at 1368, but part of a larger water body extending over WCA-3 and the C-ll basin. It also might call into question the Eleventh Circuit’s conclusion that S-9 is the cause in fact of phosphorous addition to WCA-3. Nothing in the record suggests that the District Court considered these issues when it granted summary judgment. Indeed, in ordering later emergency relief from its own injunction against the operation of the S-9 pump station, the court admitted that it had not previously understood that shutting down S-9 would “‘literally ope[n] the flood gates.’” Id., at 1371.
We find that further development of the record is necessary to resolve the dispute over the validity of the distinction between C-ll and WCA-3. After reviewing the full record, it is possible that, the District Court will conclude that C-ll and WCA-3 are not meaningfully distinct water bodies. If it does so, then the S-9 pump station will not need an NPDES permit. In addition, the Government’s broader “unitary waters” argument is open to the District on remand. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is vacated, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
An applicant for an individual NPDES permit must provide information about, among other things, the point source itself, the nature of the pollutants to be discharged, and any water treatment system that will be used. General permits greatly reduce that administrative burden by authorizing discharges from a category of point sources within a specified geographic area. Once EPA or a state agency issues such a permit, covered entities, in some cases, need take no further action to achieve compliance with the NPDES besides adhering to the permit conditions. See 40 CFR § 122.28(b)(2)(v) (2003).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This grant of certiorari requires us to construe the provision of the Assignment of Claims Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1029, 31 U. S. C. § 203, which provides:
“Any contract entered into by the War Department or the Navy Department may provide that payments to an assignee of any claim arising under such contract shall not be subject to reduction or set-off, and if it is so provided in such contract, such payments shall not be subject to reduction or set-off for any indebtedness of the assignor to the United States arising independently of such contract.”
The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Graham Ship Repair Company, a California partnership, entered into a contract for ship repair work with the Navy Department on December 30, 1944. As permitted by the Assignment of Claims Act of 1940, the contract authorized the Graham Company to assign the proceeds of the contract to a bank and payments to the assignee bank were not to be “subject to reduction or set-off for any indebtedness of the Contractor to the Government arising independently of this contract.”
After the contract had been made, the Graham Company arranged with petitioner, a California banking corporation, for the financing of the ship repair work. As security for the funds to be advanced, Graham assigned the proceeds payable under the contract to petitioner. This assignment was made on January 31, 1945. The Contracting Officer, Bureau of Ships, Navy Department, the Disbursing Officer and the General Accounting Office were duly notified of the assignment as required by the Act.
Pursuant to the assignment, the Graham Company-received substantial sums of money from petitioner for use in performing the contract. During the course of performance Graham failed to remit to the Collector of Internal Revenue $453,469.55 in withholding taxes, and $11,462.91 in federal unemployment taxes, which it had withheld, pursuant to §§ 1401 and 1622 of the Internal Revenue Code, from the salaries and wages of its employees who were engaged in work called for by the Navy contract. Instead of remitting these sums to the Collector, Graham had converted them to its own use. Because of this dereliction the contract was terminated by the Navy on March 31, 1946, and the individuals of the Graham partnership pleaded guilty to an indictment for willful attempt to evade the payment of the withheld taxes.
At the time the contract was terminated, Graham’s obligation to the Government for the unpaid withholding taxes, with interest and penalties, aggregated $616,750.95. At that time the sum of $110,966.08 was due Graham from the Government for work performed under the contract. Also at that time Graham was indebted to petitioner in an amount in excess of $110,966.08 for advances made by petitioner pursuant to the assignment.
Petitioner, as assignee, filed a claim for the balance due from the Government under the contract. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue also claimed that amount. The Comptroller General ruled that the $110,966.08 was a proper set-off against Graham’s tax indebtedness and accordingly reduced such indebtedness to $415,018.17.
Thereafter petitioner brought this suit in the Court of Claims. That court held that the set-off made by the Comptroller General was proper because the tax deductions withheld were “not entirely independent of such contract,” Central Bank v. United States, 123 Ct. Cl. 237, 105 F. Supp. 992, 994, and that petitioner was therefore not entitled to recover under the assignment.
Prior to 1940, an assignment such as Graham made to petitioner would have been of no effect as against the United States. Under the Anti-Assignment Statutes (R. S. §§ 3477 and 3737), while the assignment might in some circumstances have been good as between the assignor and assignee (Martin v. National Surety Co., 300 U. S. 588), it could not operate to the détriment of rights of the United States. Any set-off which the United States had against an assignor would have been effective against the assignee.
The Assignment of Claims Act of 1940, amending the Anti-Assignment Statutes, validated the assignment of moneys due or to become due under any government contract if the assignment were made to a financing institution. The Act authorized the War and Navy Departments to limit the Government’s previous rights of set-off. See R. S. §§ 3477, 3737, as amended. It provided, see 31 U. S. C. § 203, p. 640, supra, “that payments to an assignee of any claim arising under such contract shall not be subject to reduction or set-off.”
The Assignment of Claims Act of 1940 was evidently designed to assist in the national defense program through facilitating the financing of defense contracts by limiting the Government’s power to reduce properly assigned payments. Borrowers were not to be penalized in security because one contracting party was the Government. Contractors might well have obligations to the United States not imposed by the contract from which the payments flowed, as for example the contractor’s income tax for prior earnings under the contract. The taxes here involved are another good illustration of the dangers to lenders.
The clause in question which prohibits set-offs for “any indebtedness of the assignor to the United States arising independently of such contract,” was embodied in an amendment introduced by Senator Barkley during debate on the Act. In proposing the amendment, the Senator stated:
“Mr. President, the amendment merely provides that when a contractor, in order to obtain money so that he may perform his contract with the Government under the defense program, assigns his contract to a bank or trust company in order to get money with which to proceed with the work, it shall not be permissible to offset against the claim or contract later an indebtedness which the contractor may owe the Government on account of some other contract or some other situation. . .
Otherwise,
“. . . the Government could come in and assert a claim against the contractor on account of something else which had no relationship whatever to the contract and the defense program.”
In the decision below the court said:
“The assignee knew that the contractor would be required to withhold and pay taxes to the defendant. The obligation of the contractor for the taxes in question arose before the partners converted such taxes to their own use and such obligation was therefore directly associated with the contract.
“In order to be independent, as we think that term was used and intended by the Assignment of Claims Act, the indebtedness must arise irrespective of, exclusive of, and separate from the contract, and must have no direct relation with such contract.”
To support its position, the words of United States v. Munsey Trust Co. were relied upon:
“[One] is not compelled to lessen his own chance of recovering what is due him by setting up a fund undiminished by his claim, so that others may share it with him.” 332 U. S. 234, 240.
The Munsey case is inapplicable. It turns on the ability of the Government to reimburse itself ahead of a surety for sums expended to pay laborers out of funds withheld by the United States from the surety’s principal. No problem of assignment was involved and we held the Government could set off its independent claim against the surety.
The requirement that Graham withhold taxes from the “payment of wages” to its employees and pay the same over to the United States did not arise from the contract. The requirement is squarely imposed by §§ 1401 and 1622 of the Internal Revenue Code. Without a government contract Graham would owe the statutory duty to pay over the taxes due, just as it would to pay its income tax on profits earned. Graham’s embezzlement lay neither in execution nor in breach of the contract. It arose from the conversion of the withheld taxes which Graham held as trustee for the United States pursuant to § 3661 of the Code. Assignor Graham’s indebtedness to the United States arose, we think, “independently” of the contract.
Finally it is urged that the Act should be construed so as to protect the United States. The short answer to this is that the Act should be construed so as to carry out the purpose of Congress to encourage the private financing of government contracts. To grant the Government its sought-for rights of set-off under the circumstances of this case, would be to defeat the purpose of Congress. It would require the assignee to police the assignor’s accounting and payment system. It would increase the risk to the assignee, the difficulty of the assignor in financing the performance, and the ultimate cost to the Government.
Reversed.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Amended so as to include the Department of the Air Force by the Act of July 26, 1947, 61 Stat. 501, 508, 31 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 203.
The issue before us has been prospectively settled for others by the 1951 Assignment of Claims Act (65 Stat. 41, 31 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 203). That Act amended the Assignment of Claims Act of 1940 by rephrasing subsection 4 so as to bar by specific words the United States from setting off “any liability of the assignor on account of (1) renegotiation ... (2) fines, (3) penalties . . ., or (4) taxes, social security contributions, or the withholding or non-withholding of taxes or social security contributions, whether arising from or independently of such contract.
“Except as herein otherwise provided, nothing in this Act, as amended, shall be deemed to affect or impair rights or obligations heretofore accrued.” 65 Stat. 41, 42.
This amendment was caused by uneasiness among lenders because of rulings of the Comptroller General:
“In an opinion dated May 17, 1949, the Comptroller General held that, in the event of a price revision under a Government contract, any amount in excess of the contract price as so revised may either be withheld from payment to the assignee ‘or recovered directly from the assignee if already paid.’ Generally, when any payment is received by an assignee bank, it is immediately applied to the contractor’s loan, and the excess is released to the borrower. In several instances, long after full payment of a bank’s loan to a contractor, the Comptroller General has made claims for recovery of payments previously made to the bank assignee.
"It had also been the understanding of banks that the statute protected them against set-off by the Government on account of any claims by the Government against the contractor arising outside of the terms of the assigned contract. However, in an opinion dated May 15, 1950, the Comptroller General ruled that claims by the Government against a contractor on account of unpaid social-security contributions and withheld income taxes were claims which did not arise independently of the assigned contract.” S. Rep. No. 217, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2.
Hearings before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency on S. 4340, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 2 et seq.; 86 Cong. Rec. 12803; H. R. Rep. No. 2925, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 2; S. Rep. No. 2136, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 2.
86 Cong. Rec. 12803.
Central Bank v. United States, 123 Ct. Cl. 237, 244, 245, 105 F. Supp. 992, 994.
Ҥ 1400. Rate of tax.
“In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages ....
“§ 1401. Deduction of tax from wages — (a) Requirement.
“The tax imposed by section 1400 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer, by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid.
“(b) Indemnification of employer.
“Every employer required so to deduct the tax shall be liable for the payment of such tax, and shall be indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any such payment made by such employer.
“§ 1622. Income tax collected at source — (a) Requirement of withholding.
“Every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax equal to the sum of the following: . . .
Ҥ 3661. Enforcement of liability for taxes collected.
“Whenever any person is required to collect or withhold any internal-revenue tax from any other person and to pay such tax over to the United States, the amount of tax so collected or withheld shall be held to be a special fund in trust for the United States. The amount of such fund shall be assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner and subject to the same provisions and limitations (including penalties) as are applicable with respect to the taxes from which such fund arose.”
United States v. Guaranty Trust Co., 280 U. S. 478, 483. In the Guaranty Trust case the United States sought priority under R. S. § 3466 for its debts from embarrassed railroads. Transportation Act of 1920, Tit. II, §§ 207, 209, 210, 41 Stat. 456, 457-469. Although there was no specific waiver of § 3466, similar to the waiver of the right of set-off or reduction here claimed, this Court held:
“To have given priority to debts due the United States pursuant to Title II, would have defeated the purpose of Congress. It not only would have prevented the reestablishment of railroad credit among bankers and investors, but it would even have seriously impaired the market value of outstanding railroad securities. It would have deprived the carriers of the credit commonly enjoyed from supplymen and others; would have seriously embarrassed the carriers in their daily operations; and would have made necessary a great enlargement of their working capital. The provision for loans under § 210 would have been frustrated. For, carriers could ill afford voluntarily to contract new debts thereunder which would displace, pro tanto, their existing bonded indebtedness. The entire spirit of the Act makes clear the purpose that the rule leading to such consequences should not be applied.” 280 U. S., at 485.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has accumulated and maintains criminal identification records, sometimes referred to as “rap sheets,” on over 24 million persons. The question presented by this case is whether the disclosure of the contents of such a file to a third party “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552(b)(7)(C) (1982 ed., Supp. V).
I
In 1924 Congress appropriated funds to enable the Department of Justice (Department) to establish a program to collect and preserve fingerprints and other criminal identification records. 43 Stat. 217. That statute authorized the Department to exchange such information with “officials of States, cities and other institutions.” Ibid. Six years later Congress created the FBI’s identification division, and gave it responsibility for “acquiring, collecting, classifying, and preserving criminal identification and other crime records and the exchanging of said criminal identification records with the duly authorized officials of governmental agencies, of States, cities, and penal institutions.” Ch. 455, 46 Stat. 554 (codified at 5 U. S. C. §340 (1934 ed.)); see 28 U. S. C. § 534(a)(4) (providing for exchange of rap-sheet information among “authorized officials of the Federal Government, the States, cities, and penal and other institutions”). Rap sheets compiled pursuant to such authority contain certain descriptive information, such as date of birth and physical characteristics, as well as a history of arrests, charges, convictions, and incarcerations of the subject. Normally a rap sheet is preserved until its subject attains age 80. Because of the volume of rap sheets, they are sometimes incorrect or incomplete and sometimes contain information about other persons with similar names.
The local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation that exchange rap-sheet data with the FBI do so on a voluntary basis. The principal use of the information is to assist in the detection and prosecution of offenders; it is also used by courts and corrections officials in connection with sentencing and parole decisions. As a matter of executive policy, the Department has generally treated rap sheets as confidential and, with certain exceptions, has restricted their use to governmental purposes. Consistent with the Department’s basic policy of treating these records as confidential, Congress in 1957 amended the basic statute to provide that the FBI’s exchange of rap-sheet information with any other agency is subject to cancellation “if dissemination is made outside the receiving departments or related agencies.” 71 Stat. 61; see 28 U. S. C. § 534(b).
As a matter of Department policy, the FBI has made two exceptions to its general practice of prohibiting unofficial access to rap sheets. First, it allows the subject of a rap sheet to obtain a copy, see 28 CFR §§ 16.30-16.34 (1988); and second, it occasionally allows rap sheets to be used in the preparation of press releases and publicity designed to assist in the apprehension of wanted persons or fugitives. See § 20.33(a)(4).
In addition, on three separate occasions Congress has expressly authorized the release of rap sheets for other limited purposes. In 1972 it provided for such release to officials of federally chartered or insured banking institutions and “if authorized by State statute and approved by the Attorney General, to officials of State and local governments for purposes of employment and licensing....” 86 Stat. 1115. In 1975, in an amendment to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Congress permitted the Attorney General to release rap sheets to self-regulatory organizations in the securities industry. See 15 U. S. C. §78q(f)(2) (1982 ed., Supp V). And finally, in 1986 Congress authorized release of criminal-history information to licensees or applicants before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. See 42 U. S. C. § 2169(a). These three targeted enactments — all adopted after the FOIA was passed in 1966 — are consistent with the view that Congress understood and did not disapprove the FBI’s general policy of treating rap sheets as nonpublic documents.
Although much rap-sheet information is a matter of public record, the availability and dissemination of the actual rap sheet to the public is limited. Arrests, indictments, convictions, and sentences are public events that are usually documented in court records. In addition, if a person’s entire criminal history transpired in a single jurisdiction, all of the contents of his or her rap sheet may be available upon request in that jurisdiction. That possibility, however, is present in only three States. All of the other 47 States place substantial restrictions on the availability of criminal-history summaries even though individual events in those summaries are matters of public record. Moreover, even in Florida, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma, the publicly available summaries may not include information about out-of-state arrests or convictions.
II
The statute known as the FOIA is actually a part of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Section 3 of the APA as enacted in 1946 gave agencies broad discretion concerning the publication of governmental records. In 1966 Congress amended that section to implement “ ‘a general philosophy of full agency disclosure.”’ The amendment required agencies to publish their rules of procedure in the Federal Register, 5 U. S. C. § 552(a)(1)(C), and to make available for public inspection and copying their opinions, statements of policy, interpretations, and staff manuals and instructions that are not published in the Federal Register, § 552(a)(2). In addition, § 552(a)(3) requires every agency “upon any request for records which... reasonably describes such records” to make such records “promptly available to any person.” If an agency improperly withholds any documents, the district court has jurisdiction to order their production. Unlike the review of other agency action that must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, the FOIA expressly places the burden “on the agency to sustain its action” and directs the district courts to “determine the matter de novo.”
Congress exempted nine categories of documents from the FOIA’s broad disclosure requirements. Three of those exemptions are arguably relevant to this case. Exemption 3 applies to documents that are specifically exempted from disclosure by another statute. § 552(b)(3). Exemption 6 protects “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” § 552(b)(6). Exemption 7(C) excludes records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, “but only to the extent that the production of such [materials]... could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” § 552(b)(7)(C).
Exemption 7(C)’s privacy language is broader than the comparable language in Exemption 6 in two respects. First, whereas Exemption 6 requires that the invasion of privacy be “clearly unwarranted,” the adverb “clearly” is omitted from Exemption 7(C). This omission is the product of a 1974 amendment adopted in response to concerns expressed by the President. Second, whereas Exemption 6 refers to disclosures that “would constitute” an invasion of privacy, Exemption 7(C) encompasses any disclosure that “could reasonably be expected to constitute” such an invasion. This difference is also the product of a specific amendment. Thus, the standard for evaluating a threatened invasion of privacy interests resulting from the disclosure of records compiled for law enforcement purposes is somewhat broader than the standard applicable to personnel, medical, and similar files.
r-H HH
This case arises out of requests made by a CBS news correspondent and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (respondents) for information concerning the criminal records of four members of the Medico family. The Pennsylvania Crime Commission had identified the family’s company, Medico Industries, as a legitimate business dominated by organized crime figures. Moreover, the company allegedly had obtained a number of defense contracts as a result of an improper arrangement with a corrupt Congressman.
The FOIA requests sought disclosure of any arrests, indictments, acquittals, convictions, and sentences of any of the four Medicos. Although the FBI originally denied the requests, it provided the requested data concerning three of the Medicos after their deaths. In their complaint in the District Court, respondents sought the rap sheet for the fourth, Charles Medico (Medico), insofar as it contained “matters of public record.” App. 33.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Respondents urged that any information regarding “a record of bribery, embezzlement or other financial crime” would potentially be a matter of special public interest. Id., at 97. In answer to that argument, the Department advised respondents and the District Court that it had no record of any financial crimes concerning Medico, but the Department continued to refuse to confirm or deny whether it had any information concerning nonfinancial crimes. Thus, the issue was narrowed to Medico’s nonfinancial-crime history insofar as it is a matter of public record.
The District Court granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment, relying on three separate grounds. First, it concluded that 28 U. S. C. § 534, the statute that authorizes the exchange of rap-sheet information with other official agencies, also prohibits the release of such information to members of the public, and therefore that Exemption 3 was applicable. Second, it decided that files containing rap sheets were included within the category of “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy,” and therefore that Exemption 6 was applicable. The term “similar files” applied because rap-sheet information “is personal to the individual named therein.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 56a. After balancing Medico’s privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure, the District Court concluded that the invasion of privacy was “clearly unwarranted.” Finally, the court held that the rap sheet was also protected by Exemption 7(C), but it ordered the Department to file a statement containing the requested data in camera to give it an opportunity to reconsider the issue if, after reviewing that statement, such action seemed appropriate. After the Department made that filing, the District Court advised the parties that it would not reconsider the matter, but it did seal the in camera submission and make it part of the record on appeal.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 259 U. S. App. D. C. 426, 816 F. 2d 730 (1987). It held that an individual’s privacy interest in criminal-history information that is a matter of public record was minimal at best. Noting the absence of any statutory standards by which to judge the public interest in disclosure, the Court of Appeals concluded that it should be bound by the state and local determinations that such information should be made available to the general public. Accordingly, it held that Exemptions 6 and 7(C) were inapplicable. It also agreed with respondents that Exemption 3 did not apply because 28 U. S. C. § 534 did not qualify as a statute “specifically” exempting rap sheets from disclosure.
In response to rehearing petitions advising the court that, contrary to its original understanding, most States had adopted policies of refusing to provide members of the public with criminal-history summaries, the Court of Appeals modified its holding. 265 U. S. App. D. C. 365, 831 F. 2d 1124 (1987). With regard to the public interest side of the balance, the court now recognized that it could not rely upon state policies of disclosure. However, it adhered to its view that federal judges are not in a position to make “idiosyncratic” evaluations of the public interest in particular disclosures, see 259 U. S. App. D. C., at 437, 816 F. 2d, at 741; instead, it directed district courts to consider “the general disclosure policies of the statute.” 265 U. S. App. D. C., at 367, 831 F. 2d, at 1126. With regard to the privacy interest in nondisclosure of rap sheets, the court told the District Court “only to make a factual determination in these kinds of cases: Has a legitimate privacy interest of the subject in his rap sheets faded because they appear on the public record?” Id., at 368, 831 F. 2d, at 1127. In accordance with its initial opinion, it remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the withheld information is publicly available at its source, and if so, whether the Department might satisfy its statutory obligation by referring respondents to the enforcement agency or agencies that had provided the original information.
Although he had concurred in the Court of Appeals’ original disposition, Judge Starr dissented, expressing disagreement with the majority on three points. First, he rejected the argument that there is no privacy interest in “cumulative, indexed, computerized” data simply because the underlying information is on record at local courthouses or police stations:
“As I see it, computerized data banks of the sort involved here present issues considerably more difficult than, and certainly very different from, a case involving the source records themselves. This conclusion is buttressed by what I now know to be the host of state laws requiring that cumulative, indexed criminal history information be kept confidential, as well as by general Congressional indications of concern about the privacy implications of computerized data banks. See H. R. Rep. No. 1416, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 3, 6-9 (1974), reprinted in Legislative History of the Privacy Act of 1974-, Source Book on Privacy, 296, 299-302 (1974).” Id., at 369, 831 F. 2d, at 1128.
Second, Judge Starr concluded that the statute required the District Court to make a separate evaluation of the public interest in disclosure depending upon the kind of use that would be made of the information and the identity of the subject:
“Although there may be no public interest in disclosure of the FBI rap sheet of one’s otherwise inconspicuously anonymous next-door neighbor, there may be a significant public interest — one that overcomes the substantial privacy interest at stake — in the rap sheet of a public figure or an official holding high governmental office. For guidance in fleshing out that analysis, it seems sensible to me to draw upon the substantial body of defamation law dealing with ‘public personages.’” Id., at 370, 831 F. 2d, at 1129.
Finally, he questioned the feasibility of requiring the Department to determine the availability of the requested material at its source, and expressed concern that the majority’s approach departed from the original purpose of the FOIA and threatened to convert the Federal Government into a clearinghouse for personal information that had been collected about millions of persons under a variety of different situations:
“We are now informed that many federal agencies collect items of information on individuals that are ostensibly matters of public record. For example, Veterans Administration and Social Security records include birth certificates, marriage licenses, and divorce decrees (which may recite findings of fault); the Department of Housing and Urban Development maintains data on millions of home mortgages that are presumably ‘public records’ at county clerks’ offices.... Under the majority’s approach, in the absence of state confidentiality laws, there would appear to be a virtual per se rule requiring all such information to be released. The federal government is thereby transformed in one fell swoop into the clearinghouse for highly personal information, releasing records on any person, to any requester, for any purpose. This Congress did not intend.” Id., at 371, 831 F. 2d, at 1130 (emphasis in original).
The Court of Appeals denied rehearing en banc, with four judges dissenting. App. to Pet. for Cert. 64a-66a. Because of the potential effect of the Court of Appeals’ opinion on values of personal privacy, we granted certiorari. 485 U. S. 1005 (1988). We now reverse.
>
Exemption 7(C) requires us to balance the privacy interest in maintaining, as the Government puts it, the “practical obscurity” of the rap sheets against the public interest in their release.
The preliminary question is whether Medico’s interest in the nondisclosure of any rap sheet the FBI might have on him is the sort of “personal privacy” interest that Congress intended Exemption 7(C) to protect. As we have pointed out before, “[t]he cases sometimes characterized as protecting ‘privacy’ have in fact involved at least two different kinds of interests. One is the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and another is the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions.” Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 598-600 (1977) (footnotes omitted). Here, the former interest, “in avoiding disclosure of personal matters,” is implicated. Because events summarized in a rap sheet have been previously disclosed to the public, respondents contend that Medico’s privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of a federal compilation of these events approaches zero. We reject respondents’ cramped notion of personal privacy.
To begin with, both the common law and the literal understandings of privacy encompass the individual’s control of information concerning his or her person. In an organized society, there are few facts that are not at one time or another divulged to another. Thus the extent of the protection accorded a privacy right at common law rested in part on the degree of dissemination of the allegedly private fact and the extent to which the passage of time rendered it private. According to Webster’s initial definition, information may be classified as “private” if it is “intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person or group or class of persons: not freely available to the public.” Recognition of this attribute of a privacy interest supports the distinction, in terms of personal privacy, between scattered disclosure of the bits of information contained in a rap sheet and revelation of the rap sheet as a whole. The very fact that federal funds have been spent to prepare, index, and maintain these criminal-history files demonstrates that the individual items of information in the summaries would not otherwise be “freely available” either to the officials who have access to the underlying files or to the general public. Indeed, if the summaries were “freely available,” there would be no reason to invoke the FOIA to obtain access to the information they contain. Granted, in many contexts the fact that information is not freely available is no reason to exempt that information from a statute generally requiring its dissemination. But the issue here is whether the compilation of otherwise hard-to-obtain information alters the privacy interest implicated by disclosure of that information. Plainly there is a vast difference between the public records that might be found after a diligent search of courthouse files, county archives, and local police stations throughout the country and a computerized summary located in a single clearinghouse of information.
This conclusion is supported by the web of federal statutory and regulatory provisions that limits the disclosure of rap-sheet information. That is, Congress has authorized rap-sheet dissemination to banks, local licensing officials, the securities industry, the nuclear-power industry, and other law enforcement agencies. See supra, at 752-753. Further, the FBI has permitted such disclosure to the subject of the rap sheet and, more generally, to assist in the apprehension of wanted persons or fugitives. See supra, at 752. Finally, the FBI’s exchange of rap-sheet information “is subject to cancellation if dissemination is made outside the receiving departments or related agencies.” 28 U. S. C. § 534(b). This careful and limited pattern of authorized rap-sheet disclosure fits the dictionary definition of privacy as involving a restriction of information “to the use of a particular person or group or class of persons.” Moreover, although perhaps not specific enough to constitute a statutory exemption under FOIA Exemption 3, 5 U. S. C. § 552(b)(3), these statutes and regulations, taken as a whole, evidence a congressional intent to protect the privacy of rap-sheet subjects, and a concomitant recognition of the power of compilations to affect personal privacy that outstrips the combined power of the bits of information contained within.
Other portions of the FOIA itself bolster the conclusion that disclosure of records regarding private citizens, identifiable by name, is not what the framers of the FOIA had in mind. Specifically, the FOIA provides that “[t]o the extent required to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, an agency may delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes an opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction.” 5 U. S. C. § 552(a)(2). Additionally, the FOIA assures that “[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under [§ (b)].” 5 U. S. C. §552(b) (1982 ed., Supp. V). These provisions, for deletion of identifying references and disclosure of segregable portions of records with exempt information deleted, reflect a congressional understanding that disclosure of records containing personal details about private citizens can infringe significant privacy interests.
Also supporting our conclusion that a strong privacy interest inheres in the nondisclosure of compiled computerized information is the Privacy Act of 1974, codified at 5 U. S. C. § 552a (1982 ed. and Supp. V). The Privacy Act was passed largely out of concern over “the impact of computer data banks on individual privacy.” H. R. Rep. No. 93-1416, p. 7 (1974). The Privacy Act provides generally that “[n]o agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records... except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains.” 5 U. S. C. §552a(b) (1982 ed., Supp. V). Although the Privacy Act contains a variety of exceptions to this rule, including an exemption for information required to be disclosed under the FOIA, see 5 U. S. C. §552a(b)(2), Congress’ basic policy concern regarding the implications of computerized data banks for personal privacy is certainly relevant in our consideration of the privacy interest affected by dissemination of rap sheets from the FBI computer.
Given this level of federal concern over centralized data bases, the fact that most States deny the general public access to their criminal-history summaries should not be surprising. As we have pointed out, see supra, at 753, and n. 2, in 47 States nonconviction data from criminal-history summaries are not available at all, and even conviction data are “generally unavailable to the public.” See n. 2, supra. State policies, of course, do not determine the meaning of a federal statute, but they provide evidence that the law enforcement profession generally assumes — as has the Department of Justice — that individual subjects have a significant privacy interest in their criminal histories. It is reasonable to presume that Congress legislated with an understanding of this professional point of view.
In addition to the common-law and dictionary understandings, the basic difference between scattered bits of criminal history and a federal compilation, federal statutory provisions, and state policies, our cases have also recognized the privacy interest inherent in the nondisclosure of certain information even where the information may have been at one time public. Most apposite for present purposes is our decision in Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U. S. 352 (1976). New York University law students sought Air Force Academy Honor and Ethics Code case summaries for a law review project on military discipline. The Academy had already publicly posted these summaries on 40 squadron bulletin boards, usually with identifying names redacted (names were posted for cadets who were found guilty and who left the Academy), and with instructions that cadets should read the summaries only if necessary. Although the opinion dealt with Exemption 6’s exception for “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” and our opinion today deals with Exemption 7(C), much of our discussion in Rose is applicable here. We explained that the FOIA permits release of a segregable portion of a record with other portions deleted, and that in camera inspection was proper to determine whether parts of a record could be released while keeping other parts secret. See id., at 373-377; 5 U. S. C. §§ 552(b) and (a)(4)(B) (1982 ed. and Supp. V). We emphasized the FOIA’s segregability and in camera provisions in order to explain that the case summaries, with identifying names redacted, were generally disclosable. We then offered guidance to lower courts in determining whether disclosure of all or part of such case summaries would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under Exemption 6:
“Respondents sought only such disclosure as was consistent with [the Academy tradition of keeping identities confidential within the Academy], Their request for access to summaries ‘with personal references or other identifying information deleted,’ respected the confidentiality interests embodied in Exemption 6. As the Court of Appeals recognized, however, what constitutes identifying information regarding a subject cadet must be weighed not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who would have been familiar, as fellow cadets or Academy staff, with other aspects of his career at the Academy. Despite the summaries’ distribution within the Academy, many of this group with earlier access to summaries may never have identified a particular cadet, or may have wholly forgotten his encounter with Academy discipline. And the risk to the privacy interests of a former cadet, particularly one who has remained in the military, posed by his identification by otherwise unknowing former colleagues or instructors cannot be rejected as trivial. We nevertheless conclude that consideration of the policies underlying the Freedom of Information Act, to open public business to public view when no ‘clearly unwarranted’ invasion of privacy will result, requires affirmance of the holding of the Court of Appeals... that although ‘no one can guarantee that all those who are “in the know” will hold their tongues, particularly years later when time may have eroded the fabric of cadet loyalty,’ it sufficed to protect privacy at this stage in these proceedings by enjoining the District Court... that if in its opinion deletion of personal references and other identifying information ‘is not sufficient to safeguard privacy, then the summaries should not be disclosed to [respondents].’” 425 U. S., at 380-381.
See also id., at 387-388 (Blackmun, J., dissenting); id., at 389-390 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). In this passage we doubly stressed the importance of the privacy interest implicated by disclosure of the case summaries. First: We praised the Academy’s tradition of protecting personal privacy through redaction of names from the case summaries. But even with names redacted, subjects of such summaries can often be identified through other, disclosed information. So, second: Even though the summaries, with only names redacted, had once been public, we recognized the potential invasion of privacy through later recognition of identifying details, and approved the Court of Appeals’ rule permitting the District Court to delete “other identifying information” in order to safeguard this privacy interest. If a cadet has a privacy interest in past discipline that was once public but may have been “wholly forgotten,” the ordinary citizen surely has a similar interest in the aspects of his or her criminal history that may have been wholly forgotten.
We have also recognized the privacy interest in keeping personal facts away from the public eye. In Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589 (1977), we held that “the State of New York may record, in a centralized computer file, the names and addresses of all persons who have obtained, pursuant to a doctor’s prescription, certain drugs for which there is both a lawful and an unlawful market.” Id., at 591. In holding only that the Federal Constitution does not prohibit such a compilation, we recognized that such a centralized computer file posed a “threat to privacy”:
“We are not unaware of the threat to privacy implicit in the accumulation of vast amounts of personal information in computerized data banks or other massive government files. The collection of taxes, the distribution of welfare and social security benefits, the supervision of public health, the direction of our Armed Forces, and the enforcement of the criminal laws all require the orderly preservation of great quantities of information, much of which is personal in character and potentially embarrassing or harmful if disclosed. The right to collect and use such data for public purposes is typically accompanied by a concomitant statutory or regulatory duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures. Recognizing that in some circumstances that duty arguably has its roots in the Constitution, nevertheless New York’s statutory scheme, and its implementing administrative procedures, evidence a proper concern with, and protection of, the individual’s interest in privacy.” Id., at 605 (footnote omitted); see also id., at 607 (Brennan, J., concurring) (“The.central storage and easy accessibility of computerized data vastly increase the potential for abuse of that information...”).
In sum, the fact that “an event is not wholly 'private’ does not mean that an individual has no interest in limiting disclosure or dissemination of the information.” Rehnquist, Is an Expanded Right of Privacy Consistent with Fair and Effective Law Enforcement?, Nelson Timothy Stephens Lectures, University of Kansas Law School, pt. 1, p. 13 (Sept. 26-27, 1974). The privacy interest in a rap sheet is substantial. The substantial character of that interest is affected by the fact that in today’s society the computer can accumulate and store information that would otherwise have surely been forgotten long before a person attains age 80, when the FBI’s rap sheets are discarded.
V
Exemption 7(C), by its terms, permits an agency to withhold a document only when revelation “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” We must next address what factors might warrant an invasion of the interest described in Part IV, supra.
Our previous decisions establish that whether an invasion of privacy is warranted cannot turn on the purposes for which the request for information is made. Except for cases in which the objection to disclosure is based on a claim of privilege and the person requesting disclosure is the party protected by the privilege, the identity of the requesting party has no bearing on the merits of his or her FOIA request. Thus, although the subject of a presentence report can waive a privilege that might defeat a third party’s access to that report, United States Department of Justice v. Julian, 486 U. S. 1, 13-14 (1988), and although the FBI’s policy of granting the subject of a rap sheet access to his own criminal history is consistent with its policy of denying access to all other members of the general public, see supra, at 752, the rights of the two press respondents in this case are no different from those that might be asserted by any other third party, such as a neighbor or prospective employer. As we have repeatedly stated, Congress “clearly intended” the FOIA “to give any member of the public as much right to disclosure as one with a special interest [in a particular document].” NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U. S. 132, 149 (1975); see NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U. S. 214, 221 (1978); FBI v. Abramson, 456 U. S. 615 (1982). As Professor Davis explained: “The Act’s sole concern is with what must be made public or not made public.”
Thus whether disclosure of a private document under Exemption 7(C) is warranted must turn on the nature of the requested document and its relationship to “the basic purpose of the Freedom of Information Act ‘to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.’” Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U. S., at 372, rather than on the particular purpose for which the document is being requested. In our leading case on the FOIA, we declared that the Act was designed to create a broad right of access to “official information. ” ERA v. Mink, 410 U. S. 73, 80 (1973). In his dissent in that case, Justice Douglas characterized the philosophy of the statute by quoting this comment by Henry Steele Commager:
“‘The generation that made the nation thought secrecy in government one of the instruments of Old World tyranny and committed itself to the principle that a democracy cannot function unless the people are permitted to know what their government is up to.’” Id., at 105 (quoting from The New York Review of Books, Oct. 5, 1972, p. 7) (emphasis added).
This basic policy of “ ‘full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language,’” Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U. S., at 360-361 (quoting S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965)), indeed focuses on the citizens’ right to be informed about “what their government is up to.” Official information that sheds light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within that statutory purpose. That purpose, however, is not fostered by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various governmental files but that reveals little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct. In this case — and presumably in the typical case in which one private citizen is seeking information about another — the requester does not intend to discover anything about the conduct of the agency that has possession of the requested records. Indeed, response to this request would not shed any light on the conduct of any Government agency or official.
The point is illustrated by our decision in Rose, supra. As discussed earlier, we held that the FOIA required the United States Air Force to honor a request for in camera submission of disciplinary-hearing summaries maintained in the Academy’s Honors and Ethics Code reading files. The summaries obviously contained information that would explain how the disciplinary procedures actually functioned and therefore were an appropriate subject of a FOIA request. All parties, however, agreed that the files should be redacted by deleting information that would identify the particular cadets to whom the summaries related. The deletions were unquestionably appropriate because the names of the particular cadets were irrelevant to the inquiry into the way the Air Force Academy administered its Honor Code; leaving the identifying material in the summaries would therefore have been a “clearly unwarranted” invasion of individual privacy. If, instead of seeking information about the Academy’s own conduct, the requests had asked for specific files to obtain information-about the persons to whom those files related, the public interest that supported the decision in Rose would have been inapplicable. In fact, we explicitly recognized that “the basic purpose of the [FOIA is] to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.” Id., at 372.
Respondents argue that there is a twofold public interest in learning about Medico’s past arrests or convictions: He allegedly had improper dealings with a corrupt Congressman, and he is an officer of a corporation with defense contracts. But if Medico has, in fact, been arrested or convicted of certain crimes, that information would neither aggravate nor mitigate his allegedly improper relationship with the Congressman; more specifically, it would tell us nothing directly about the character of the Congressman’s behavior. Nor would it tell us anything about the conduct of the Department of Defense (DOD) in awarding one or more contracts to the Medico Company. Arguably a FOIA request to the DOD for records relating to those contracts, or for documents describing the agency’s procedures, if any, for determining whether officers of a prospective contractor have criminal records, would constitute an appropriate request for “official information.” Conceivably Medico’s rap sheet would provide details to include in a news story, but,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | E | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
A Georgia jury found petitioner Wilburn Dobbs guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. In his first federal ha-beas petition, petitioner claimed, inter alia, that he received ineffective assistance from his court-appointed counsel at sentencing. The District Court rejected this claim after holding an evidentiary hearing. Because a transcript of the closing arguments made at sentencing was, by the State’s representation, unavailable, the District Court relied on the testimony of petitioner’s counsel regarding the content of his closing argument to find that counsel had rendered effective assistance. Civ. Action No. 80-247 (ND Ga., Jan. 13, 1984), p. 24. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, also relying on counsel’s testimony about his closing argument in mitigation. Dobbs v. Kemp, 790 F. 2d 1499, 1514, and n. 15 (1986).
Subsequently, petitioner located a transcript of the penalty phase closing arguments, which flatly contradicted the account given by counsel in key respects. Petitioner moved the Court of Appeals, now reviewing related proceedings from the District Court, to supplement the record on appeal with the sentencing transcript. The court denied this motion without explanation. No. 90-8352 (CA11, Nov. 1,1990).
Affirming the District Court’s denial of relief on other claims, the Eleventh Circuit held that the law of the case doctrine prevented it from revisiting its prior rejection of petitioner’s ineffective-assistance claim. The court acknowledged the manifest injustice exception to law of the case, but refused to apply the exception, reasoning that its denial of leave to supplement the record left petitioner unable to show an injustice. 963 F. 2d 1403, 1409 (1991).
We hold that the Court of Appeals erred when it refused to consider the full sentencing transcript. We have emphasized before the importance of reviewing capital sentences on a complete record. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349, 361 (1977) (plurality opinion). Cf. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 167, 198 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.) (Georgia capital sentencing provision requiring transmittal on appeal of complete transcript and record is important “safeguard against arbitrariness and caprice”)- In this case, the Court of Appeals offered no justification for its decision to exclude the transcript from consideration. There can be no doubt as to the transcript’s relevance, for it calls into serious question the factual predicate on which the District Court and Court of Appeals relied in deciding petitioner’s ineffective-assistance claim. As the Court of Appeals itself acknowledged, its refusal to review the transcript left it unable to apply the manifest injustice exception to the law of the case doctrine, and hence unable to determine whether its prior decision should be reconsidered.
On the facts of this case, exclusion of the transcript cannot be justified by the delay in its discovery. That delay resulted substantially from the State’s own erroneous assertions that closing arguments had not been transcribed. As the District Court found: “[T]he entire transcript should have been made available for Dobbs’ direct appeal, and the State represented to this Court that the sentencing phase closing arguments could not be transcribed. Dobbs’ position that he legitimately relied on the State’s representation is well taken.” Civ. Action No. 80-247 (ND Ga., Mar. 6, 1990), p. 4.
We hold that, under the particular circumstances described above, the Court of Appeals erred by refusing to consider the sentencing hearing transcript. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The Chief Justice and Justice White would grant certiorari and give the case plenary consideration.
The concurrence suggests, post, at 360-363, that the error in this case, limited in scope to closing arguments at the penalty phase, is likely insignificant. In fact, an inadequate or harmful closing argument, when combined, as here, with a failure to present mitigating evidence, may be highly relevant to the ineffective-assistance determination under Eleventh Circuit law. See King v. Strickland, 714 F. 2d 1481, 1491 (CA11 1983), vacated on other grounds, 467 U. S. 1211, adhered to on remand, 748 F. 2d 1462, 1463-1464 (CA11 1984), cert. denied, 471 U. S. 1016 (1985); Mathis v. Zant, 704 F. Supp. 1062, 1064 (ND Ga. 1989). In any event, we see no reason to depart here from our normal practice of allowing courts more familiar with a case to conduct their own harmless-error analyses.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was convicted of larceny and sentenced on October 21, 1963, to a term not to exceed five years. This conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of Iowa (State v. Long, 256 Iowa 1304, 130 N. W. 2d 663 (1964)), and petitioner is currently serving his sentence in the state penitentiary. On January 13, 1965, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of Iowa, Lee County, and contended, inter alia, that he had been denied counsel at the preliminary hearing and that he himself had been incompetent at the time. After an evidentiary hearing at which petitioner was not afforded the assistance of court-appointed counsel, the District Court found against petitioner on the facts of his claims. Petitioner thereupon applied to the District Court for appointment of counsel and for a free transcript of the habeas corpus proceeding, for use on appeal. The District Court denied these motions on the following ground: “Habeas corpus being a civil action there is no provision in the law for the furnishing of a transcript without the payment of fee, or for the appointment-of counsel.” Petitioner sought certiorari to review this decision from the Supreme Court of Iowa. Certiorari was denied without opinion by that court. On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Iowa, this Court granted the writ limited solely to the refusal to furnish petitioner, an indigent, with a transcript of the habeas corpus proceeding, for purpose of appeal.
The judgment below must be reversed. The State properly concedes that under our decisions in Smith v. Bennett, 365 U. S. 708 (1961), and Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477 (1963), “to interpose any financial consideration between an indigent prisoner of the State and his exercise of a state right to sue for his liberty is to deny that prisoner the equal protection of the laws.” Smith v. Bennett, supra, at 709. We specifically held in Smith that having established a post-conviction procedure, a State cannot condition its availability to an indigent upon any financial consideration. And we held in Lane that the same rule applies to protect an indigent against a financial obstacle to the exercise of a state-created right to appeal from an adverse decision in a post-conviction proceeding.
In Lane v. Brown, supra, at 483, the Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle of Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, 19 (1956), that “Destitute defendants must be afforded as adequate appellate review as defendants who have money enough to buy transcripts.” The Court in Lane went on to observe that Smith had established “that these principles were not to be limited to direct appeals from criminal convictions, but extended alike to state postconviction proceedings.” 372 U. S., at 484. See also Eskridge v. Washington State Board, 357 U. S. 214 (1958); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 252 (1959); Draper v. Washington, 372 U. S. 487 (1963).
The State suggests that there may be alternative ways of preparing, for purposes of appeal, an account of the relevant proceeding at the trial level. Cf. Draper v. Washington, supra. In the present case, a transcript is available and could easily have been furnished. We need not consider a possible situation where a transcript cannot reasonably be made available and adequate alternatives are made available by the State. Accordingly, the judgment below must be reversed and the cause remanded to the Supreme Court of Iowa for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
As to the claim of lack of counsel at the preliminary hearing, the State now concedes that petitioner was not in fact represented at that time (although the District Court found to the contrary). Petitioner alleged in his petition for habeas corpus that a guilty plea obtained at the preliminary hearing was introduced as an admission at his criminal trial. The State concedes that if this is true, petitioner “probably is entitled to relief in habeas corpus under White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59.” The Attorney General of Iowa has ruled that White is applicable to preliminary hearings in Iowa because guilty pleas, if made at that time, may later be used as admissions of guilt. 1964 Opinions of the Attorney General of Iowa 160 (October 5, 1964).
The court’s order reads: “Petition for certiorari filed, considered, and denied. See in this connection, Waldon v. District Court of Lee County, Iowa, 130 N. W. 2d 728.” The Waldon case held only that a State need not provide appointed counsel on appeal from the denial of habeas corpus; it does not so much as refer to the transcript problem, to which this Court limited the grant of certiorari in this case.
Petitioner’s notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Iowa was timely and properly filed. His appeal is pending before that court, and disposition has been stayed until the outcome of this preliminary case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Border Patrol officers stopped respondent’s car for a routine immigration search at the traffic checkpoint' on Interstate Highway 5 at San Clemente, Cal., on November 12, 1973. They found three aliens concealed in the trunk, and respondent was convicted on three counts of knowingly transporting aliens who were in the country illegally. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction in an unreported opinion, relying on dictum in its opinion in United States v. Bowen, 500 F. 2d 960 (CA9 1974), aff’d, post, p. 916, to the effect that our decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), required probable cause for all vehicle searches in the border area, whether conducted by roving patrols or at traffic checkpoints. We granted certiorari. 419 U. S. 824 (1974).
Nothing in this record suggests that the Border Patrol officers had any special reason to suspect that respondent’s car was carrying concealed aliens. Nor does the Government contend that the San Clemente checkpoint is a functional equivalent of the border. Brief for United States 16. The only question for decision is whether vehicle searches at traffic checkpoints, like the roving-patrol search in Almeida-Sanchez, must be based on probable cause.
I
In Almeida-Sanchez we rejected the Government’s contention that the Nation’s strong interest in controlling immigration and the practical difficulties of policing the Mexican border combined to justify dispensing with both warrant and probable cause for vehicle searches by roving patrols near the border. The facts did not require us to decide whether the same rule would apply to traffic checkpoints, which differ from roving patrols in several important respects. 413 U. S., at 273; id., at 276 (Powell, J., concurring).
A consolidated proceeding on motions to suppress in this and similar cases produced an extensive factual record on the operation of traffic checkpoints in southern California. United States v. Baca, 368 F. Supp. 398 (SD Cal. 1973). The San Clemente checkpoint is 62 air miles and 66 road miles north of the Mexican border. It is on the principal highway between San Diego and Los Angeles, and over 10 million vehicles pass the checkpoint in a year. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 514 F. 2d 308, 312 (CA9 1975). The District Court in Baca described the checkpoint as follows:
“Approximately one mile south of the checkpoint is a large black on yellow sign with flashing yellow lights over the highway stating ‘ALL VEHICLES, STOP AHEAD, 1 MILE.’ Three-quarters of a mile further north are two black on yellow signs suspended over the highway with flashing lights stating ‘WATCH FOR BRAKE LIGHTS.' At the checkpoint, which is also the location of a State of California weighing station, are two large signs with flashing red lights suspended over the highway. These signs each state ‘STOP HERE — U. S. OFFICERS.' Placed on the highway are a number of orange traffic cones tunneling traffic into two lanes where a Border Patrol agent in full dress uniform, standing behind a white on red ‘STOP' sign checks traffic. Blocking traffic in the unused lanes are official U. S. Border Patrol vehicles with flashing red lights. In addition, there is a permanent building which houses the Border Patrol office and temporary detention facilities. There are also floodlights for nighttime operation.” 368 F. Supp., at 410-411.
The Border Patrol would prefer to keep this checkpoint in operation continuously, but bad weather, heavy traffic, and personnel shortages keep it closed about one-third of the time. When it is open, officers screen all northbound traffic. If anything about a vehicle or its occupants leads an officer to suspect that it may be carrying aliens, he will stop the car and ask the occupants about their citizenship. If the officer’s suspicion persists, or if the questioning enhances it, he will “inspect” portions of the car in which an alien might hide. Operations at other checkpoints are similar, although the traffic at some is light enough that officers can stop all vehicles for questioning and routinely inspect more of them.
The Government maintains that these characteristics justify dispensing with probable cause at traffic checkpoints despite the' Court’s holding in Almeida-Sanchez. It gives essentially two reasons for distinguishing that case. First, a checkpoint officer’s discretion in deciding which cars to search is limited by the location of the checkpoint. That location is determined by high-level Border Patrol officials, using criteria that include the degree of inconvenience to the public and the potential for safe operation, as well as the potential for detecting and deterring the illegal movement of aliens. By contrast, officers on roving patrol were theoretically free before Almeida-Sanchez to stop and search any car within 100 miles of the border. Second, the circumstances surrounding a checkpoint stop and search are far less intrusive than those attending a roving-patrol stop. Roving patrols often operate at night on seldom-traveled roads, and their approach may frighten motorists. At traffic checkpoints the motorist can see that other vehicles are being stopped, he can see visible signs of the officers’ authority, and he is much less likely to be frightened or annoyed by the intrusion.
These differences are relevant to the constitutional issue, since the central concern of the Fourth Amendment is to protect liberty and privacy from arbitrary and oppressive interference by government officials. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 528 (1967); Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 767 (1966). The Fourth Amendment’s requirement that searches and seizures be reasonable also may limit police use of unnecessarily frightening or offensive methods of surveillance and investigation. See, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1968); Camara, supra, at 531; Schmerber, supra, at 771-772. While the differences between a roving patrol and a checkpoint would be significant in determining the propriety of the stop, which is considerably less intrusive than a search, Terry v. Ohio, supra, they do not appear to make any difference in the search itself. The greater regularity attending the stop does not mitigate the invasion of privacy that a search entails. Nor do checkpoint procedures significantly reduce the likelihood of embarrassment. Motorists whose cars are searched, unlike those who are only questioned, may not be reassured by seeing that the Border Patrol searches other cars as well. Where only a few are singled out for a search, as at San Clemente, motorists may find the searches especially offensive. See Note, Border Searches and the Fourth Amendment, 77 Yale L. J. 1007, 1012-1013 (1968).
Moreover, we are not persuaded that the checkpoint limits to any meaningful extent the officer’s discretion to select cars for search. The record in the consolidated proceeding indicates that only about 3% of the cars that pass the San Clemente checkpoint are stopped for either questioning or a search, 368 F. Supp., at 411. Throughout the system, fewer than 3% of the vehicles that passed through checkpoints in 1974 were searched, Brief for United States 29, and no checkpoint involved in Baca reported a search rate of more than 10% or 15%. 368 F. Supp., at 412-415. It is apparent from these figures that checkpoint officers exercise a substantial degree of discretion in deciding which cars to search. The Government maintains that they voluntarily exercise that discretion with restraint and search only vehicles that arouse their suspicion, and it insists the officers should be free of judicial oversight of any kind. Viewed realistically, this position would authorize the Border Patrol to search vehicles at random, for no officer ever would have to justify his decision to search a particular car.
This degree of discretion to search private automobiles is not consistent with the Fourth Amendment. A search, even of an automobile, is a substantial invasion of privacy. To protect that privacy from official arbitrariness, the Court always has regarded probable cause as the minimum requirement for a lawful search. Almeida-Sanchez, 413 U. S., at 269-270; Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 51 (1970). We are not persuaded that the differences between roving patrols and traffic checkpoints justify dispensing in this case with the safeguards we required in Almeida-Sanchez. We therefore follow that decision and hold that at traffic checkpoints removed from the border and its functional equivalents, officers may not search private vehicles without consent or probable cause.
The Government lists in its reply brief some of the factors on which officers have relied in deciding which cars to search. They include the number of persons in a vehicle, the appearance and behavior of the driver and passengers, their inability to speak English, the responses they give to officers’ questions, the nature of the vehicle, and indications that it may be heavily loaded. All of these factors properly may be taken into account in deciding whether there is probable cause to search a particular vehicle. In addition, as we note today in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, ante, at 884-885, the officers are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from these facts in light of their knowledge of the area and their prior experience with aliens and smugglers. In this case, however, the officers advanced no special reasons for believing respondent’s vehicle contained aliens. The absence of probable cause makes the search invalid.
II
The Government also contends that even if AlmeidaSanchez applies to checkpoint searches, the Court of Appeals erred in voiding this search because it occurred after the date of decision in Almeida-Sanchez but before the Court of Appeals stated in United States v. Bowen, supra, that it would require probable cause for checkpoint searches. Examination of the Government’s brief in the Ninth Circuit indicates that it did not raise this question below. On the contrary, it represented to the court that the decision in Bowen would be “determinative of the issues in this case.” We therefore decline to consider this issue, which was raised for the first time in the petition for certiorari.
Affirmed.
Such places typically include the trunk, under the hood, and beneath the chassis. If the vehicle is a truck, a camper, or the like, the officer inspects the enclosed portion as well. But an immigration inspection is not always so confined. In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), the officer removed the back seat cushion because there were reports that aliens had been found seated upright behind seats from which the springs had been removed. Id., at 286 (White, J., dissenting).
The degree of the invasion of privacy in an automobile search may vary with the circumstances, as there are significant differences between “an automobile and a home or office.” Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 48 (1970); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S., at 279 (Powell, J., concurring).
Not every aspect of a routine automobile “inspection,” as described in n. 1, supra, necessarily constitutes a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. There is no occasion in this case to define the exact limits of an automobile “search.”
Nor do we have occasion to decide whether a warrant could issue approving checkpoint searches based on information about the area as a whole, in the absence of cause to believe that a particular car is carrying concealed aliens, because the officers had no such warrant in this case and had not tried to obtain one. See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, supra, at 275 (Powell, J., concurring); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967). We also need not decide whether checkpoints and roving patrols must be treated the same for all purposes, or whether Border Patrol officers may lawfully stop motorists for questioning at an established checkpoint without reason to believe that a particular vehicle is carrying aliens. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, ante, p. 873. Nor do we suggest that probable cause would be required for all inspections of private motor vehicles. It is quite possible, for example, that different considerations would apply to routine safety inspections required as a condition of road use.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case requires us once again to reconcile the plenary-power of the States over residents within their borders with the semi-autonomous status of Indians living on tribal reservations. In this instance, the problem arises in the context of Arizona’s efforts to impose its personal income tax on a reservation Indian whose entire income derives from reservation sources. Although we have repeatedly addressed the question of state taxation of reservation Indians, the problems posed by a state income tax are apparently of first impression in this Court. The Arizona courts have held that such state taxation is permissible. 14 Ariz. App. 452, 484 P. 2d 221 (1971). We noted probable jurisdiction, 406 U. S. 916 (1972), and now reverse. We hold that by imposing the tax in question on this appellant, the State has interfered with matters which the relevant treaty and statutes leave to the exclusive province of the Federal Government and the Indians themselves. The tax is therefore unlawful as applied to reservation Indians with income derived wholly from reservation sources.
I
Appellant is an enrolled member of the Navajo tribe who lives on that, portion of the Navajo Reservation located within the State of Arizona. Her complaint alleges that all her income earned during 1967 was derived from within the Navajo Reservation. Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §43-188 (f) (Supp. 1972-1973), $16.20 was withheld from her wages for that year to cover her state income tax liability. At the conclusion of the tax year, appellant filed a protest against the collection of any taxes on her income and a claim for a refund of the entire amount withheld from her wages. When no action was taken on her claim, she instituted this action in Arizona Superior Court on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, demanding a return of the money withheld and a declaration that the state tax was unlawful as applied to reservation Indians.
The trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Citing this Court’s decision in Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217 (1959), the Court of Appeals held that the test “is not whether the Arizona state income tax infringes on plaintiff’s rights as an individual Navajo Indian, but whether such a tax infringes on the rights of the Navajo tribe of Indians to be self-governing.” 14 Ariz. App., at 454, 484 P. 2d, at 223. The court thus distinguished cases dealing with state taxes on Indian real property on the ground that these taxes, unlike the personal income tax, infringed tribal autonomy.
The court .then pointed to cases holding that state employees could be required to pay federal income taxes and that the State had a concomitant right to tax federal employees. See Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405 (1938); Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U. S. 466 (1939). Reasoning by analogy from these cases, the court argued that Arizona’s income tax on individual Navajo Indians did not “[cause] an impairment of the right of the Navajo tribe to be self governing.” 14 Ariz. App., at 455, 484 P. 2d, at 224.
Nor did the court find anything in the Arizona Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 557, to prevent the State from taxing reservation Indians. That Act, the relevant language of which is duplicated in the Arizona Constitution, disclaims state title over Indian lands and requires that such lands shall remain “under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.” 36 Stat. 569. But the Arizona court, relying on this Court’s decision in Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 60 (1962), held that the Enabling Act nonetheless permitted concurrent state jurisdiction so long as tribal self-government remained intact. Since an individual income tax did not interfere with tribal self-government, it followed that appellant had failed to state a claim. The Arizona Supreme Court denied a petition for review of this decision, and the case came here on appeal. See 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).
II
It may be helpful to begin our discussion of the law applicable to this complex area with a brief statement of what this case does not involve. We are not here dealing with Indians who have left or never inhabited reservations set aside for their exclusive use or who do not possess the usual accoutrements of tribal self-government. See, e. g., Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, supra; Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 369 U. S. 45 (1962); Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. United States, 319 U. S. 598 (1943). Nor are we concerned with exertions of state sovereignty over non-Indians who undertake activity on Indian reservations. See, e. g., Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264 (1898); Utah & Northern R. Co. v. Fisher, 116 U. S. 28 (1885). Cf. Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U. S. 647, 651 (1930). Nor, finally, is this a case where the State seeks to reach activity undertaken by reservation Indians on nonreservation lands. See, e. g., Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, ante, p. 145. Rather, this case involves the narrow question whether the State may tax a reservation Indian for income earned exclusively on the reservation.
The principles governing the resolution of this question are not new. On the contrary, “[t]he policy of leaving Indians free from state jurisdiction and control is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history.” Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, 789 (1945). This policy was first articulated by this Court 141 years ago when Mr. Chief Justice Marshall held that Indian nations were “distinct political coriimunities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guarantied by the United States.” Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 557 (1832). It followed from this concept of Indian reservations as separate, although dependent nations, that state law could have no role to plav within the reservation boundaries, “The Cherokee nation ... is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States.” Id., at 561. See also United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886); Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556 (1883).
Although Worcester on its facts dealt with a State’s efforts to extend its criminal jurisdiction to reservation lands, the rationale of the case plainly extended to state taxation within the reservation as well. Thus, in The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 (1867), the Court unambiguously rejected state efforts to impose a land tax on reservation Indians. “If the tribal organization of the Shawnees is preserved intact, and recognized by the political department of the government as existing, then they are a 'people distinct from others,’ capable of making treaties, separated from the jurisdiction of Kansas, and to be governed exclusively by the government of the Union. If under the control of Congress, from necessity there can be no divided authority.” Id., at 755. See also The New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761 (1867).
It is true, as the State asserts, that some of the later Indian tax cases turn, not on the Indian sovereignty doctrine, but on whether or not the State can be said to have imposed a forbidden tax on a federal instrumentality. See, e. g., Leahy v. State Treasurer of Oklahoma, 297 U. S. 420 (1936); United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432 (1903). To the extent that the tax exemption rests on federal immunity from state taxation, it may well be inapplicable in a case such as this involving an individual income tax. But it would vastly oversimplify the problem to say that nothing remains of the notion that reservation Indians are a separate people to whom state jurisdiction, and therefore state tax legislation, may not extend. Thus, only a few years ago, this Court struck down Arizona’s attempt to tax the proceeds of a trading company doing business within the confines of the very reservation involved in this case. See Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 U. S. 685 (1965). The tax in no way interfered with federal land or with the National Government’s proprietary interests. But it was invalidated nonetheless because “from the very first days of our Government, the Federal Government had been permitting the Indians largely to govern themselves, free from state interference.” Id., at 686-687. As a leading text on Indian problems summarizes the relevant law: “State laws generally are not applicable to tribal Indians on an Indian reservation except where Congress has expressly provided that State laws shall apply. It follows that Indians and Indian property on an Indian reservation are not subject to State taxation except by virtue of express authority conferred upon the State by act of Congress.” U. S. Dept, of the Interior, Federal Indian Law 845 (1958) (hereafter Federal Indian Law).
This is not to say that the Indian sovereignty doctrine, with its concomitant jurisdictional limit on the reach of state law, has remained static during the 141 years since Worcester was decided. Not surprisingly, the doctrine has undergone considerable evolution in response to changed circumstances. As noted above, the doctrine has not been rigidly applied in cases where Indians have left the reservation and become assimilated into the general community. See, e. g., Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. United States, 319 U. S. 598 (1943). Similarly, notions of Indian sovereignty have been adjusted to take account of the State’s legitimate interests in regulating the affairs of non-Indians. See, e. g., New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U. S. 496 (1946); Draper v. United States, 164 U. S. 240 (1896); Utah & Northern R. Co. v. Fisher, 116 U. S. 28 (1885). This line of cases was summarized in this Court’s landmark decision in Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217 (1959): “Over the years this Court has modified [the Worcester principle] in cases where essential tribal relations were not involved and where the rights of Indians would not be jeopardized .... Thus, suits by Indians against outsiders in state courts have been sanctioned. . . . And state courts have been allowed to try non-Indians who committed crimes against each other on a reservation. . . . But if the crime was by or against an Indian, tribal jurisdiction or that expressly conferred on other courts by Congress has remained exclusive. . . . Essentially, absent governing Acts of Congress, the question has always been whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” Id., at 219-220 (footnote omitted).
Finally, the trend has been away from the idea of inherent Indian sovereignty as a bar to state jurisdiction and toward reliance on federal pre-emption. See Mescolero Apache Tribe v. Jones, ante, p. 145. The modern cases thus tend to avoid reliance on platonic notions of Indian sovereignty and to look instead to the applicable treaties and statutes which define the limits of state power. Compare, e. g., United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886), with Kennedy v. District Court, 400 U. S. 423 (1971).
The Indian sovereignty doctrine is relevant, then, not because it provides a definitive resolution of the issues in this suit, but because it provides a backdrop against which the applicable treaties and federal statutes must be read. It must always be remembered that the various Indian tribes were once independent and sovereign nations, and that their claim to sovereignty long predates that of our own Government. Indians today are American citizens. They have the right to vote, ’ to use state courts, and they receive some state services. But it is nonetheless still true, as it was in the last century, that “[t]he relation of the Indian tribes living within the borders of the United States ... [is] an anomalous one and of a complex character. . . . They were, and always have been, regarded as having a semi-independent position when they preserved their tribal relations; not as States, not as nations, not as possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty, but as a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and thus far not brought under the laws of the Union or of the State within whose limits they resided.” United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S., at 381-382.
III
When the relevant treaty and statutes are read with this tradition of sovereignty in mind, we think it clear that Arizona has exceeded its lawful authority by attempting to tax appellant. The beginning of our analysis must be with the treaty which the United States Gov-eminent entered with the Navajo Nation in 1868. The agreement provided, in relevant part, that a prescribed reservation would be set aside “for the use and occupation of the Navajo tribe of Indians” and that “no persons except those herein so authorized to do, and except such officers, soldiers, agents, and employes of the government, or of the Indians, as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties imposed by law, or the orders of the President, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in, the territory described in this article.” 15 Stat. 668.
The treaty nowhere explicitly states that the Navajos were to be free from state law or exempt from state taxes. But the document is not to be read as an ordinary contract agreed upon by parties dealing at arm’s length with equal bargaining positions. We have had occasion in the past to describe the circumstances under which the agreement was reached. “At the time this document was signed the Navajos were an exiled people, forced by the United States to live crowded together on a small piece of land on the Pecos River in eastern New Mexico, some 300 miles east of the area they had occupied before the coming of the white man. In return for their promises to keep peace, this treaty 'set apart’ for 'their permanent home’ a portion of what had been their native country.” Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S., at 221.
It is circumstances such as these which have led this Court in interpreting Indian treaties, to adopt the general rule that “[djoubtful expressions are to be resolved in favor of the weak and defenseless people who are the wards of the nation, dependent upon its protection and good faith.” Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U. S. 363, 367 (1930). When this canon of construction is taken together with the tradition of Indian independence described above, it cannot be doubted that the reservation of certain lands for the exclusive use and occupancy of the Navajos and the exclusion of non-Navajos from the prescribed area was meant to establish the lands as within the exclusive sovereignty of the Navajos under general federal supervision. It is thus unsurprising that this Court has interpreted the Navajo treaty to preclude extension of state law- — including state tax law — to Indians on the Navajo Reservation. See Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 U. S., at 687, 690; Williams v. Lee, supra, at 221-222.
Moreover, since the signing of the Navajo treaty, Congress has consistently acted upon the assumption that the States lacked jurisdiction over Navajos living on the reservation. Thus, when Arizona entered the Union, its entry was expressly conditioned on the promise that the State would “forever disclaim all right and title to . . . all lands lying within said boundaries owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, the right or title to which shall have been acquired through or from the United States or any prior sovereignty, and that until the title of such Indian or Indian tribes shall have been extinguished the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition and under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.” Arizona Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 569.
Nor is the Arizona Enabling Act silent on the specific question of tax immunity. The Act expressly provides that “nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing as other lands and other property are taxed any lands and other property outside of an Indian reservation owned or held by any Indian.” Id., at 570 (emphasis added). It is true, of course, that exemptions from tax laws should, as a general rule, be clearly expressed. But we have in the past construed language far more ambiguous than this as providing a tax exemption for Indians. See, e. g., Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U. S. 1, 6 (1956), and we see no reason to give this language an especially crabbed or restrictive meaning.
Indeed, Congress’ intent to maintain the tax-exempt status of reservation Indians is especially clear in light of the Buck Act, 4 U. S. C. § 105 et seq., which provides comprehensive federal guidance for state taxation of those living within federal areas. Section 106 (a) of Title 4 U. S. C. grants to the States general authority to impose an income tax on residents of federal areas, but § 109 expressly provides that “[n]othing in sections 105 and 106 of this title shall be deemed to authorize the levy or collection of any tax on or from any Indian not otherwise taxed.” To be sure, the language of the statute itself does not make clear whether the reference to “any Indian not otherwise taxed” was intended to apply to reservation Indians earning their income on the reservation. But the legislative history makes plain that this proviso was meant to except reservation Indians from coverage of the Buck Act, see S. Rep. No. 1625, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 2, 4 (1940); 84 Cong. Rec. 10685, and this Court has so interpreted it. See Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 U. S., at 691 n. 18. While the Buck Act itself cannot be read as an affirmative grant of tax-exempt status to reservation Indians, it should be obvious that Congress would not have jealously protected the immunity of reservation Indians from state income taxes had it thought that the States had residual power to impose such taxes in any event. Similarly, narrower statutes authorizing States to assert tax jurisdiction over reservations in special situations are explicable only if Congress assumed that the States lacked the power to impose the taxes without special authorization.
Finally, it should be noted that Congress has now provided a method whereby States may assume jurisdiction over reservation Indians. Title 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (a) grants the consent of the United States to States wishing to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over reservation Indians, and 25 U. S. C. § 1324 confers upon the States the right to disregard enabling acts which limit their authority over such Indians. But the Act expressly provides that the State must act “with the consent of the tribe occupying the particular Indian country,” 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (a), and must “appropriately [amend its] constitution or statutes.” 25 U. S. C. § 1324. Once again, the Act cannot be read as expressly conferring tax immunity upon Indians. But we cannot believe that Congress would have required the consent of the Indians affected and the amendment of those state constitutions which prohibit the assumption of jurisdiction if the States were free to accomplish the same goal unilaterally by simple legislative enactment. See Kennedy v. District Court, 400 U. S. 423 (1971).
Arizona, of course, has neither amended its constitution to permit taxation of the Navajos nor secured the consent of the Indians affected. Indeed, a startling aspect of this case is that appellee apparently concedes that, in the absence of compliance with 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (a), the Arizona courts can exercise neither civil nor criminal jurisdiction over reservation Indians. See Brief for Appellee 24-26. But the appellee nowhere explains how, without such jurisdiction, the State’s tax may either be imposed or collected. Cf. Tr. of Oral Arg. 38-39. Unless the State is willing to defend the position that it may constitutionally administer its tax system altogether without judicial intervention, cf. Ward v. Board of County Comm’rs, 253 U. S. 17 (1920), the admitted absence of either civil or criminal jurisdiction would seem to dispose of the case.
IV
When Arizona’s contentions are measured against these statutory imperatives, they are simply untenable. The State relies primarily upon language in Williams v. Lee stating that the test for determining the validity of state action is “whether [it] infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” 358 U. S., at 220. Since Arizona has attempted to tax individual Indians and not the tribe or reservation as such, it argues that it has not infringed on Indian rights of self-government.
In fact, we are far from convinced that when a State imposes taxes upon reservation members without their consent, its action can be reconciled with tribal self-determination. But even if the State’s premise were accepted, we reject the suggestion that the Williams test was meant to apply in this situation. It must be remembered that cases applying the Williams test have dealt principally with situations involving non-Indians. See also Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S., at 75-76. In these situations, both the tribe and the State could fairly claim an interest in asserting their respective jurisdictions. The Williams test was designed to resolve this conflict by providing that the State could protect its interest up to the point where tribal self-government would be affected.
The problem posed by this case is completely different. Since appellant is an Indian and since her income is derived wholly from reservation sources, her activity is totally within the sphere which the relevant treaty and statutes leave for the Federal Government and for the Indians themselves. Appellee cites us to no cases holding that this legislation may be ignored simply because tribal self-government has not been infringed. On the contrary, this Court expressly rejected such a position only two years ago. In Kennerly v. District Court, 400 U. S. 423 (1971), the Blackfoot Indian Tribe had voted to make state jurisdiction concurrent within the reservation. Although the State had not complied with the procedural prerequisites for the assumption of jurisdiction, it argued that it was nonetheless entitled to extend its laws to the reservation since such action was obviously consistent with the wishes of the Tribe and, therefore, with tribal self-government. But we'held that the Williams rule was inapplicable and that “[t]he unilateral action of the Tribal Council was insufficient to vest Montana with jurisdiction.” Id., at 427. If Montana may not assume jurisdiction over the Blackfeet by simple legislation even when the Tribe itself agrees to be bound by state law, it surely follows that Arizona may not assume such jurisdiction in the absence of tribal agreement.
Nor is the State’s attempted distinction between taxes on land and on income availing. Indeed, it is somewhat surprising that the State adheres to this distinction in light of our decision in Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, supra, wherein we invalidated an income tax which Arizona had attempted to impose within the Navajo Reservation. However relevant the land-income distinction may be in other contexts, it is plainly irrelevant when, as here, the tax is resisted because the State is totally lacking in jurisdiction over both the people and the lands it seeks to tax. In such a situation, the State has no more jurisdiction to reach income generated on reservation lands than to tax the land itself.
Finally, we cannot accept the notion that it is irrelevant “whether the . . . state income tax infringes on [appellant’s] rights as an individual Navajo Indian,” as the State Court of Appeals maintained. 14 Ariz. App., at 454, 484 P. 2d, at 223. To be sure, when Congress has legislated on Indian matters, it has, most often, dealt with the tribes as collective entities. But those entities are, after all, composed of individual Indians, and the legislation confers individual rights. This Court has therefore held that “the question has always been whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” Williams v. Lee, supra, at 220 (emphasis added). In this case, appellant’s rights as a reservation Indian were violated when the state collected a tax from her which it had no jurisdiction to impose. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below must be
Reversed.
See, e. g., Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. United States, 319 U. S. 598 (1943); Childers v. Beaver, 270 U. S. 555 (1926); United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432 (1903); The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 (1867). Cf. Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U. S. 1 (1956).
State courts have disagreed on the question. Compare Ghahate v. Bureau of Revenue, 80 N. M. 98, 451 P. 2d 1002 (1969), with Commissioner of Taxation v. Brun, 286 Minn. 43, 174 N. W. 2d 120 (1970). See Powless v. State Tax Comm’n, 22 App. Div. 2d 746, 253 N. Y. S. 2d 438 (1964); State Tax Comm’n v. Barnes, 14 Misc. 2d 311, 178 N. Y. S. 2d 932 (1958).
The liability was created by Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 43-102 (a) (Supp. 1972-1973) which, in relevant part, provides: “There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the entire net income of every estate or trust taxable under this title and of every resident of this state and upon the entire net income of every nonresident which is derived from sources within this state, taxes in the following amounts and at the following rates upon the amount of net income in excess of credits against net income provided in §§ 43-127 and 43-128.” Appellant conceded below that she was a “resident” within the meaning of the statute, and that question, which in any event poses an issue of state law, is not now before us.
See also Williams v. United States, 327 U. S. 711 (1946); United States v. Chavez, 290 U. S. 357 (1933); United States v. Ramsey, 271 U. S. 467 (1926).
The federal-instrumentality doctrine does not prohibit state taxation of individuals deriving their income from federal sources. See Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U. S. 466 (1939). Cf. Leahy v. State Treasurer of Oklahoma, 297 U. S. 420 (1936). The doctrine has, in any event, been sharply limited with respect to Indians. See Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. United States, 319 U. S. 598 (1943).
The court below distinguished Warren Trading Post as limited to cases where the Federal Government has pre-empted state law by regulating Indian traders in a manner inconsistent with state taxation. 14 Ariz. App. 452, 455, 484 P. 2d 221, 224. But although the Court was, no doubt, influenced by the federal licensing requirements, the reasoning of Warren Trading Post cannot be so restricted. The Court invalidated Arizona’s tax in part because “Congress has, since the creation of the Navajo Reservation nearly a century ago, left the Indians on it largely free to run the reservation and its affairs without state control, a policy which has automatically relieved Arizona of all burdens for carrying on those same responsibilities.” Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 U. S. 685, 690 (1965).
The source of federal authority over Indian matters has been the subject of some confusion, but it is now generally recognized that the power derives from federal responsibility for regulating commerce with Indian tribes and for treaty making. See U. S. Const. Art. I, §8, cl. 3; Art. II, §2, cl. 2. See also Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 219 n. 4 (1959); Perrin v. United States, 232 U. S. 478, 482 (1914); Federal Indian Law 3.
The extent of federal pre-emption and residual Indian sovereignty in the total absence of federal treaty obligations or legislation is therefore now something of a moot question. Cf. Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 60, 62 (1962); Federal Indian Law 846. The question is generally of little more than theoretical importance, however, since in almost all cases federal treaties and statutes define the boundaries of federal and state jurisdiction.
See 8 U. S. C. § 1401 (a)(2).
See, e. g., Harrison v. Laveen, 67 Ariz. 337, 196 P. 2d 456 (1948).
See, e. g., Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. S. 317, 332 (1892).
The court below pointed out that Arizona was expending tax monies for education and welfare within the confines of the Navajo Reservation. 14 Ariz, App., at 456-457, 484 P. 2d, at 225-226. It should be noted, however, that the Federal Government defrays 80% of Arizona’s ordinary social security payments to reservation Indians, see 25 U. S. C. § 639, and has authorized the expenditure of more than $88 million for rehabilitation programs for Navajos and Hopis living on reservations. See also 25 U. S. C. §§ 13, 309, 309a. Moreover, “[c]onferring rights and privileges on these Indians cannot affect their situation, which can only be changed by treaty stipulation, or a voluntary abandonment of their tribal organization.” The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall., at 757.
“Congress has . . . acted consistently upon the assumption that the States have no power to regulate the affairs of Indians on a reservation. . . . Significantly, when Congress has wished the States to exercise this power it has expressly granted them the jurisdiction which Worcester v. Georgia has denied.” Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S., at 220-221 (footnote omitted).
This language is duplicated in Arizona’s own constitution. See Ariz. Const., Art. 20, ¶ 4. It is also contained in the Enabling Acts of New Mexico and Utah, the other States in which the Navajo Reservation is located. See New Mexico Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 558-559; Utah Enabling Act, 28 Stat. 108.
There is nothing in Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 60 (1962), to the contrary. In Egan, we held that “‘absolute’ federal jurisdiction is not invariably exclusive jurisdiction,” and that this language in federal legislation did not preclude the exercise of residual state authority. See id., at 68. But that holding came in the context of a decision concerning the fishing rights of non-reservation Indians. See id., at 62. It did not purport to provide guidelines for the exercise of state authority in areas set aside by treaty for the exclusive use and control of Indians.
See, e. g., 25 U. S. C. § 398 (congressional authorization for States to tax mineral production on unallotted tribal lahds). Cf. 18 U. S. C. § 1161 (state liquor laws may be applicable within reservations) ; 25 U. S. C. § 231 (state health and education laws may be applicable within reservations).
As passed in 1953, Pub. L. 280, 67 Stat. 588, delegated civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservations to certain States, although not to Arizona. 18 U. S. C. § 1162; 28 U. S. C. § 1360. The original Act also provided a means whereby other States could assume jurisdiction over Indian reservations without the consent of the tribe affected. 67 Stat. 590. However, in 1968, Congress passed the Indian Civil Rights Act which changed the prior procedure to require the consent of the Indians involved before a State was permitted to assume jurisdiction. 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (a). Thus, had it wished to do so, Arizona could have unilaterally assumed jurisdiction over its portion of the Navajo Reservation at any point during the 15 years between 1953 and 1968. But although the State did pass narrow legislation purporting to require the enforcement of air and water pollution standards within reservations, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 36-1801, 36-1865 (Supp. 1972), it declined to assume full responsibility for the Indians during the period when it had the opportunity to do so.
We do not suggest that Arizona would necessarily be empowered to impose this tax had it followed the procedures outlined in 25 U. S. C. § 1322 et seq. Cf. 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (b). That question is not presently before us, and we express no views on it.
In light of our prior cases, appellee has no choice but to make this concession. See, e. g., Kennedy v. District Court, 400 U. S. 423 (1971); States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886).
Organized, Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 60 (1962), is not such a case. See n. 15, supra.
Indeed, the position was expressly rejected in Williams itself, upon which appellee so heavily relies. Williams held that “absent governing Acts of Congress, the question has always been whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” 358 U. S., at 220 (emphasis added).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
ORDER
Pursuant to this Court’s Final Decree herein entered on June 22, 1981, 452 U. S. 726, the United States and the State of Louisiana filed their Final Accountings, and, subsequently, each party filed Objections to the Accounting of the other. By an Order entered on January 11, 1982, 454 U. S. 1135, the Court referred the said Objections to its Special Master. The parties have now agreed upon these matters, have submitted to the Special Master a proposed Order, and the Special Master, with the concurrence of both parties, has recommended its entry by the Court.
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed:
1. The Final Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed.
2. The objections to accountings previously filed are sustained to the extent recommended in the Report of the Special Master.
3. All accountings required by the Court’s Decree of June 22, 1981, have been made and, as supplemented by the ruling on the objections thereto, are now approved.
4. The United States is directed forthwith to pay over to the State of Louisiana the outstanding sum of $3,251,609.76.
5. After the payment directed by paragraph 4 above, neither party shall be accountable to the other for any further payment in respect of the matters in controversy in these proceedings between the United States and the State of Louisiana.
6. Upon receipt by the State of Louisiana of the payment directed by paragraph 4, above, the Interim Agreement of October 12,1956, shall be deemed terminated for all purposes and all sums remaining in the impounded fund account established pursuant to that Agreement are unconditionally released to the United States.
7. The account submitted by the Special Master is approved and the balance owing to him shall be paid in equal shares by the United States and the State of Louisiana.
8. The Special Master is discharged in this case insofar as the proceedings involve the controversy between the United States and the State of Louisiana.
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.
Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania of 15 counts of willful failure to pay the excise tax imposed on wagering by 26 U. S. C. § 4401, four counts of willful failure to pay the special occupational tax imposed by 26 U. S. C. § 4411, and oné count of conspiracy to defraud the United States by evading payment of both taxes. 18 U. S. C. § 371. Petitioner moved before trial to dismiss the counts which charged conspiracy to defraud and failure to pay the excise tax, asserting that payment would have obliged him to incriminate himself, in violation of the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. He reiterated this contention in support of unsuccessful motions for acquittal after verdict and for a new trial. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the conviction. 358 F. 2d 154.
Petitioner did not assert below, and therefore has not urged here, that his privilege was violated by reason of his convictions for conspiracy and for failure to pay the special occupational tax. He has contended only that payment of the excise tax would have required him to incriminate himself, that he therefore may not properly be prosecuted for willful failure to pay the tax or for conspiracy to evade its payment, and that conduct of the trial court after submission of the case to the jury denied him a fair trial. We granted certiorari, 385 U. S. 810, and the case was argued with Marchetti v. United States, decided today, ante, p. 39. For reasons which follow, we reverse.
I.
We turn first to petitioner’s contention that payment of the wagering excise tax would have compelled him to incriminate himself. We have summarized in Marchetti, supra, the various state and federal penalties which have been imposed upon wagering. It is enough now to reiterate that Pennsylvania, in which petitioner allegedly accepted wagers, has adopted a comprehensive statutory •system for the punishment of gambling and ancillary activities. Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §§4601-4607 (1963). These penalties, in combination with the federal statutes described in Marchetti, place petitioner entirely within “an area permeated with criminal statutes,” where he is “inherently suspect of criminal activities.” Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, 79. The issues here are therefore whether payment of the excise tax would have provided information incriminating to petitioner, and, if it would have done so, whether petitioner is otherwise prevented from asserting the constitutional privilege.
The statutory scheme by which wagering is taxed is described in Marchetti, supra. Two additional observations are, however, required in order to assess fully the hazards of self-incrimination created by the wagering excise tax. First, those liable for payment of that tax are required to submit each month Internal Revenue Service Form 730. Treas. Reg. § 44.6011 (a)-l (a). The return is expressly designed for the use only of those engaged in the wagering business; its submission, and the replies demanded by each of its questions, evidence in the most direct fashion the fact of the taxpayer’s wagering activities. Although failures to pay the excise tax and to file a return are separately punishable under 26 U. S. C. § 7203, the two obligations must be considered inseparable for purposes of measuring the hazards of self-incrimination which might stem from payment of the excise tax. Nothing in the pertinent statutes or regulations contemplates payment of the tax without submission of the return, and we are informed by the United States that if the return does not accompany the tax payment, “the money is not accepted.”' Brief for the United States on Reargument 39, n. 35. We must conclude that here, as in Albertson, the validity under the Constitution of criminal prosecutions for willful failure to pay the excise tax may properly be determined only after assessment of the hazards of incrimination which would result from “literal and full compliance” with all the statutory requirements. 382 U. S., at 78.
Second, although there is no statutory instruction, as there is for the occupational tax, that state and local prosecuting officers be provided listings of those who have paid the excise tax, neither has Congress imposed explicit restrictions upon the use of information obtained as a consequence of payment of the tax. Moreover, it appears that the Revenue Service, evidently acting under the authority of certain general statutory provisions, has undertaken to tender this information to interested prosecuting authorities. We can only conclude that those liable for payment of the excise tax reasonably may expect that information obtainable from its payment, or from submission of Form 730, will ultimately be proffered to state and federal prosecuting officers.
In these circumstances, it would be impossible to say that the hazards of incrimination which stem from the obligation to pay the excise tax and to file Form 730 are “imaginary and unsubstantial.” Reg. v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, 330; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 599-600. The criminal penalties for wagering with which petitioner is threatened are scarcely “remote possibilities out of the ordinary course of law,” Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131, 144; yet he is obliged, on pain of criminal prosecution, to provide information which would readily incriminate him, and which he may reasonably expect would be provided to prosecuting authorities. These hazards of incrimination can only be characterized as “real and appreciable.” Reg. v. Boyes, supra, at 330; Brown v. Walker, supra, at 699-600. Moreover, unlike the income tax return at issue in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 269, petitioner’s submission of an excise tax payment, and his replies to the questions on the attendant return, would directly and unavoidably have served to incriminate him; his claim of privilege as to the entire tax payment procedure was therefore neither “extreme” nor “extravagant.” Compare, id., at 263.
We are thus obliged to inquire whether petitioner is otherwise foreclosed from asserting the constitutional privilege. For reasons indicated in Marchetti, supra, we have found nothing in United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, or Lewis v. United States, 348 U. S. 419, which now warrants the exclusion of this situation from the privilege’s protection. It need only be added that the requirements associated with the excise tax are directed wholly to past and present wagering activities; they lack even the illusory prospectivity which characterizes the special occupational tax and registration requirements.
Similarly, we have concluded that the “required records” doctrine, Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, cannot be appropriately applied to these circumstances. See generally Marchetti v. United States, supra. The premises of the doctrine, as it is described in Shapiro, are evidently three: first, the purposes of the United States’ inquiry must be essentially regulatory; second, information is to be obtained by requiring the preservation of records of a kind which the regulated party has customarily kept; and third, the records themselves must have assumed “public aspects” which render them at least analogous to public documents. There is no need for present purposes to examine the relative significance of these three factors, or to undertake to define more specifically their incidents, for both the first and third factors are plainly absent from this case.
Here, as in Marchetti, the statutory obligations are directed almost exclusively to individuals inherently suspect of criminal activities. The principal interest of the United States must be assumed to be the collection of revenue, and not the prosecution of gamblers, United States v. Calamaro, 354 U. S. 351, 358; but we cannot ignore either the characteristics of the activities about which information is sought, or the composition of the group to which the inquiries are made. These collateral circumstances, in combination with Congress’ apparent wish that any information obtained as a consequence of the wagering taxes be made available to prosecuting authorities, readily suffice to distinguish these requirements from those at issue in Shapiro. Moreover, the information demanded here lacks every characteristic of a public document. No doubt it is desired by the United States, but we have concluded, for reasons indicated in Marchetti, that this alone does not render information “public,” and thus does not deprive it of constitutional protection.
We must note that the pertinent Treasury regulations provide that the replies to the questions included on Form 730 are to be compiled each month “from the daily records required by §§ 44.4403-1 and 44.6001-1.” Treas. Reg. § 44.6011 (a)-l (a). It might therefore be argued that Form 730 is merely a monthly abstract of records essentially similar to those required to be preserved by the regulations in Shapiro. The difficulties with this argument are two. First, it is scarcely plain that the records required here are "of the same kind [the taxpayer] has customarily kept.” 335 U. S., at 5, n. 3. Second, and more important, there are, as we have indicated, other points of significant dissimilarity between this situation and that in Shapiro. We have concluded that in combination these points of difference preclude any appropriate application to these circumstances of the “required records” doctrine.
Finally, as in Marchetti, we have been urged by the United States to permit continued enforcement of the wagering excise tax requirements by imposing restrictions upon the use by state and federal authorities of information obtained as a consequence of payment of the tax. We recognize that § 6107 (see Marchetti, supra, at 59, n. 15) is not by its terms applicable to the excise tax, and that there is no similar statutory obligation that the Commissioner provide prosecutors with listings of those who have paid the excise tax. Nonetheless, it would be inappropriate to impose such restrictions upon one portion of a statutory system, when we have concluded that it would be improper, for reasons discussed in Mar-chetti, to do so upon “an integral part” of the same system. We therefore decline to impose the restrictions urged by the United States.
II.
There remain for disposition the substantive counts for willful failure to pay the occupational tax, and the count for conspiracy to defraud. The latter was bottomed on allegations that petitioner had conspired to evade payment both of the excise tax and of the occupational tax. Petitioner has consistently contended that the constitutional privilege should have prevented his conviction on the conspiracy count, evidently on the basis that, insofar as it is founded on his failure to pay the excise tax, this count raises questions identical with those presented by the substantive counts for failure to pay that tax. We agree, and conclude that a taxpayer may not be convicted of conspiracy to evade payment of the tax, if the constitutional privilege would properly prevent his conviction for willful failure to pay it. Cf. Marchetti v. United States, supra, at 60-61.
Petitioner has not, however, asserted a claim of privilege either as to the counts which charged willful failure to pay the occupational tax, of as to the allegation that he conspired to evade payment of the occupational tax. Given the decisions of this Court in Kahriger and Lewis, supra, which were on the books at the time of petitioner’s trial, and left untouched by Albertson v. SACB, supra, we are unable to view his failure to present this issue as an effective waiver of the constitutional privilege. By the same token, we do not think that we can well reach these counts on the theory of “plain error.”
It might, therefore, be thought that the proper disposition of the substantive occupational tax counts, and of the portion of the conspiracy count concerned with the occupational tax, would be to vacate, rather than to reverse, the judgments of conviction, and to return the case to the lower courts for further proceedings'consistent with our opinions in this case and in Marchetti.
We think, however, that a different course is indicated. Under 28 U. S. C. § 2106 we have power to dispose of this case “as may be just under the circumstances.” See Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, 327-331. Since the record is barren of any evidence on which a finding of waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination might properly be predicated, and since, absent such a waiver, reversal of the conviction would be inevitable in light of our holdings today in this case and in Mar-chetti, we consider that the entire case should now be finally disposed of at this level. In the special circumstances presented, this course seems to us to be dictated by considerations of sound judicial administration, in order to obviate further and entirely unnecessary proceedings below. Cf. Yates v. United States, supra.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed in its entirety.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
After argument, the case was returned to the calendar, and set for reargument at the 1967 Term, again with Marchetti, sufra. 388 U. S. 904. Counsel were asked to argue, in addition to the original questions, the following: “(1) What relevance, if any, has the required records doctrine, Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, to the validity under the Fifth Amendment of the obligation to pay the wagering excise tax imposed by 26 U. S. C. § 4401 ? (2) Is satisfaction of an obligation to pay a wagering excise tax imposed by 26 U. S. C. §4401 conditioned upon the filing of a return required under 26 U. S. C. § 6011 and pertinent regulations? If it is not, what information, if any, must accompany the payment of a wagering excise tax obligation in order to extinguish the taxpayer’s liability for that obligation?”
Indeed, so far as the pertinent materials can be said to reflect any position, it is that a return must accompany a tax payment. See 26 U. S. C. §6011; Treas. Reg. §44.6011 (a)-l (a).
The United States has suggested that the Commissioner has authority to make information obtained as a result of the excise tax available to prosecuting officers under 26 U. S. C. § 6103, 5 U. S. C. §§22, 1002 (c), and Treas. Reg. §§ 601.702 (a) (3) and (d). Brief for the United States on the original argument, p. 14, n. 10. But see Transcript of Record 101-102.
See State v. Mills, 229 La. 758, 86 So. 2d 895; State v. Baum, 230 La. 247, 88 So. 2d 209; Boynton v. State, 75 So. 2d 211, 213; United States v. Whiting, 311 F. 2d 191, 193. And see Caplin, The Gambling Business and Federal Taxes, 8 Crime & Delin. 371, 372. Further, we note that the United States has acknowledged thé “limited availability” of the excise tax returns, “in certain circumstances,” to state and local officials. Brief on Reargument 33, n. 30.
It is useful to note that the validity under the Fifth Amendment of the wagering excise tax was not at issue in either Kahriger or Lewis; Lewis involved an information which charged a willful failure to pay the occupational tax, and Kahriger an information which charged willful failures both to register and to pay the occupational tax.
H. R. Rep. No. 586, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 60.
Section 4411 provides that the occupational tax must be paid “by each person who is liable for tax under section 4401” and by each person who receives wagers for one liable under §4401. It might therefore be argued that since petitioner is entitled to claim the constitutional privilege in defense of a prosecution for willful failure to pay the excise tax, he is thereby freed from liability for the occupational tax. We cannot accept such an argument. We do not hold today either that the excise tax is as such constitutionally impermissible, or that a proper claim of privilege extinguishes liability for taxation; we hold only that such a claim of privilege precludes a criminal conviction premised on failure to pay the tax.
It should be noted that petitioner’s trial counsel did once assert, in colloquy with the trial judge, that “We contended and have always contended — and if required to go on appeal will continue to contend — that the requirements of this Act in requiring you to pay this excise tax and take out the stamp are a violation of the privilege against self incrimination.” The court then inquired, “You are raising the Constitutional question of the validity of the law?” Petitioner’s counsel replied, “That is right.” Transcript of Record 33. Petitioner did not, however, challenge his obligation to pay the occupational tax either in any of his various motions or in any of his other arguments, here or in the courts below.
Section 2106 provides that “The Supreme Court . . . may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.”
In light of this disposition, we find it unnecessary to reach petitioner’s alternative contention, that conduct of the trial judge after submission of the case to the jury prevented a fair trial.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents three questions concerning the validity of petitioner’s criminal conviction and death sentence: (i) whether the exclusion for cause of a member of the venire violated the principles announced in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 (1985); (ii) whether the prosecution’s closing argument during the guilt phase of a bifurcated trial rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and deprived the sentencing determination of the reliability required by the Eighth Amendment; and (iii) whether petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his trial.
h — I
Petitioner was tried and found guilty of murder, robbery, and assault with intent to kill in the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Florida, in January 1974. Pursuant to Florida’s capital sentencing statute, the same jury that convicted petitioner heard further testimony and argument in order to make a nonbinding recommendation as to whether a death sentence should be imposed. The jury recommended a death sentence, and the trial judge followed that recommendation. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. Petitioner made several of the same arguments in that appeal that he makes here. With respect to the prosecutorial misconduct claim, the court disapproved of the closing argument, but reasoned that the law required a new trial “only in those cases in which it is reasonably evident that the remarks might have influenced the jury to reach a more severe verdict of guilt... or in which the comment is unfair.” Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287, 289 (1976). It concluded that the comments had not rendered petitioner’s trial unfair. Petitioner’s challenge to the juror exclusion was rejected without comment. Petitioner did not at that time raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court granted certiorari, 429 U. S. 917 (1976), limited the grant to the claim of prosecutorial misconduct, 429 U. S. 1036 (1977), heard oral argument, and dismissed the writ as improvidently granted, 430 U. S. 704 (1977).
Petitioner then sought federal habeas corpus relief, raising the same claims he raises here. The District Court denied the petition. Darden v. Wainwright, 513 F. Supp. 947 (MD Fla. 1981). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Darden v. Wainwright, 699 F. 2d 1031 (1983). The Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc, and affirmed the District Court by an equally divided court. 708 F. 2d 646 (1983). Following a second rehearing en banc the Court of Appeals reversed on the claim of improper excusal of a member of the venire. 725 F. 2d 1526 (1984). This Court granted the State’s petition for certiorari on that claim, vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Wainwright v. Witt. 469 U. S. 1202 (1985). On remand, the en banc court denied relief, 767 F. 2d 752 (1985). Petitioner filed an application for a stay of his execution that this Court treated as a petition for certiorari and granted, at the same time staying his execution. 473 U. S. 928 (1985). We now affirm.
I — I h-H
Because of the nature of petitioner s claims, the facts of this case will be stated in more detail than is normally necessary in this Court. On September 8, 1973, at about 5:30 p.m., a black adult male entered Carl’s Furniture Store near Lakeland, Florida. The only other person in the store was the proprietor, Mrs. Turman, who lived with her husband in a house behind the store. Mr. Turman, who worked nights at a juvenile home, had awakened at about 5 p.m., had a cup of coffee at the store with his wife, and returned home to let their dogs out for a run. Mrs. Turman showed the man around the store. He stated that he was interested in purchasing about $600 worth of furniture for a rental unit, and asked to see several different items. He left the store briefly, stating that his wife would be back to look at some of the items.
The same man returned just a few minutes later asking to see some stoves, and inquiring about the price. When Mrs. Turman turned toward the adding machine, he grabbed her and pressed a gun to her back, saying “Do as I say and you won’t get hurt.” He took her to the rear of the store and told her to open the cash register. He took the money, then ordered her to the part of the store where some box springs and mattresses were stacked against the wall. At that time Mr. Turman appeared at the back door. Mrs. Turman screamed while the man reached across her right shoulder and shot Mr. Turman between the eyes. Mr. Turman fell backwards, with one foot partially in the building. Ordering Mrs. Turman not to move, the man tried to pull Mr. Turman into the building and close the door, but could not do so because one of Mr. Turman’s feet was caught in the door. The man left Mr. Turman faceup in the rain, and told Mrs. Turman to get down on the floor approximately five feet from where her husband lay dying. While she begged to go to her husband, he told her to remove her false teeth. He unzipped his pants, unbuckled his belt, and demanded that Mrs. Turman perform oral sex on him. She began to cry “Lord, have mercy.” He told her to get up and go towards the front of the store.
Meanwhile, a neighbor family, the Arnolds, became aware that something had happened to Mr. Turman. The mother sent her 16-year-old son Phillip, a part-time employee at the furniture store, to help. When Phillip reached the back door he saw Mr. Turman lying partially in the building. When Phillip opened the door to take Turman’s body inside, Mrs. Turman shouted “Phillip, no, go back.” Phillip did not know what she meant and asked the man to help get Turman inside. He replied, “Sure, buddy, I will help you.” As Phillip looked up, the man was pointing a gun in his face. He pulled the trigger and the gun misfired; he pulled the trigger again and shot Phillip in the mouth. Phillip started to run away, and was shot in the neck. While he was still running, he was shot a third time in the side. Despite these wounds, Phillip managed to stumble to the home of a neighbor, Mrs. Edith Hill. She had her husband call an ambulance while she tried to stop Phillip’s bleeding. While she was helping Phillip, she saw a late model green Chevrolet leave the store and head towards Tampa on State Highway 92. Phillip survived the incident; Mr. Turman, who never regained consciousness, died later that night.
Minutes after the murder petitioner was driving towards Tampa on Highway 92, just a few miles away from the furniture store. He was out on furlough from a Florida prison, and was driving a car borrowed from his girl friend in Tampa. He was driving fast on a wet road. Petitioner testified that as he came up on a line of cars in his lane, he was unable to slow down. He attempted to pass, but was forced off the road to avoid a head-on collision with an oncoming car. Petitioner crashed into a telephone pole. The driver of the oncoming car, John Stone, stopped his car and went to petitioner to see if he could help. Stone testified that as he approached the car, petitioner was zipping up his pants and buckling his belt. Police at the crash site later identified petitioner’s car as a 1969 Chevrolet Impala of greenish golden brown color. Petitioner paid a bystander to give him a ride to Tampa. Petitioner later returned with a wrecker, only to find that the car had been towed away by the police.
By the time the police arrived at the scene of the accident, petitioner had left. The fact that the car matched the description of the car leaving the scene of the murder, and that the accident had occurred within three and one-half miles of the furniture store and within minutes of the murder, led police to suspect that the car was driven by the murderer. They searched the area. An officer found a pistol — a revolver — about 40 feet from the crash site. The arrangement of shells within the chambers exactly matched the pattern that should have been found in the murder weapon: one shot, one misfire, followed by three shots, with a live shell remaining in the next chamber to be fired. A specialist for the Federal Bureau of Investigation examined the pistol and testified that it was a Smith & Wesson.38 special revolver. It had been manufactured as a standard.38; it later was sent to England to be rebored, making it a much rarer type of gun than the standard.38. An examination of the bullet that killed Mr. Turman revealed that it came from a.38 Smith & Wesson special.
On the day following the murder petitioner was arrested at his girl friend’s house in Tampa. A few days later Mrs. Turman identified him at a preliminary hearing as her husband’s murderer. Phillip Arnold selected petitioner’s picture out of a spread of six photographs as the man who had shot him. By that time, a Public Defender had been appointed to represent petitioner.
As petitioner’s arguments all relate to incidents in the course of his trial, they will be taken up, together with the relevant facts, in chronological order.
( — I h-H
Petitioner contends that one member of the venire, Mr. Murphy, was excluded improperly under the test enunciated in Wainwright v. Witt, 496 U. S. 412 (1985). That case modified this Court’s opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968). Witherspoon had held that potential jurors may be excused for cause when their opposition to the death penalty is such that they automatically would vote against a sentence of death or would be impaired in the task of determining defendant’s guilt. Witt held that the proper test is whether the juror’s views on capital punishment would “ ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’” 469 U. S., at 424, quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U. S. 38, 45 (1980). Witt also made clear that the trial judge’s determination that a potential juror is impermissibly biased is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U. S, C. §2254.
Petitioner’s argument on this issue relies solely on the wording of a question the trial court asked Murphy before excluding him. The court asked: “Do you have any moral or religious, conscientious moral or religious principles in opposition to the death penalty so strong that you would be unable without violating your own principles to vote to recommend a death penalty regardless of the facts?” App. 9. Petitioner argues that this question does not correctly state the relevant legal standard. As Witt makes clear, however, our inquiry does not end with a mechanical recitation of a single question and answer. 469 U. S., at 424-426. We therefore examine the context surrounding Murphy’s exclusion to determine whether the trial court’s decision that Murphy’s beliefs would “substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror” was fairly supported by the record.
During voir dire, but prior to individual questioning on this point, the trial court spoke to the entire venire, including Murphy, saying:
“Now I am going to ask each of you individually the same question so listen to me carefully, I want to know if any of you have such strong religious, moral or conscientious principles in opposition to the death penalty that you would be unwilling to vote to return an advisory sentence recommending the death sentence even though the facts presented to you should be such as under the law would require that recommendation? Do you understand my question?”
The court then proceeded to question the members of the venire individually, but did so while the entire venire was present in the courtroom. Thus, throughout the individual questioning, all the veniremen could hear the questions and answers. In fact, the prosecution frequently incorporated prior questioning of other veniremen by reference, each time with the assurance from the individual being questioned that he or she had heard and understood the previous questions. See Tr. 89-90, 112, 141-142; see also id., at 160.
The court repeatedly stated the correct standard when questioning individual members of the venire. Murphy was present and heard the court ask the proper Witherspoon question over and over again. After many instances of such questioning, Murphy was seated in the jury box. The court first asked Murphy his occupation, and learned that he was retired, but had spent the eight years before retirement working in the administration office of St. Pios Seminary. As previously noted, the court then asked: “Do you have any moral or religious, conscientious moral or religious principles in opposition to the death penalty so strong that you would be unable without violating your own principles to vote to recommend a death penalty regardless of the facts?” After Murphy responded “Yes, I have” he was excused.
The precise wording of the question asked of Murphy, and the answer he gave, do not by themselves compel the conclusion that he could not under any circumstance recommend the death penalty. But Witt recognized that “determinations of juror bias cannot be reduced to question-and-answer sessions which obtain results in the manner of a catechism.” 469 U. S., at 424. The trial court, “aided as it undoubtedly was by its assessment of [the potential juror’s] demeanor,” id., at 434, was under the obligation to determine whether Murphy’s views would “ ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror,’ ” id., at 424. In making this determination, the trial court could take account of the fact that Murphy was present throughout an entire series of questions that made the purpose and meaning of the Witt inquiry absolutely clear. No specific objection was made to the excusal of Murphy by defense counsel. Nor did the court perceive, as it had previously, any need to question further. Viewing the record of voir dire in its entirety, we agree with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals that the trial court’s decision to exclude this juror was proper. 767 F. 2d, at 754.
HH <
Petitioner next contends that the prosecution’s closing argument at the guilt-innocence stage of the trial rendered his conviction fundamentally unfair and deprived the sentencing determination of the reliability that the Eighth Amendment requires.
It is helpful as an initial matter to place these remarks in context. Closing argument came at the end of several days of trial. Because of a state procedural rule petitioner’s counsel had the opportunity to present the initial summation as well as a rebuttal to the prosecutors’ closing arguments. The prosecutors’ comments must be evaluated in light of the defense argument that preceded it, which blamed the Polk County Sheriff’s Office for a lack of evidence, alluded to the death penalty, characterized the perpetrator of the crimes as an “animal,” and contained counsel’s personal opinion of the strength of the State’s evidence.
The prosecutors then made their closing argument. That argument deserves the condemnation it has received from every court to review it, although no court has held that the argument rendered the trial unfair. Several comments attempted to place some of the blame for the crime on the Division of Corrections, because Darden was on weekend furlough from a prison sentence when the crime occurred. Some comments implied that the death penalty would be the only guarantee against a future similar act. Others incorporated the defense’s use of the word “animal.” Prosecutor McDaniel made several offensive comments reflecting an emotional reaction to the case. These comments undoubtedly were improper. But as both the District Court and the original panel of the Court of Appeals (whose opinion on this issue still stands) recognized, it “is not enough that the prosecutors’ remarks were undesirable or even universally condemned.” Darden v. Wainwright, 699 F. 2d, at 1036. The relevant question is whether the prosecutors’ comments “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Donnelly v. DeChristo-foro, 416 U. S. 637 (1974). Moreover, the appropriate standard of review for such a claim on writ of habeas corpus is “the narrow one of due process, and not the broad exercise of supervisory power.” Id., at 642.
Under this standard of review, we agree with the reasoning of every court to consider these comments that they did not deprive petitioner of a fair trial. The prosecutors’ argument did not manipulate or misstate the evidence, nor did it implicate other specific rights of the accused such as the right to counsel, or the right to remain silent. See Darden v. Wainwright, 513 F. Supp., at 958. Much of the objectionable content was invited by or was responsive to the opening summation of the defense. As we explained in United States v. Young, 470 U. S. 1 (1985), the idea of “invited response” is used not to excuse improper comments, but to determine their effect on the trial as a whole. Id., at 13. The trial court instructed the jurors several times that their decision was to be made on the basis of the evidence alone, and that the arguments of counsel were not evidence. The weight of the evidence against petitioner was heavy; the “overwhelming eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to support a finding of guilt on all charges,” 329 So. 2d, at 291, reduced the likelihood that the jury’s decision was influenced by argument. Finally, defense counsel made the tactical decision not to present any witness other than petitioner. This decision not only permitted them to give their summation prior to the prosecution’s closing argument, but also gave them the opportunity to make a final rebuttal argument. Defense counsel were able to use the opportunity for rebuttal very effectively, turning much of the prosecutors’ closing argument against them by placing many of the prosecutors’ comments and actions in a light that was more likely to engender strong disapproval than result in inflamed passions against petitioner. For these reasons, we agree with the District Court below that “Darden’s trial was not perfect — few are— but neither was it fundamentally unfair.” 513 F. Supp., at 958.
V
Petitioner contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of trial. That claim must be evaluated against the two-part test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). First, petitioner must show that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id., at 688. Second, petitioner must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id., at 694. Petitioner argues that his trial counsel did not delve sufficiently into his background, and as a result were unprepared to present mitigating evidence at the sentencing hearing.
As an initial matter, petitioner contends that trial counsel devoted only the time between the close of the guilt phase of trial and the start of the penalty phase — approximately one-half hour — to preparing the case in mitigation. That argument is without merit. Defense counsel engaged in extensive preparation prior to trial, in a manner that included preparation for sentencing. Mr. Jack Johnson, head of the Public Defender’s office at the time, stated to the habeas court that “we had expended hundreds of hours on [petitioner’s] behalf trying to represent him,” Tr. of Habeas Corpus Proceedings 219, and that his office “worked very hard on the case.” Id., at 237. Mr. Goodwill, an experienced criminal trial lawyer, testified that he “spent more time on this case than I spent on... any capital case I have been involved in, probably more time than any case I’ve ever been involved in.” Supp. App. 30. That included time investigating petitioner’s alibi, and driving petitioner around the scene of events to establish each point of his story. Counsel obtained a psychiatric report on petitioner, with an eye toward using it in mitigation during sentencing. Counsel also learned in pretrial preparation that Mrs. Turman was opposed to the death penalty, and considered the possibility of putting her on the stand at the sentencing phase. The record clearly indicates that a great deal of time and effort went into the defense of this case; a significant portion of that time was devoted to preparation for sentencing.
Petitioner also claims that his trial counsel interpreted Fla. Stat. § 921.141(6) (1985), a statutory list of mitigating factors, as an exclusive list. He contends that their failure to introduce any evidence in mitigation was the result of this interpretation of the statute, and that he was thereby deprived of effective assistance of counsel. We express no view about the reasonableness of that interpretation of Florida law, because in this case the trial court specifically informed petitioner and his counsel just prior to the sentencing phase of trial that they could “go into any other factors that might really be pertinent to full consideration of your case and the analysis of you and your family situation, your causes, or anything else that might be pertinent to what is the appropriate sentence.” Tr. 887. At that point, even if counsel previously believed the list to be exclusive, they knew they were free to offer nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and chose not to do so.
As we recognized in Strickland: “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.... A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” 466 U. S., at 689. In particular, “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” Ibid., quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U. S. 91, 101 (1955). In this case, there are several reasons why counsel reasonably could have chosen to rely on a simple plea for mercy from petitioner himself. Any attempt to portray petitioner as a nonviolent man would have opened the door for the State to rebut with evidence of petitioner’s prior convictions. This evidence had not previously been admitted in evidence, and trial counsel reasonably could have viewed it as particularly damaging. The head of the Public Defenders Office testified at the habeas corpus hearing that petitioner “had been in and out of jails and prisons for most of his adult life....” Tr. of Habeas Corpus Proceedings 209. Petitioner had, for example, previously been convicted of assault with intent to commit rape. Darden v. State, 218 So. 2d 485 (Fla. App. 1969). In addition, if defense counsel had attempted to offer testimony that petitioner was incapable of committing the crimes at issue here, the State could have responded with a psychiatric report that indicated that petitioner “very well could have committed the crime; that he was, as I recall his [the psychiatrist’s] term, sociopathic type personality; that he would act entirely on impulse with no premeditation from the standpoint of planning. But that when a situation arose, the decision would be made simultaneously to commit the act.” Supp. App. 76 (testimony of Mr. Goodwill). For that reason, after consultation with petitioner, defense counsel rejected use of the psychiatric testimony. Tr. 886. Similarly, if defense counsel had attempted to put on evidence that petitioner was a family man, they would have been faced with his admission at trial that, although still married, he was spending the weekend furlough with a girlfriend. In sum, petitioner has not “overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” 466 U. S., at 689, quoting Michel v. Louisiana, supra, at 101. Petitioner has failed to satisfy the first part of the Strickland test, that his trial counsels’ performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. We agree with both the District Court and the Court of Appeals that petitioner was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. 699 F. 2d, at 1037.
VI
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
There are some minor discrepancies in the eyewitness identification. Mrs. Turman first described her assailant immediately after the murder while her husband was being taken to the emergency room. She told the investigating officer that the attacker was a heavy-set man. Tr. 237. When asked if he was “neat in his appearance, clean-looking, clean-shaven,” she responded “[a]s far as I can remember, yes, sir.” Ibid. She also stated to the officer that she thought that the attacker was about her height, 5' 6" tall, and that he was wearing a pullover shirt with a stripe around the neck. Id., at 227. The first time she saw petitioner after the attack was when she identified him at the preliminary hearing. She had not read any newspaper accounts of the crime, nor had she seen any picture of petitioner. When she was asked if petitioner was the man who had committed the crimes, she said yes. She also repeatedly identified him at trial.
Phillip Arnold first identified petitioner in a photo lineup while in the hospital. He could not speak at the time, and in response to the written question whether petitioner had a mustache, Phillip wrote back “I don’t think so.” Id., at 476. Phillip also testified at trial that the attacker was a heavy-set man wearing a dull, light color knit shirt with a ring around the neck. Id., at 443. He testified that the man was almost his height, about 6' 2" tall.
A motorist who stopped at the scene of the accident testified that petitioner was wearing a white or off-grey button-down shirt and that he had a slight mustache. Id., at 313, 318-320. In fact, the witness stated that he “didn’t know it was that [the mustache] or the raindrops on him or not. I couldn’t really tell that much to it, it was real thin, that’s all.” Id., at 318-319. Petitioner is about 5' 10" tall, and at the time of trial testified that he weighed about 175 pounds.
Prior to voir dire defense counsel objected to any questioning by the prosecution regarding a potential juror’s feelings about the death penalty. The judge denied the motion, stating:
“It is my ruling if a prospective juror states on his voir dire examination that because of his moral, religious or conscientious principles and belief he would be unwilling to recommend a death penalty, even though the facts and circumstances meet the requirements of law, then he in effect has said he would be unwilling to follow the law....” App. 6.
Although the judge correctly stated the general standard for dismissal,, he assured defense counsel that they were free to make- an objection to any particular Witherspoon question that was otherwise objectionable or that had “gone too far.” Id., at 7.
For example, the court asked Mrs. Macy: “[D]o you hold such conscientious moral or religious principles in opposition to the death penalty that you would be unwilling under any circumstances to recommend the death sentence?” Tr. 44. To Mr. Varney, who responded affirmatively to the above question, the court asked further: “[I]n the event that the evidence should be such that under the law that should be the legal recommendation you would be unwilling to return such a recommendation because of your conscientious beliefs?” Ibid. When three new veniremen replaced others who had been excused, the court asked: “Do either of the three of you hold such strong religious, moral or conscientious principles in opposition to the imposition of the death penalty that you would be unwilling to vote to recommend the death penalty regardless of what the evidence was?” Id., at 88. Ata similar point later on, the court explained to replacements from the venire that “I have asked the others and I will ask each of the four of you whether you have such strong religious, conscientious or moral principles against the imposition of the death penalty that you would be unwilling to vote to return a recommended sentence of the death penalty regardless of what the evidence or the facts might be?” Id., at 109. When one of the four expressed reservations, the court once again followed up with further questioning, demonstrating its practice of assuring itself, if there was any doubt, of the potential juror’s true position. See also id., at 107. During the voir dire examination prior to Murphy, four potential jurors were excused on Witherspoon grounds.
Rule 3.250 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (1973) provided that “a defendant offering no testimony in his own behalf, except his own, shall be entitled to the concluding argument before the jury.”
“The Judge is going to tell you to consider the evidence or the lack of evidence. We have a lack of evidence, almost criminally negligent on the part of the Polk County Sheriff’s Office in this case. You could go on and on about it.” Tr. 728.
“They took a coincidence and magnified that into a capital case. And they are asking you to kill a man on coincidence.” Id., at 730.
“The first witness that you saw was Mrs. Turman, who was a pathetic figure; who worked and struggled all of her life to build what little she had, the little furniture store; and a woman who was robbed, sexually assaulted, and then had her husband slaughtered before her eyes, by what would have to be a vicious animal.” Id., at 717. “And this murderer ran after him, aimed again, and this poor kid with half his brains blown away.... It’s the work of an animal, there’s no doubt about it.” Id., at 731-732.
“So they come on up here and ask Citrus County people to kill the man. You will be instructed on lesser included offenses.... The question is, do they have enough evidence to kill that man, enough evidence? And I honestly do not think they do.” Id., at 736-737.
“As far as I am concerned, there should be another Defendant in this courtroom, one more, and that is the division of corrections, the prisons.... Can we expect him to stay in a prison when they go there? Can’t we expect them to stay locked up once they go there? Do we know that they’re going to be out on the public with guns, drinking?” App. 15-16. “Yes, there is another Defendant, but I regret that I know of no charges to place upon him, except the public condemnation of them, condemn them.” Id,., at 16.
“I will ask you to advise the Court to give him death. That’s the only way that I know that he is not going to get out on the public. It’s the only way I know. It’s the only way I can be sure of it. It’s the only way that anybody can be sure of it now, because the people that turned him loose —.” Id., at 17-18.
“As far as I am concerned, and as Mr. Maloney said as he identified this man, this person as an animal, this animal was on the public for one reason.” Id., at 15.
“He shouldn’t be out of his cell unless he has a leash on him and a prison guard at the other end of that leash.” Id., at 16. “I wish [Mr. Turman] had had a shotgun in his hand when he walked in the back door and blown his [Darden’s] face off. I wish that I could see him sitting here with no face, blown away by a shotgun.” Id., at 20. “I wish someone had walked in the back door and blown his head off at that point.” Ibid. “He fired in the boy’s back, number five, saving one. Didn’t get a chance to use it. I wish he had used it on himself. ” Id., at 28. “I wish he had been killed in the accident, but he wasn’t. Again, we are unlucky that time.” Id., at 29. “[D]on’t forget what he has done according to those witnesses, to make every attempt to change his appearance from September the 8th, 1973. The hair, the goatee, even the moustache and the weight. The only thing he hasn’t done that I know of is cut his throat.” Id., at 31. After this, the last in a series of such comments, defense counsel objected for the first time.
Justice Blackmun’s dissenting opinion argues that because of pros-ecutorial misconduct petitioner did not receive a fair trial. The dissent states that the Court is “willing to tolerate not only imperfection but a level of fairness and reliability so low it should make conscientious prosecutors cringe.” Post, at 189. We agree that the argument was, and deserved to be, condemned. Swpra, at 179. Conscientious prosecutors will recognize, however, that every court that criticized the argument went on to hold that the fairness of petitioner’s trial was not affected by the prosecutors’ argument.
On direct appeal in 1976, the Florida Supreme Court so held after a careful review of the “totality of the record.” Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287, 290-291. On the first federal habeas petition, the District Court considered the prosecution’s closing argument at length and denied the petition. It concluded after a “thorough review of the record” that it was “convinced that no relief is warranted.” Darden v. Wainwright, 513 F. Supp. 947, 958 (MD Fla. 1981). “Darden’s trial was not perfect — few are — but neither was it fundamentally unfair.” Ibid. The original panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s holding with respect to the prosecutors’ argument. It stated that it had “considered the prosecutors’ remarks and evaluated them in light of Darden’s entire trial,” and that it “agree[d] with the district court’s conclusion that the prosecutors’ comments did not deny Darden a fundamentally fair trial.” 699 F. 2d 1031, 1036-1037 (1983). When the Court of Appeals reheard the case en banc for the second time it expressly agreed with the panel decision on the pros-ecutorial misconduct issue. 725 F. 2d 1526, 1532 (1984).
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the District Court on the Witherspoon issue. This Court granted the State’s petition for certiorari only on that issue, and vacated and remanded the ease for reconsideration in light of Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 (1985). The Court of Appeals denied all relief, 767 F. 2d 752 (1985). During this protracted litigation not one court has agreed with petitioner’s claim with respect to improper pros-ecutorial argument.
“Mr. McDaniel made an impassioned plea... how many times did he repeat [it]? I wish you had been shot, I wish they had blown his face away. My God, I get the impression he would like to be the man that stands there and pulls the switch on him.” Tr. 791; see
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977), we held that a state prisoner, barred by procedural default from raising a constitutional claim on direct appeal, could not litigate that claim in a § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding without showing cause for and actual prejudice from the default. Applying the principle of Sykes to these cases, we conclude that respondents, who failed to comply with an Ohio rule mandating contemporaneous objections to jury instructions, may not challenge the constitutionality of those instructions in a federal habeas proceeding.
I
Respondents’ claims rest in part on recent changes in Ohio criminal law. For over a century, the Ohio courts required criminal defendants to carry the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. See State v. Seliskar, 35 Ohio St. 2d 95, 298 N. E. 2d 582 (1973); Szalkai v. State, 96 Ohio St. 36, 117 N. E. 12 (1917); Silvus v. State, 22 Ohio St. 90 (1872). A new criminal code, effective January 1, 1974, subjected all affirmative defenses to the following rule:
“Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense is upon the accused.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2901.05(A) (1975).
For more than two years after its enactment, most Ohio courts assumed that this section worked no change in Ohio’s traditional burden-of-proof rules. In 1976, however, the Ohio Supreme Court construed the statute to place only the burden of production, not the burden of persuasion, on the defendant. Once the defendant produces some evidence of self-defense, the state court ruled, the prosecutor must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Robinson, 47 Ohio St. 2d 103, 351 N. E. 2d 88 (syllabus by the court). The present actions arose because Ohio tried and convicted respondents after the effective date of § 2901.05(A), but before the Ohio Supreme Court’s interpretation of that statute in Robinson.
On December 16, 1974, an Ohio grand jury indicted respondent Hughes for aggravated murder. At trial the State showed that, in the presence of seven witnesses, Hughes shot and killed a man who was keeping company with his former girlfriend. Prosecution witnesses testified that the victim was unarmed and had just attempted to shake hands with Hughes. Hughes, however, claimed that he acted in self-defense. His testimony suggested that he feared the victim, a larger man, because he had touched his pocket while approaching Hughes. The trial court instructed the jury that Hughes bore the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Counsel for Hughes did not specifically object to this instruction.
On January 24, 1975, the jury convicted Hughes of voluntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense of aggravated murder. On September 24, 1975, the Summit County Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and on March 19, 1976, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed Hughes’ appeal, finding no substantial constitutional question. Neither of these appeals challenged the jury instruction on self-defense.
Ohio tried respondent Bell for aggravated murder in April 1975. Evidence at trial showed that Bell was one of a group of bartenders who had agreed to help one another if trouble developed at any of their bars. On the evening of the murder, one of the bartenders called Bell and told him that he feared trouble from five men who had entered his bar. When Bell arrived at the bar, the bartender informed him that the men had left. Bell pursued them and gunned one of the men down in the street.
Bell defended on the ground that he had acted in self-defense. He testified that as he approached two of the men, the bartender shouted: “He’s got a gun” or “Watch out, he’s got a gun.” At this warning, Bell started shooting. As in Hughes’ case, the trial court instructed the jury that Bell had the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Bell did not object to this instruction and the jury convicted him of murder, a lesser included offense of the charged crime.
Bell appealed to the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, but failed to challenge the instruction assigning him the burden of proving self-defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed Bell’s conviction on April 8, 1976. Bell appealed further to the Ohio Supreme Court, again neglecting to challenge the self-defense instruction. That court overruled his motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 1976, two months after it construed § 2901.05(A) to place the burden of proving absence of self-defense on the prosecution. See State v. Robinson, 47 Ohio St. 2d 103, 351 N. E. 88.
Respondent Isaac was tried in September 1975 for felonious assault. The State showed that Isaac had severely beaten his former wife’s boyfriend. Isaac claimed that the boyfriend punched him first and that he acted solely in self-defense. Without objection from Isaac, the court instructed the jury that Isaac carried the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury acquitted Isaac of felonious assault, but convicted him of the lesser included offense of aggravated assault.
Ten months after Isaac’s trial, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Robinson, supra. In his appeal to the Pickaway County Court of Appeals, Isaac relied upon Robinson to challenge the burden-of-proof instructions given at his trial. The court rejected this challenge because Isaac had failed to object to the jury instructions during trial, as required by Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 30. This default waived Isaac’s claim. State v. Glaros, 170 Ohio St. 471, 166 N. E. 2d 379 (1960); State v. Slone, 45 Ohio App. 2d 24, 340 N. E. 2d 413 (1975).
The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed Isaac’s appeal for lack of a substantial constitutional question. On the same day, that court decided State v. Humphries, 51 Ohio St. 2d 95, 364 N. E. 2d 1354 (1977), and State v. Williams, 51 Ohio St. 2d 112, 364 N. E. 2d 1364 (1977), vacated in part and remanded, 438 U. S. 911 (1978). In Humphries the court ruled that every criminal trial held on or after January 1, 1974, “is required to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of [Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2901.05].” 51 Ohio St. 2d, at 95, 364 N. E. 2d, at 1355 (syllabus by the court). The court, however, refused to extend this ruling to a defendant who failed to comply with Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 30. Id., at 102-103, 364 N. E. 2d, at 1359. In Williams, the court declined to consider a constitutional challenge to Ohio’s traditional self-defense instruction, again because the defendant had not properly objected to the instruction at trial.
All three respondents unsuccessfully sought writs of ha-beas corpus from Federal District Courts. Hughes’ petition alleged that the State had violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to prove guilt “as to each and every essential element of the offense charged” and by failing to “so instruct” the jury. The District Judge rejected this claim, finding that Ohio law does not consider absence of self-defense an element of aggravated murder or voluntary manslaughter. Although the self-defense instructions at Hughes’ trial might have violated § 2901.05(A), they did not violate the Federal Constitution. Alternatively, the District Judge held that Hughes had waived his constitutional claim by failing to comply with Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule. Since Hughes offered no explanation for his failure to object, and showed no actual prejudice, Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977), barred him from asserting the claim. Hughes v. Engle, Civ. Action No. C 77-156A (ND Ohio, June 26, 1979).
Bell’s petition for habeas relief similarly alleged that the trial judge had violated due process by instructing “the jury that the accused must prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” The District Court acknowledged that Bell had never raised this claim in the state courts. Observing, however, that the State addressed Bell’s argument on the merits, the District Court ruled that Bell’s default was not a “deliberate bypass.” See Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 (1963). Although the court cited our opinion in Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, it did not inquire whether Bell had shown cause for or prejudice from his procedural waiver. The court then ruled that Ohio could constitutionally burden Bell with proving self-defense since it had not defined absence of self-defense as an element of murder. Bell v. Perini, No. C 78-343 (ND Ohio, Dec. 26, 1978).
Bell moved for reconsideration, urging that § 2901.05(A) had in fact defined absence of self-defense as an element of murder. The District Court rejected this argument and then declared that the “real issue” was whether Bell was entitled to retroactive application of State v. Robinson. Bell failed on this claim as well since Ohio’s decision to limit retroactive application of Robinson “substantially furthered] the State’s legitimate interest in the finality of its decisions.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A59. Indeed, the District Court noted that this Court had sanctioned just this sort of limit on retroactivity. See Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U. S. 233, 244, n. 8 (1977). Bell v. Perini, No. C 78-343 (ND Ohio, Jan. 23, 1979).
Isaac’s habeas petition was more complex than those submitted by Hughes and Bell. He urged that the Ohio Supreme Court had “refuse[d] to give relief [to him], despite its own pronouncement” that State v. Robinson would apply retroactively. In addition, he declared broadly that the Ohio court’s ruling was “contrary to the Supreme Court of the United States in regard to proving self-defense.” The District Court determined that Isaac had waived any constitutional claims by failing to present them to the Ohio trial court. Since he further failed to show either cause for or actual prejudice from the waiver, see Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, he could not present his claim in a federal habeas proceeding. Isaac v. Engle, Civ. Action No. C-2-78-278 (SD Ohio, June 26, 1978).
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed all three District Court orders. In Isaac v. Engle, 646 F. 2d 1129 (1980), a majority of the en banc court ruled that Wainwright v. Sykes did not preclude consideration of Isaac’s constitutional claims. At the time of Isaac’s trial, the court noted, Ohio had consistently required defendants to prove affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence. The futility of objecting to this established practice supplied adequate cause for Isaac’s waiver. Prejudice, the second prerequisite for excusing a procedural default, was “clear” since the burden of proof is a critical element of factfinding, and since Isaac had made a substantial issue of self-defense. 646 F. 2d, at 1134.
A majority of the court also believed that the instructions given at Isaac’s trial violated due process. Four judges thought that § 2901.05(A) defined the absence of self-defense as an element of felonious and aggravated assault. While the State did not have to define its crimes in this manner, “due process require[d] it to meet the burden that it chose to assume.” 646 F. 2d, at 1135. A fifth judge believed that, even absent § 2901.05(A), the Due Process Clause would compel the prosecution to prove absence of self-defense because that defense negates criminal intent, an essential element of aggravated and felonious assault. A sixth judge agreed that Ohio had violated Isaac’s due process rights, but would have concentrated on the State’s arbitrary refusal to extend the retroactive benefits of State v. Robinson, to Isaac.
Relying on the en banc decision in Isaac, two Sixth Circuit panels ordered the District Court to release Bell and Hughes unless the State chose to retry them within a reasonable time. Bell v. Perini, 635 F. 2d 575 (1980); Hughes v. Engle, judgt. order reported at 642 F. 2d 451 (1980). We granted certiorari to review all three Sixth Circuit judgments. 451 U. S. 906 (1981).
HH
A state prisoner is entitled to relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 only if he is held “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Insofar as respondents simply challenge the correctness of the self-defense instructions under Ohio law, they allege no deprivation of federal rights and may not obtain habeas relief. The lower courts, however, read respondents’ habeas petitions to state at least two constitutional claims. Respondents repeat both of those claims here.
A
First, respondents argue that §2901.05, which governs the burden of proof in all criminal trials, implicitly designated absence of self-defense an element of the crimes charged against them. Since Ohio defined its crimes in this manner, respondents contend, our opinions in In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975); and Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197 (1977), required the prosecution to prove absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. A plurality of the en banc Sixth Circuit seemed to accept this argument in Isaac’s appeal, finding that due process required the State “to meet the burden that it chose to assume.” 646 F. 2d, at 1135.
A careful review of our prior decisions reveals that this claim is without merit. Our opinions suggest that the prosecution’s constitutional duty to negate affirmative defenses may depend, at least in part, on the manner in which the State defines the charged crime. Compare Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra, with Patterson v. New York, supra. These decisions, however, do not suggest that whenever a State requires the prosecution to prove a particular circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, it has invariably defined that circumstance as an element of the crime. A State may want to assume the burden of disproving an affirmative defense without also designating absence of the defense an element of the crime. The Due Process Clause does not mandate that when a State treats absence of an affirmative defense as an “element” of the crime for one purpose, it must do so for all purposes. The structure of Ohio’s Code suggests simply that the State decided to assist defendants by requiring the prosecution to disprove certain affirmative defenses. Absent concrete evidence that the Ohio Legislature or courts understood § 2901.05(A) to go further than this, we decline to accept respondents’ construction of state law. While they attempt to cast their first claim in constitutional terms, we believe that this claim does no more than suggest that the instructions at respondents’ trials may have violated state law.
B
Respondents also allege that, even without considering §2901.05, Ohio could not constitutionally shift the burden of proving self-defense to them. All of the crimes charged against them require a showing of purposeful or knowing behavior. These terms, according to respondents, imply a degree of culpability that is absent when a person acts in self-defense. See Committee Comment to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2901.21 (1975) (“generally, an offense is not committed unless a person... has a certain guilty state of mind at the time of his act or failure [to act]”); State v. Clifton, 32 Ohio App. 2d 284, 286-287, 290 N. E. 2d 921, 923 (1972) (“one who kills in self-defense does so without the mens rea that otherwise would render him culpable of the homicide”). In addition, Ohio punishes only actions that are voluntary, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2901.21(A)(1) (1975), and unlawful, State v. Simon, No. 6262, p. 13 (Ct. App. Montgomery County, Ohio, Jan. 16, 1980), modified on reconsideration (Jan. 22, 1980). Self-defense, respondents urge, negates these elements of criminal behavior. Therefore, once the defendant raises the possibility of self-defense, respondents contend that the State must disprove that defense as part of its task of establishing guilty mens rea, voluntariness, and unlawfulness. The Due Process Clause, according to respondents’ interpretation of Winship, Mullaney, and Patterson, forbids the States to disavow any portion of this burden.
This argument states a colorable constitutional claim. Several courts have applied our Mullaney and Patterson opinions to charge the prosecution with the constitutional duty of proving absence of self-defense. Most of these decisions adopt respondents’ reasoning that due process commands the prosecution to prove absence of self-defense if that defense negates an element, such as purposeful conduct, of the charged crime. While other courts have rejected this type of claim, the controversy suggests that respondents’ second argument states at least a plausible constitutional claim. We proceed, therefore, to determine whether respondents preserved this claim before the state courts and, if not, to inquire whether the principles articulated in Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977), bar consideration of the claim in a federal habeas proceeding.
III
None of the respondents challenged the constitutionality of the self-defense instruction at trial. They thus violated Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 30, which requires contemporaneous objections to jury instructions. Failure to comply with Rule 30 is adequate, under Ohio law, to bar appellate consideration of an objection. See, e. g., State v. Humphries, 51 Ohio St. 2d 95, 364 N. E. 2d 1354 (1977); State v. Gordon, 28 Ohio St. 2d 45, 276 N. E. 2d 243 (1971). The Ohio Supreme Court has enforced this bar against the very due process argument raised here. State v. Williams, 51 Ohio St. 2d 112, 364 N. E. 2d 1364 (1977), vacated in part and remanded, 438 U. S. 911 (1978). We must determine, therefore, whether respondents may litigate, in a federal ha-beas proceeding, a constitutional claim that they forfeited before the state courts.
A
The writ of habeas corpus indisputably holds an honored position in our jurisprudence. Tracing its roots deep into English common law, it claims a place in Art. I of our Constitution. Today, as in prior centuries, the writ is a bulwark against convictions that violate “fundamental fairness.” Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S., at 97 (Stevens, J., concurring).
We have always recognized, however, that the Great Writ entails significant costs. Collateral review of a conviction extends the ordeal of trial for both society and the accused. As Justice Harlan once observed, “[b]oth the individual criminal defendant and society have an interest in insuring that there will at some point be the certainty that comes with an end to litigation, and that attention will ultimately be focused not on whether a conviction was free from error but rather on whether the prisoner can be restored to a useful place in the community.” Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1, 24-25 (1963) (dissenting opinion). See also Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U. S., at 247 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). By frustrating these interests, the writ undermines the usual principles of finality of litigation.
Liberal allowance of the writ, moreover, degrades the prominence of the trial itself. A criminal trial concentrates society’s resources at one “time and place in order to decide, within the limits of human fallibility, the question of guilt or innocence.” Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, at 90. Our Constitution and laws surround the trial with a multitude of protections for the accused. Rather than enhancing these safeguards, ready availability of habeas corpus may diminish their sanctity by suggesting to the trial participants that there may be no need to adhere to those safeguards during the trial itself.
We must also acknowledge that writs of habeas corpus frequently cost society the right to punish admitted offenders. Passage of time, erosion of memory, and dispersion of witnesses may render retrial difficult, even impossible. While a habeas writ may, in theory, entitle the defendant only to retrial, in practice it may reward the accused with complete freedom from prosecution.
Finally, the Great Writ imposes special costs on our federal system. The States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law. In criminal trials they also hold the initial responsibility for vindicating constitutional rights. Federal intrusions into state criminal trials frustrate both the States’ sovereign power to punish offenders and their good-faith attempts to honor constitutional rights. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 263-265 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring).
In Wainwright v. Sykes, we recognized that these costs are particularly high when a trial default has barred a prisoner from obtaining adjudication of his constitutional claim in the state courts. In that situation, the trial court has had no opportunity to correct the defect and avoid problematic retrials. The defendant’s counsel, for whatever reasons, has detracted from the trial’s significance by neglecting to raise a claim in that forum. The state appellate courts have not had a chance to mend their own fences and avoid federal intrusion. Issuance of a habeas writ, finally, exacts an extra charge by undercutting the State’s ability to enforce its procedural rules. These considerations supported our Sykes ruling that, when a procedural default bars state litigation of a constitutional claim, a state prisoner may not obtain federal habeas relief absent a showing of cause and actual prejudice.
Respondents urge that we should limit Sykes to cases in which the constitutional error did not affect the truthfinding function of the trial. In Sykes itself, for example, the prisoner alleged that the State had violated the rights guaranteed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). While this defect was serious, it did not affect the determination of guilt at trial.
We do not believe, however, that the principles of Sykes lend themselves to this limitation. The costs outlined above do not depend upon the type of claim raised by the prisoner. While the nature of a constitutional claim may affect the calculation of cause and actual prejudice, it does not alter the need to make that threshold showing. We reaffirm, therefore, that any prisoner bringing a constitutional claim to the federal courthouse after a state procedural default must demonstrate cause and actual prejudice before obtaining relief.
B
Respondents seek cause for their defaults in two circumstances. First, they urge that they could not have known at the time of their trials that the Due Process Clause addresses the burden of proving affirmative defenses. Second, they contend that any objection to Ohio’s self-defense instruction would have been futile since Ohio had long required criminal defendants to bear the burden of proving this affirmative defense.
We note at the outset that the futility of presenting an objection to the state courts cannot alone constitute cause for a failure to object at trial. If a defendant perceives a constitutional claim and believes it may find favor in the federal courts, he may not bypass the state courts simply because he thinks they will be unsympathetic to the claim. Even a state court that has previously rejected a constitutional argument may decide, upon reflection, that the contention is valid. Allowing criminal defendants to deprive the state courts of this opportunity would contradict the principles supporting Sykes.
Respondents’ claim, however, is not simply one of futility. They further allege that, at the time they were tried, they could not know that Ohio’s self-defense instructions raised constitutional questions. A criminal defendant, they urge, may not waive constitutional objections unknown at the time of trial.
We need not decide whether the novelty of a constitutional claim ever establishes cause for a failure to object. We might hesitate to adopt a rule that would require trial counsel either to exercise extraordinary vision or to object to every aspect of the proceedings in the hope that some aspect might mask a latent constitutional claim. On the other hand, later discovery of a constitutional defect unknown at the time of trial does not invariably render the original trial fundamentally unfair. These concerns, however, need not detain us here since respondents’ claims were far from unknown at the time of their trials.
In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), decided four and one-half years before the first of respondents’ trials, laid the basis for their constitutional claim. In Winship we held that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” Id., at 364. During the five years following this decision, dozens of defendants relied upon this language to challenge the constitutionality of rules requiring them to bear a burden of proof. In most of these cases, the defendants’ claims countered well-established principles of law. Nevertheless, numerous courts agreed that the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to bear the burden of disproving certain affirmative defenses. In light of this activity, we cannot say that respondents lacked the tools to construct their constitutional claim.
We do not suggest that every astute counsel would have relied upon Winship to assert the unconstitutionality of a rule saddling criminal defendants with the burden of proving an affirmative defense. Every trial presents a myriad of possible claims. Counsel might have overlooked or chosen to omit respondents’ due process argument while pursuing other avenues of defense. We have long recognized, however, that the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants only a fair trial and a competent attorney. It does not insure that defense counsel will recognize and raise every conceivable constitutional claim. Where the basis of a constitutional claim is available, and other defense counsel have perceived and litigated that claim, the demands of comity and finality counsel against labeling alleged unawareness of the objection as cause for a procedural default.
C
Respondents, finally, urge that we should replace or supplement the cause-and-prejudice standard with a plain-error inquiry. We rejected this argument when pressed by a federal prisoner, see United States v. Frady, post, p. 152, and find it no more compelling here. The federal courts apply a plain-error rule for direct review of federal convictions. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(b). Federal habeas challenges to state convictions, however, entail greater finality problems and special comity concerns. We remain convinced that the burden of justifying federal habeas relief for state prisoners is “greater than the showing required to establish plain error on direct appeal.” Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U. S. 145, 154 (1977); United States v. Frady, post, at 166.
Contrary to respondents’ assertion, moreover, a plain-error standard is unnecessary to correct miscarriages of justice. The terms “cause” and “actual prejudice” are not rigid concepts; they take their meaning from the principles of comity and finality discussed above. In appropriate eases those principles must yield to the imperative of correcting a fundamentally unjust incarceration. Since we are confident that victims of a fundamental miscarriage of justice will meet the cause-and-prejudice standard, see Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S., at 91; id., at 94-97 (Stevens, J., concurring), we decline to adopt the more vague inquiry suggested by the words “plain error.”
IV
Close analysis of respondents’ habeas petitions reveals only one colorable constitutional claim. Because respondents failed to comply with Ohio’s procedures for raising that contention, and because they have not demonstrated cause for the default, they are barred from asserting that claim under 28 U. S. C. § 2254. The judgments of the Court of Appeals are reversed, and these cases are remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Justice Blackmun concurs in the result.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2254(a) empowers “[t]he Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court” to “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” This statutory remedy may not be identical in all respects to the common-law writ of habeas corpus. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S., at 78.
See, e. g., State v. Rogers, 43 Ohio St. 2d 28, 30, 330 N. E. 2d 674, 676 (1975) (noting that “self-defense is an affirmative defense, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence”), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1061 (1976). But see State v. Matthews, No. 74AP-428, p. 9 (Ct. App. Franklin County, Ohio, Dec. 24, 1974) (§ 2901.05(A) “evinces a legislative intent to change the burden of the defendant with respect to affirmative defenses”); 1 O. Schroeder & L. Katz, Ohio Criminal Law and Practice §2901.05, p. 14 (1974) (“The provisions of 2901.05(A) follow the modern statutory trend in this area, requiring the accused to raise the affirmative defense, but leaving the burden of persuasion upon the prosecution”); Student Symposium: The Proposed Ohio Criminal Code—Reform and Regression, 33 Ohio St. L. J. 351, 420 (1972) (suggesting that legislators intended to change traditional rule).
In Ohio, the court’s syllabus contains the controlling law. See Haas v. State, 103 Ohio St. 1, 7-8, 132 N. E. 158, 159-160 (1921).
Two years after Robinson, the Ohio Legislature once again amended Ohio’s burden-of-proof law. The new § 2901.05(A), effective November 1, 1978, provides:
“Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2901.05(A) (Supp. 1980) (emphasis added).
This amendment has no effect on the litigation before us. Thoughout this opinion, citations to § 2901.05(A) refer to the statute in effect between January 1, 1974, and October 31, 1978.
See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01 (1975):
“(A) No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another.
“(B) No person shall purposely cause the death of another while committing or attempting to commit, or while fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson or arson, aggravated robbery or robbery, aggravated burglary or burglary, or escape.
“(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated murder, and shall be punished as provided in section 2929.02 of the Revised Code.”
Hughes’ counsel did register a general objection “to the entire Charge in its entirety” because “[w]e are operating now under a new code in which many things are uncertain.” App. 48. Counsel’s subsequent remarks, however, demonstrated that his objection concerned only the proposed definitions of “Aggravated Murder, Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter.” Id., at 48, 50.
Voluntary manslaughter is “knowingly causing] the death of another” while under “extreme emotional stress brought on by serious provocation reasonably sufficient to incite [the defendant] into using deadly force.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.03 (A) (1975).
Hughes was sentenced to 6-25 years in prison. The State’s petition for certiorari indicated that Hughes has been “granted final releas[e] as a matter of parole.” Pet. for Cert. 6. This release does not moot the controversy between Hughes and the State. See Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U. S. 504, 506-507, n. 2 (1972); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234, 237-240 (1968).
See State v. Hughes, C. A. No. 7717 (Ct. App. Summit County, Ohio, Sept. 24, 1975); State v. Hughes, No. 75-1026 (Ohio, Mar. 19, 1976).
Ohio defines murder as “purposely caus[ing] the death of another.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.02(A) (1975). Bell received a sentence of 15 years to life imprisonment.
State v. Bell, No. 34727 (Ct. App. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Apr. 8, 1976).
State v. Bell, No. 76-573 (Ohio, Sept. 17, 1976).
See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.11 (1975):
“(A) No person shall knowingly:
“(1) Cause serious physical harm to another;
“(2) Cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.
“(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of felonious assault, a felony of the second degree.”
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.12 (1975) describes aggravated assault:
“(A) No person, while under extreme emotional stress brought on by serious provocation reasonably sufficient to incite him into using deadly force shall knowingly:
“(1) Cause serious physical harm to another;
“(2) Cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.
“(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated assault, a felony of the fourth degree.”
The judge sentenced Isaac to a term of six months’ to five years’ imprisonment. According to the State’s petition for certiorari, Isaac has been released from jail. This controversy is not moot, however. See n. 7, supra.
State v. Isaac, No. 346 (Ct. App. Pickaway County, Ohio, Feb. 11, 1977).
At the time Hughes and Bell were tried, this Rule stated
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion the Court.
This case raises a question concerning the right of a young man ordered to report for induction into the Armed Forces to challenge the legality of that order prior to reporting for duty. Petitioner Breen, while enrolled in the Berklee School of Music in Boston, Massachusetts, was given a II-S student classification by his local draft board, and deferred from military service pursuant to the provisions of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 100, 50 U. S. C. App. § 451 et seq. (1964 ed. and Supp. IV). According to an agreed stipulation of facts, in November 1967 he surrendered his draft registration card to a minister at a public gathering “for the sole purpose of protesting United States involvement in the war in Vietnam.” Shortly thereafter his local draft board declared he was “delinquent” for failing to have his draft card in his possession and at the same time reclassified him I-A— available for military service. He appealed this reclassification to the appropriate Selective Service Appeal Board, and while that appeal was pending filed this suit in the United States District Court in February 1968, seeking an injunction against any possible induction into the Armed Forces on the ground that his delinquency reclassification was invalid. The respondent local board moved to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction, relying on § 10 (b) (3) of the Act which provides that:
“No judicial review shall be made of the classification or processing of any registrant by local boards, appeal boards, or the President, except as a defense to a criminal prosecution instituted under section 12 of this title, after the registrant has responded either affirmatively or negatively to an order to report for induction . . . ,” 50 U. S. C. App. § 460 (b)(3) (1964 ed., Supp. IV).
The District Court granted the motion to dismiss and Breen appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals. While the appeal was pending, we rendered our decision in Oestereich v. Selective Service Bd., 393 U. S. 233 (1968), holding that §10 (b)(3) did not bar pre-induction judicial review in the circumstances presented in that case. Although Breen argued that Oestereich controlled his own case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the suit, with one judge dissenting, holding that Oestereich did not cover this case and § 10 (b) (3) therefore required dismissal of the suit. 406 F. 2d 636 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1969). We granted a petition for certiorari, 394 U. S. 997 (1969), and, because we conclude that Oestereich does control this case, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
In Oestereich a student preparing for the ministry surrendered his draft registration card in protest against the war in Vietnam and was reclassified as a “delinquent.” He then filed suit seeking to enjoin his induction, claiming that he was being inducted contrary to the clear statutory requirement that students preparing for the ministry “shall be exempt from training and service” under the Act, 50 U. S. C. App. §456 (g). We held in that case that since Congress had unambiguously said that students preparing for the ministry were not to be drafted and, since there was no indication in the statute that such exemptions could be denied for “delinquency,” Oestereich’s induction was unlawful and in such a case § 10 (b) (3) would not be interpreted to bar pre-induction judicial review and thereby force the registrant to submit to an illegal induction or risk the possibility of a criminal prosecution to regain his exempt status.
In the present case petitioner Breen argues that he, like Oestereich, should not be inducted and he relies on § 6 (h)(1) of the Act, which provides that:
“Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the President shall, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, provide for the deferment from training and service in the Armed Forces of persons satisfactorily pursuing a full-time course of instruction at a college, university, or similar institution of learning and who request such deferment.” 50 U. S. C. App. § 456 (h)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. IV).
In his complaint Breen alleged that he was a 20-year-old student and argued that he was clearly qualified for a student deferment. The Government has never contested Breen's factual allegations concerning his student status, nor has it argued that he is not qualified for such a deferment for any reason except the alleged “delinquency.'' As in Oestereich, we do not find any indication that Congress intended to allow the draft boards to deprive otherwise qualified students of their deferments for the reasons relied upon in this case.
In concluding that Oestereich did not control this case, the Court of Appeals felt that the reference in § 6 (h)(1) to “such rules and regulations as [the President] may prescribe” was an indication that Congress authorized revocation of student deferments for violations of the delinquency regulations. 406 F. 2d, at 638. That conclusion must be rejected for several reasons. The explicit language of the Act provides that the President “shall” provide for the deferment of undergraduate students except as otherwise provided by the terms of the Act itself, and Congress then set forth the specific conditions that a student must meet to qualify for such a deferment. The reference to “rules and regulations” is clearly intended only to authorize such additional administrative procedures as the President may find necessary to insure that all qualified students are given the deferment that Congress provided in § 6. There is nothing in the language of the Act itself that indicates a congressional desire to allow the President to add to or subtract from the factors specified in the statute for determining when students would be deferred. The legislative history of §6 (h)(1) clearly indicates that Congress intended that only the conditions specified in that section need be met to warrant a student deferment. Prior to the 1967 Act the draft law stated that student deferments were provided only according to presidential regulation and in practice such deferments were subject to the discretion of the local draft boards. The committee reports and floor debates on the 1967 Act show that a primary purpose of the amendments was to eliminate this local option and provide clear, uniform standards for undergraduate student deferments. When Congress thus acted to replace discretionary standards with explicit requirements for student deferments, it did not specifically provide or in any way indicate that such deferred status could be denied because the registrant failed to possess his registration certificate. Finally, any contention that “delinquency” induction is proper in this case must be rejected for the reasons set forth in our decision in Gutknecht v. United States, ante, p. 295, holding that induction pursuant to the delinquency regulations has not been authorized by Congress.
The Attorney General advances another argument for distinguishing this case from Oestereich, supra. He points out that Oestereich met the requirements for a statutory “exemption” from military service, while Breen is at best qualified only for a statutory “deferment.” On the basis of this observation he urges that the provisions of § 10 (b) (3) preclude pre-induction judicial review in all cases of deferments and that Oestereich provides an exception only in certain cases where an exemption is claimed. We fail to see any relevant practical or legal differences between exemptions and deferments. The effect of either type of classification is that the registrant cannot be inducted as long as he remains so classified. Congress has specifically said that the only persons who may be inducted into the Armed Forces are those “who are liable for such training and service and who at the time of selection are registered and classified, but not deferred or exempted.” 50 U. S. C. App. § 455 (a)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. IV). (Emphasis added.) Thus it is clear that the crucial distinction in draft classifications is between individuals presently subject to induction and those who are not so subject, either because of deferment or exemption.
The Attorney General also argues that a rational distinction exists in the statutory scheme between deferments which merely postpone the time when a registrant will serve and exemptions which place the registrant “outside the manpower pool.” Brief for the Respondents 20-21. A careful reading of the entire Act indicates that no such consistent distinction is preserved. Congress has provided that “[n]o . . . exemption or deferment . . . shall continue after the cause therefor ceases to exist.” 50 U. S. C. App. §456 (k). Many of the “exemptions” are not absolute, as the Attorney General implies, but conditioned on certain factors. Thus an exempt ministerial student like Oestereich will lose that exempt status if he withdraws from study in preparation for the ministry. Similarly exempt veterans can be inducted into the Armed Forces if Congress declares a war or national emergency. 50 U. S. C. App. § 456 (b). On the other hand there is absolutely no assurance that an individual who is simply deferred will only have his military obligation postponed. So long as a registrant remains in a deferred classification he cannot be inducted, and deferment past the maximum age of draft liability would effectively exempt the registrant from compulsory military service. Although a registrant like Breen cannot be deferred as an undergraduate student past his 24th birthday, he may continue to be deferred on the basis of extreme hardship to dependents or employment in the national interest. 50 U. S. C. App. §456 (h)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. IV). There is thus no statutory scheme to permanently exempt certain individuals while only deferring service for others. Both deferments and exemptions accomplish the same congressional purpose, that of not inducting certain registrants at a particular time.
We are consequently unable to distinguish this case from Oestereich. In both situations a draft registrant who was required by the -relevant law not to be inducted was in fact ordered to report for military service. In both cases the order for induction involved a “clear departure by the Board from its statutory mandate,” Oestereich, supra, at 238, and in both cases § 10 (b) (3) of the Act should not have been construed to require the registrants to submit to induction or risk criminal prosecution to test the legality of the induction order. The judgment below is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
This reclassification was undertaken pursuant to 32 CFR § 1642.12.
Although this provision would appear to preclude judicial review by habeas corpus after the registrant submitted to induction, we have already construed the statute to allow such review. Oestereich v. Selective Service Bd., 393 U. S. 233, 235, 238 (1968).
During the pendency of that appeal the Appeal Board upheld the reclassification and the local board then ordered Breen to report for induction. The induction order has been stayed pending decision in this case.
The Act also provides that student deferment status may be lost under certain conditions.
“A deferment granted to any person under [this provision] shall continue until such person completes the requirements for his baccalaureate degree, fails to pursue satisfactorily a full-time course of instruction, or attains the twenty-fourth anniversary of the date of his birth, whichever first occurs.” 50 U. S. C. App. § 456 (h) (1) (1964 ed., Supp. IV). There is no contention raised here that Breen has lost his deferred status for any of these statutory reasons.
The Act does allow the President to restrict student deferments on a finding that the needs of the Armed Forces require such action, 50 U. S. C. App. §456 (h)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), but he has not made any such finding at this time.
See Selective Service Act of 1948, §6(h), 62 Stat. 611, as amended. The regulations promulgated pursuant to this authority permitted student deferments in the discretion of the local boards with certain suggested guidelines. See 32 CFR, §§ 1622.25, 1622.25a (1967 ed.).
H. R. Rep. No. 267, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 25-26 (1967); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 346, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in U. S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 1352, 1356-1359 (1967); 113 Cong. Rec. 14093, 14095, 16434 (1967).
The suggestion that the fleeting reference to “delinquents” in § 6 (h) (1) of the Act, 50 U. S. C. App. § 456 (h) (1) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), authorizes delinquency inductions must be rejected for the reasons set forth in Oestereich, supra, at 236-237, and in Gutknecht v. United States, ante, at 302.
This statutory directive is implemented by 32 CFR § 1631.7.
See n. 4, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.